MsMaxwells Blog

Bad Dinner, Good Dessert

MsMaxwell — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:33:50 GMT

There's a lot to like in this movie: the design, the pies, the waitresses, the pies, Andy Griffith, the pies, but what I don't like cancels out what I did like, which is why I only gave the film three stars. Jenna's (Kerri Russell) husband Earl (Jeremy Sisto) is the flattest character I have ever seen. I had childhood paperdolls more rebust than this guy. Why is he so clingy? Why, in the name of everything that's good, did she marry the bastard? At one point, on a phone conversation, Jenna mentions that Earl changed since their nuptuals, but that's all we see. This was such an obvious flaw, I felt a little dumb not turning the movie off, but those pies... Thus inspired, I baked an apple tart the next day, so it's a somehow a significant film, even if just to inspire a patiserrie.

16 year olds don't talk like this...

MsMaxwell — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:37:44 GMT

...and that's fine by me.

"Sixteen-year-olds don't talk like that," is one of the criticisms I've heard about Juno. I'm sure it's true, but who cares? Juno's vocabularly and rapier wit is one of the best things about the film. Sure, we could watch something where a sixteen year old gets pregnant and then says, "Uh, like, uh, dad. I'm pregnant. And it sucks." But that wouldn't be any fun and Juno would be just another knocked-up sixteen-year-old.

Boring CGI obscures plot and characters

MsMaxwell — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 23:37:45 GMT

I've always liked the Incredible Hulk, but the CGI in this movie was just too much and I got really bored. (I saw it in the theatre, too.) Sometimes, I find the old-fashioned use of makeup and cinematic skill a better way to tell a story than to drug it up with CGI. it looks like cheating. But if you do like the Hulk, watch this movie. The ending is great.

Breathe

MsMaxwell — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 23:32:16 GMT

I bit the insides of my mouth the whole time I was watching this film. Not just because it was cold in the theatre (it was) but because I was afraid something was going to go dreadfully wrong. Either Gillespie was going to veer in the direction of just plain dirty (there is a life-sized doll in the cast, complete with orfaces) or just plain mean (Lars, the character who orders the doll is a bit touched, one might say.) But he didn't and I thought Gillespie maneuvered a fine line of staying true to the characters and small-town setting without resorting to the sentimental--or the dirty and mean. Highly recommended--I loved it.

Bore me.

MsMaxwell — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 23:20:48 GMT

In 1994 when RENT first opened, it challenged the old-fashioned, sentimental Broadway musical through its protrayal of characters with AIDS, cross-dressers, and same-sex relationships. But since then, RENT has not aged well. Viewing the film today is like watching a string of mediocre music videos held loosely together by poor characters and titilating lifestyle choices and suggestions. (Trisexuality, anyone?) Can we please not romanticize living in poverty anymore?

Don't waste your time

MsMaxwell — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 23:12:17 GMT

Instead of watching this film, try sitting straight and breathing deeply or watching the rain fall. I'm not going to waste my time telling you all the comedic problems in this piece of shite. Just please believe me.

Great idea for a list--or lists!

MsMaxwell — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 20:14:00 GMT

I was thinking: it would be really fun for someone to make a list or group lists about films referenced in The Simpsons. You could do it by season and specify which episode referenced what film. How does this sound? Any takers?

Brilliant!

MsMaxwell — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 20:22:00 GMT

Over the past week, I watched the first season of the British dramody with my spouse. There were several aspects of the show I especially appreciated: 1) British actors are not as beautiful as American actors. (And I use "actor" as a gender-neutral term.) The performers weren't ugly, but they looked a little strange at first. Yet like all real-life relationships, the characters grew more and more attractive in their own ways as the story progressed. Sadly, I think that in America we confuse beauty with talent. For instance, though I don't disputing Charlize Theron's abilities, I was so tired of hearing about her uglifying program for MONSTER several years ago. I have a hunch that if a more normal-looking woman were to have played that part just as well, there may not have been such media hoo-ha about the film or actor. 2) British writers avoid characturization of the characters. Think of FRIENDS: you've got the "smart" guy, the guy who tries to be funny, the failing actor, the anal retentive sister, the ex-hippie, and the romantically confused blond. Hm. Great. If only my friends were as interesting. But in COLD FEET, the characters are complex (like we are in real life.) Yes, David is an ass...at first...and Adam can't commit...sort of...and Jenny loves Pete (really?) I suppose someone could argue with me about this and say that FRIENDS is deep and thoughtful. But why, then did Joey never end his girl-on-girl action obsession? People change and they don't change. I know. That's my mantra. But certainly, no person is as flat as the characters on most American sitcoms. We need reality (not uber-edited "reality shows") but truth told by stories that capture the complexity of human nature, cold feet and all.

Stuck in My Head

MsMaxwell — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:02:00 GMT

I watched this last night. It is a beautiful, sad film about the realities of small towns. What I've been thinking about the most is how this film destroys all romanticized ideas one may have of 1950's Americana. These characters are not rejoicing in their freedom--they're trapped and sad in a landscape of scrub grass, dust, and decrepit store fronts.

What's hopeful are Sonny's relationship with Sam the Lion and Billy--but before the end, both of these characters have died and Sonny is left in the kitchen with Ruth, the coach's wife with whom he's had an affair.

Nevertheless, the cinematography is beautiful. I love the choice to film in black and white; it's as if the audience enters the 1950's and participates in reality, not some glitzy, full-skirted, shiny appliance world.

Help Me!

MsMaxwell — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:00:00 GMT

In college, I loved to watch a BBC version of Shakespeare's 12th Night. It was a film, but staged much like a play. Sadly, I can't figure out which one it was that I saw. There are numerous films listed, but few have images or descriptions. Anyone know what year this was made?