Are you interested for a dose of the fantasy adventure genre? If so then perhaps Jack the Beanstalk Slayer is for you. It is basically the story of Jack and the Beanstalk but interwoven with a legend. So if you are into fairytales and fantasy, you may enjoy this movie. If you especially like fantasy you may enjoy this because the fantasy aspect adds a “medieval, magic, and supernatural” twist to the fairy tale portion of the story. But watcher beware: If you are looking for more Lord of the Rings Quality fantasy then you might not get it. But it will still give you an entry to fantasyland for about an hour and a half. Now, is the time to watch some movies..especially before finals’ scene goes into full swing!
Author: LitaPitasMusings
I love big dogs, movies from the 1930s-1960s, I am a "girly -girl-feminist" and I love fast food.
Untitled
So everyone or at the very least a lot of people love this movie. Maybe that’s why I initially was annoyed to see it. I felt like this was a movie that a lot of girls would swoon about. Especially girls who loved to sing, dance, and who dabbled ballet- because let’s face it, it is musical theatre. Or that they would be drawn to it because of the romantic notion of Fantine- who has a bit of a cinderella aspect to her. I mean I knew that the story was never really just about that, it showcased the misfortunes of people who were living in pre-French revolution standards yet 30 years post French revolution. I should also add that I have never been a super fan of musicals. I mean I have liked them.. but never totally been in love with them. So I was a little prejudiced.
But I ended up liking the movie. I take that back- I ended up loving the movie!! I loved it because they showed they were afraid to show the gritty strife of some of the characters. They showed Hugh Jackson struggling as a convict and they also showed the gut-wrenching suffering Fantine had to endure. And as I mentioned in the preview, this was a truly ensemble cast. They truly transformed themselves physically for the role, most of them sang greatly ( or at least one of them..Russell Crowe gave a good effort), and they also hit the emotional notes well with their acting and singing combined.
Th Cinematography was superb, the way it was done made it seem like this was more of an action movie. It seemed like the camerawork zoomed in on Jackman’s face and it just seemed so dynamic and as if we were rowing along with him. I believe the camerawork added this thrilling quality to the film. The costumes were great and so was the art direction. Fantine’s beautiful pink dress was lovely and I love how art direction made everyone else in the factory wear gray but hers was this sweet, innocent, angelic pink. Which exemplifies Fantine and makes her standout from the crowd. Great work! In sum, this movie was a great and was so much more than what I originally thought- which was a film whose was poetic gestures would capture the mind and hearts of romantics. But it is something which captures all of life’s important moments- love, sorrow, sometimes torture, loss, triumph, a good fight, and of course redemption.
Les Miserables Preview
So I am guessing that by now, everyone and their mother has seen Les Mis. Awards.
But for those of you who haven’t there is still a chance as it plays in theaters and I should provide my reason as to why you should see it.
This a movie some years ago people have said would 20 hours to see… that is if they were going to follow the book. Some have even said that the musical on stage has equated to some splendor of the book but never a movie. I am not sure why, especially because these persons were not film snobs. But the truth is that the movie has done critically well. So for those who have seen the musical, this is a great way for you to compare and contrast.
I feel as if Les Miserables is what should have been the Best Picture Winner for the 2013 Academy . I love this movie because of the physical transformation of Hugh Jackman, the singing effort of Russell Crowe, all the different emotional performances ( whether nuanced or very obvious) by all the cast, the meticulously detailed period costumes were great, and so was the cinematography.
The dynamic cinematography is what really carried this film! The aerial view of Jean Valjean on top of the hill as he vows to change his life, as it zooms into him as he sings ‘Look down,’ even as the film opens and says 30 years after the French revolution there is a king on the throne the movie seems dynamic and vibrant, or even when Russell Crowe drowns the camera captures it from such a faraway angle that the scene echoes the lonely immense quality of a speck of a man drowning in such a depth of water.
So, yes.. if you are looking to see the movie beyond the fact that everyone has seen it.. then you will definitely find some in this preview. But why take my words for it? Go see for yourself!
Review for Argo
Review for Argo
Well when I wrote the preview for Argo I was in the position of defending Argo because some people have said that Argo is good but not that good. I myself have felt that Argo is rather great but I don’t exactly see it on par Citizen Kane. Which actually is ironic because Citizen Kane went on to not win Best Picture whereas Argo just won Best Picture? But now with the Best Picture win for Argo, I am worried that some people might feel that Argo is really good because of the label of Best Picture linked with its title. Of course there are also many people who can see a movie and regardless of an award can independently judge whether or not a movie is worthy of high praise. Nevertheless, I will still explain why I think this movie can is great and can have a great reputation without the praise from the academy.
Well I will say that the movie is good because of many reasons:
The movie has the ability to really connect emotionally with audiences. You can feel Ben Affleck’s character’s frustration at the round table meeting trying to get a plan approved for the CIA cover up plan. You can feel the Hollywood producer’s easygoing lack of seriousness towards the structure of Hollywood. You can feel the Foreign Service workers stagnant and intense fear about their fate. The can feel the first hint of suspicion the housekeeper has when she suspects that her Canadian embassy employers are harboring Americans.
In terms of costumes, the movie is very accurate to 1970’s fashion: the trench coats, the prints, the tweed jackets, the large square sunglasses, etc. I once heard a director say in a DVD commentary that in period movie from a recent time period can be harder to show, because audiences are a lot more judgmental about such movies displaying accuracy. I definitely feel that this movie won the contest for fashion accuracy!
People want to believe that what they are seeing is in the 1970s, and so the same goes with set design as it does for costumes. People want to be lost in the world of the film, and nothing shows the world better than the art direction. In this movie, art production is no easy feat because 3 different worlds are shown: That of Iran, Washington DC, and Hollywood. Well, Hollywood was obviously a very believable set because my guess is that… It was shot in Hollywood! The studios and trailers all look rather believable! The rooms in the CIA looked like the engine room and where the “heart” chamber of the movie was. People were bustling talking on the phones, and the energy was palpable and vibrant!
The set of Iran was probably the most difficult to recreate. But from the walled houses with gates, with the market scene, and even to some of the gardens by people’s houses- the neighborhoods of Iran seemed realistic. On that note, the movie seemed culturally appropriate. Often you see movies about the Middle East where everyday people are not shown as everyday people. They are often showed in a mystified way- either as snake charmers, women in harems, and even terrorists. Ironically, when Ben Affleck is trying to get a visa into Iran from Turkey in order to make “Argo,” the man says, “Oh is this another orientalist classic you westerners want… with snake charmers…” It’s ironic because this movie… the making of Argo is not orientalist classic! But this showed everyday people in the market and on the streets. Yes, some of the people were revolutionaries- but not everyone- which was typical of the Iranian revolution and honestly most revolutions. There are only some radicals. I even loved the angry reaction of the stall keeper in the market who got angry when “Argo’s costume consultant” took picture- because it seemed authentic. Some might say that this is yet another representation of “the angry Middle Eastern man” in film. But I disagree. I felt that this was an authentic response since many people wouldn’t like their picture randomly taken!
My last remaining thoughts about what makes this movie good are the one liners and the last 30 minutes of this movie. My favorite one liner is, “You can teach a rhesus monkey to be a director!”
The last 30 minutes of the movie is really worth waiting for because it is an ultimate thriller! So I speak for the last thirty minutes and the entire movie when I say, GO AND SEE IT!!!
Preview for Argo
Preview for Argo
up to make sure you still see all your Oscar nominated movies before the 24th? Well if so… you are in luck!
That’s because Argo is still playing and if you are looking for another reason beyond, “I need to catch up on my Oscar movies,” then I have some. I recommend seeing Argo because it is a good mix of true story, politics, thriller, and ultimately one about peace and cooperation .I know several people have dismissed Argo as saying that it isn’t the epic thriller it should be for the thriller category, and it isn’t political enough to rub shoulders with new and old classics such as Good Night, and Good Luck or Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. But it is still good to see. Perhaps it would be more sizzling and spine tingling if it could fit into thriller genre. Or have a more serious in depth feeling if it could fit into the political movie genre. But to be true to a few different genres, in addition to maintaining veracity with actual events is not always an easy feat. But Argo manages it.
I will say that once you realize what Argo stands for, you will realize that truth is stranger than fiction. Or maybe just that the CIA’s ways are strange. Some of the humor that Hollywood makes about itself is pretty hilarious. My favorite line is, “You can teach a rhesus monkey to be a director!” I will also say that the depiction of the Middle East is realistic and nothing related to orientalism. Ironically, this is referenced in the movie as well.
So, yes if you love to have a thrill, like 1970’s garb, are a 1970s history buff, or better yet a 1970’s Mid-east-US relations history buff, and like some action… then this is your movie. Go and see it!
Review: Hitchcock
I was very excited to see the movie about Hitchcock. Hitchcock was and is famous for directing psychological thrillers and has been known as the Master of Suspense as well an auteur. He was also known to take his art seriously and was known to be a little arrogant. He famously said that, “Actors should be treated as cattle.” But what was not known until recent years that are until actress Tippi Hedren spoke up, was that Hitchcock was a rather controlling man. And moreover he was sexually inappropriate with female actresses. So naturally when I heard that they were making a movie about this man, which showed glimpses of his professional and personal side I had to see to see it!
The movie definitely showed the creep in Hitchcock. For instance, his room and Actress Vera Miles’ room were adjacent to one another. Hitchcock had a hole in the wall, so that he could spy on her in her room! He of course kept the hole hidden by concealing it with a painting; He also did the same with other actresses as well. But his creepiness didn’t stop with his voyeuristic tendencies. So sometimes he would come up behind people very stealthily and then he would place he would speak or he would even place his hands on their shoulders. Everyone from his secretary to his wife, found it rather jolting.
The movie however felt at times slow and was being dragged on at times. In addition, it felt rather boring. The movie was trying to show Hitchcock’s life after his success after one of his movies. Then the awkward phase in his life comes when he doesn’t know what to do next. He looks at one book which he is thinking of adapting. He picks a book, but his wife suggests another. He sticks to his book. He eventually starts production of Psycho, which he allots his house as an investment. During that time, his wife hangs out with one of his friends- who Hitchcock is slightly jealous towards. As the film progresses, it showcases his struggles on set and his wife’s fondness in working with his friend. But most of the scenes which showcase these events- him meeting with producers to fund the movie, he and his wife walking in their home, and even him on set are mostly all VERY BORING. It could be attributable to the story line, and the boringness of everydayness in the movie adds an neorealistic touch to the film. However, it also kills the movie and gives it a dull feeling.
But the film does have some saving parts to it. The acting is rather well. As I mentioned, it accurately portrays Hitchcock’s creepiness. Jessica Biel was also rather stunning as Vera Miles. This is the actress who Hitchcock despises because of her refusal to have an affair with him- especially when he promised that he could make her the next Grace Kelly. She seems the like the nice supporting actress who does her job as an actress well, but also wants a regular life. But what really saves the movie- both plot-wise, and pace-wise is the storyline of Helen Mirren’’s character Alma. When Hitchcock becomes ill, she comes into take over direction of the movie. It is surprising how much this woman knows about film. She comes in and says which lens to use, how each actor should pursue their character, etc. She helps Psycho wrap up, and she helps Hitchcock get better. I should add that her deciding to help Hitchcock go on set finally forces them to confront their marital issues. She tells him that he needs to give up his focus on his fantasy blondes if they are to be together. She too realizes that their mutual friend isn’t all that he seems to be. At the end of the movie, Hitchcock shares his award and success for Psycho with his wife and they seem to finally be sweet and loving towards each other.
The Bottom-line: 2.5 stars
Though this movie does a great portrayal of Hitchcock, wraps up the film nicely with the story of Alma, and there is an neorealistic quality to the film, it does drag and leaves one wondering… wait what is this film about? It just seems every day like at times, and doesn’t have a special plot quality to it.
