State and Main

Victoria and I both really enjoyed State and Main.  It tells the story of the filming of the fictional movie Old Mill.  The production is facing a whole stack of problems.  They are forced to move from their previous location, the old mill they thought was in their new location has burned down, the lead actor's "hobby" is statutory rape, the lead actress won't bare her chest, some of the townsfolk are not as easily pushed over as the mayor, and the moralist writer is scrambling to adjust the screenplay to fix all of these problems.  It is a very interesting look at pre-production and the financial side of the film industry, as most movies about movies are set during the filming process.

The character I found most endearing was Joe White (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the screenwriter.  This is his first big break into the movie industry and he is still adjusting to the way movie making works.  The loss of the old mill comes as a big blow to him and a killer case of writer's block sets in.  Luckily, he finds an ally and collaborator in a pretty local bookstore owner; unluckily, she is engaged.  White has a sense of naivete about him, and that was what made him so likable.  It can be said that at no point was Hoffman's performance suave or sophisticated, for lack of a better word.  That does not make it bad or inadequate in any way.  On the contrary, that was what made him believable as Joe White, new kid in the industry.  You really can't help but pull for him as he learns to find his voice and stand up for what he knows is right.

Actor Bob Barrenger (Alec Baldwin) makes an interesting foil for White's relatively innocent character.  Coming off a sex scandal with a fourteen-year old, the producer and director pray he has learned his lesson.  They were wrong.  Barrenger is repentantly slimy and always very self-assured that he is untouchable.  He knows his studio will do whatever it takes to protect him, so he does as he pleases.  The director deals with him with a sense of exasperation.  He does't condone Barrenger's actions and tries to prevent them, but he is not about to let him take the fall and bring the whole picture down with him.  The irony of a sex scandal in a movie that ends up being "all about purity" is obvious as the film progresses.

Victoria:
As Katelyn said, we really liked this film.  I found it witty, funny, and very entertaining.  I agree that the most likable character is Joe White, but I think one of the most hilarious characters in the film was the director played by William H. Macy.  Macy plays one of those controlling and demanding directors that is always exasperated with the people around him who can't seem to do anything he asks.  All he wants is a simple shot  through a window; he doesn't care if it's impossible for the cameraman to shoot.  Is it really too much to ask the lead actress (Sarah Jessica Parker) to bare her breasts for the film?  And can't Bob Barrenger get another hobby, one that doesn't involve girls 1/3 of his age, perhaps?  Nothing just seems to go right for him.  Even his assistant keeps bugging him and wanting to shirk his duties...something about his wife and a baby or some other unimportant nonsense.  He's trying to make a FILM, for goodness sakes!  Why can't they all just respect that and do as he says?
Macy does a fantastic job being the director centered so much on making his film that he doesn't care about the obstacles, as long as someone gets them out of his way.  He's very funny and convincing as a rather angry guy stomping around the set and demanding sometimes random and insane things.  I think he might have been my favorite character, just for the fact that I couldn't help but smile whenever he came onscreen.

The film was an excellent balance of actual plot and crazy hilarity.  Too much of either and it wouldn't have worked: too much hilarity and you get a funny film that doesn't make any sense, too much plot and you lose the attention of the audience (since it's not a particularly moving or impressive plot by itself).  What makes the film works the combination of things, plus the fabulous acting by all involved.  There's a bit of something to everyone.  You have comedy with the director, drama with Claire (the lead actress), a sex scandal with Bob Barrenger (which also brings in a bit of law, court, and bribery), and romantic interest with Joe White and Ann Black.
There are also several really funny jokes that one might not catch while watching the film.  For example, I just noticed that the romantic characters both have common first names with last names White and Black.  There's also the running joke of the product placement of a website in a film set in the 1800's.  It adds a nice touch and gets a couple more laughs.

All in all, quite an excellent film, I believe.  I'd recommend it to anyone, as long as they didn't have a problem with a bit of strong language.

Katelyn:  It is also worth mentioning, what with all this talk about breast-baring, that there is no actual nudity.  There is a cartoon and suggested nudity, but it is not incredibly graphic.

I would defiantly recommend this film.  There is no super-deep plot, but it is a fun movie.  I laughed throughout the movie and just made me feel happy.  Victoria and I give this film a B-.

The Stunt Man (1980)

I think The Stunt Man is one of the strangest films I've ever seen.  We just had to watch it for our film class, and  after finishing watching it, I am left feeling confused, weirded-out, and slightly entertained.  The film follows a man wanted by the police as he stumbles upon a film set just in time for their stunt man to die and him to become the replacement.  Peter O'Tool is the insane director Eli Cross who will do anything for a shot, and Steve Railsback as the criminal turned stunt man.

The confusing thing about this film is its treatment of reality.  There are several instances where the film shows what the audience believes to be reality only to reveal that "reality" to be a shot of the "film within a film."  It's rather disconcerting to be thrown around like that.  

Oh, one other thing: there are several bouts of nudity in this, mostly of females...yes, it actually shows things.

I didn't really like this film much.  Several parts were a little funny (I think Peter O'Tool was the only really funny thing, especially when he sat on his flying bench).  It was odd and confusing and a bit disturbing at parts.  All in all, I wouldn't really recommend it.

Katelyn

I think this film was strange, but okay.  It accomplished what is set out to do.  It makes a statement about directors that most people would agree with:  they are controlling and at least a little insane.  There is no "little insane" with Eli Cross.  He is totally nuts, controlling, manipulative, egotistical, and all an around unpleasant guy.  He soars around on his little crane, a direct reference to his God complex.  All in all, there is not much more to say.  Everyone knows he is awful, but everyone lets him get away with it because he makes good movies.  He knows he is awful, but he doesn't care because everyone lets him get away with it.  That being said, I do think he really cares about his leading lady, but that doesn't stop him from using her either.  It adds up to a very unpleasant working environment.

V:

So yeah....see the film if you are interested.  I wouldn't blame you if you skipped out on it, though.

-V+K

PS: We rate this film in the C-/D+ range.

Pre-Hunger Games Predictions

     Well, we promised it, and here it is: Our Pre-Hunger Games post!  Katelyn and I both have tickets to the midnight premiere of the Hunger Games this Thursday, and we are very excited to see this film for ourselves (especially after reading glowing reviews, seeing lovely trailers, and reading lengthy interviews with the actors).  So, the question on everyone's mind: Will the Hunger Games live up to the hype?

     Victoria: I have to say, I have high hopes for this film.  I know trailers can be misleading, but from all the trailers, clips, and photos I've seen of this film, it really looks fantastic.  To go with my high hopes, I have high standards. I am expecting a lot of this film, and I really really hope it lives up to those expectations.  One thing I expect from this film is excellent acting.  From the trailer line "We wouldn't make it five miles." I knew I would love Jennifer Lawrence, and so far as I can tell, it doesn't seem that she will disappoint as Katniss.  Her quote to Vanity Fair and director Gary Ross about Katniss' character I think tells quite a bit about how she will be portraying the character:

"Katniss is an incredible character: she’s a hunter but not a killer, a 16-year-old who’s being forced into the arena. These kids are killing one another only because if they don’t they’ll die. It’s needless, pointless, unjustified violence. It’s heartbreaking. When I auditioned, I told [director] Gary [Ross], “I understand if you don’t hire me, but please remember that after Katniss shoots a bow and kills someone, her face cannot be badass.” So there’s nothing cool about her. It’s not like she looks around the arena and goes, Yeah, I got this. I think she looks around helplessly, and thinks, I made a promise to my sister that I would survive; now I have to kill in order to do so."

     This quote proves to me that Lawrence gets Katniss.  I'm also excited to see Lenny Kravitz as Cinna, since I was impressed with him in the trailers and clips I've seen.  I know he's not the most important character by a long shot, but he certainly means a lot to Katniss, and to get that sort of connection across can be difficult.  I hope the film does it justice.  As far as cinematography goes, from the trailers, the film looks beautiful in a destitute way, and that's exactly what I think it should be.  Everything is not a wasteland, nor is it Narnia.  It's broken and sad, but there's still something compelling about it.
     One other thing about the film before I let Katelyn tell her opinion: I admire Lionsgate for their marketing campaign on this film.  Though I've seen at least 4 or 5 clips plus several trailers and a ton of pictures, I have seen virtually nothing of the actual Hunger Games from the film.  They have managed to keep that portion of the film under wraps, and I admire them for doing so.  I absolutely hate when trailers show pretty much the whole film, and Lionsgate made sure that didn't happen for The Hunger Games.  The trailers leave you feeling tense and with a feeling of anticipation.  That is exactly the purpose they are meant to serve.
     I am extremely excited about this film, and I am very confident that it will meet and possibly even exceed my expectations.  I, and the world, will be watching Thursday night ;).

Katelyn:
     I will pick up where Victoria left off:  with the marketing campaign.  They are taking a very interesting angle with their promotions and what not.  They are literally putting fans in the position of a district citizen by allowing them to register for ID cards and joining their district.  I got on to thecapitol.pn while Victoria was writing her bit and registered.  Apparently I am a dockworker in District 4.  Not sure how good I would be at lifting, but it seems much better than a coal mine to me.  The sun, the sea, the spray... a nice view of Finnick.  What is not to like?  Ok, besides the fighting to the death thing.  On these sites, they promote the film like they are promoting the actual 74th Hunger Games with notes about viewing being required for all citizens.  None of the trailers show the actual games, so it is like they haven't happened yet.  There is even a Capital Couture page.  Rather than bombarding us with sneak peeks, they um... "captiolizing" on social networking to do their promotion for them.  At least 5 of my friends have gotten these cards and all their friends see them and think, "hmm... what is this Hunger Games?"  Well played, Lionsgate.  Not only do you have us excited about promoting your movie, you have gained access to our demographic info.  Kudos on clever marketing.  I am not being cynical or complaining, because I think this is a great move on their part. Movie making is a big BUSINESS, as well as an art, so it is not a bad thing that they are promoting this with all they have.

My District 4 ID

Here is what I want to see from the film:

• Gale and Peeta as more than eye candy.  The two male leads are there for more than being pretty and making a nice little love triangle.  They have distinct personalities and reflect the different extremes in Katniss.  Gale is tough to the point of being brutal and Peeta is caring to the point of self-sacrifice.  In a way, who she ends up choosing is a reflection of the side of herself that she chooses to embrace.  She can live in bitterness or love and be loved.  This contrast must be set up early to work.  Gale's dark side is present from the very beginning when he tells Katniss that killing animals isn't really different than killing people so she should have the upper hand.  Filmmakers will be doing the character a great disservice if they make him into stock love interest.
• Bloody Death.  Ok, it is morbid, but the Hunger Games is supposed to be disgusting and horrifying.  Should they turn it into a slasher?  Definitely not.  There has to be a balance, and the emotional component is crucial to this goal.  Going too gory would be disgusting and over the top but making it too gentle defeats the purpose.  It should always be obvious that we are dealing with scared kids, not ruthless adults.  The feeling of the Games must be preserved for the movie to work.
• Rue and Prim.  For Rue's death to have the impact it should, there needs to be setup in the relationship with Prim as well as a decent amount of character development for Rue.  They are more than cute twelve year-olds, they represent the most horrific part of the games.  They are the innocents that would never stand a chance.  Katniss protects Prim's innocence at the cost of her own, and she cannot turn off her maternal instinct.  It seems just from the trailer that the relationship is set up well, so that is reassuring.  Madge's character was axed in the process, but if that is the price that must be paid, it is well worth it.
• Haymitch is NOT just comic relief.  Sure he is a drunk, and does stupid drunk things like fall off the stage.  The reasons behind his drunkenness are dead serious.  He is living proof that the games never end.  He will be haunted by his games for the rest of his life and to make it worse he has to lead two more children to their deaths every year.  This comes in later with the morphlings and Annie.  He is just the first example of the lasting psychological toll it takes.
• The Capitol system is evil, the support team is not.  Effie and the prep team are Capital people through and through, but they do not hate the districts.  They are also not evil people.  They are shallow, gullible, and amoral but as far as they know they are normal.  This comes into play in Catching Fire and Mockingjay.  The Capitol citizens are conditioned to be detached and when they become attached to Katniss and Peeta they cannot handle losing them.  The system (and Snow) are evil.  They are the ones pulling the strings. 

As you can see, my wish list is not very long.  I hope it stays close to the book but is not limited to Katniss' first person.  I have faith in the filmmakers and the actors to do the best they can.  I am looking forward to the end product.

I suppose the only thing left to say is "Happy Hunger Games!  May the odds be ever in your favor."

The Artist

Oh The Artist!  What is not to love?  It was full of charm... and it said so much without words.  I thought it would be strange to see a movie without sound, but The Artist captivated me.  George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) was charming and debonair while Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) was full of spunk.  The comedic timing was excellent.  In one scene, Bejo seems to make Valentin's coat come alive and get very flirtatious.  Both lead roles are very endearing and portrayed with the expressiveness of the old silent films, but are not over done.  The audience is caught between them, because it becomes clear that as Peppy Miller's star is rising, George Valentin's is going out.
I'm sure you would expect sound to be a non-issue in a silent film.  Well, that is where you would be wrong!  The soundtrack emphasized the action and the emotion of the scenes and added yet another level of interest.  (I talked to a friend who said he watched The Artist on an airplane while listening to his own music.  A travesty, I say!)  If you take out the music, you miss a large part of what makes this film work.  It serves it's purpose well, fitting the setting and mood of the plot, without overpowering the action.  Sound effects are used with restraint and are reserved for all the proper moments.  In one incredibly emotional scene, Valentin is bombarded with this new phenomenon- talking pictures, and the sound effects used really add to that scene because they were not over-used anywhere else.
All that being said, one question remains.  Does The Artist deserve its Academy Award for Best Picture?  I believe so.  Will it go down as the best picture of our time?  Probably not.  I also believe it would be foolish for anyone to try to replicate the concept of this film and jump on the silent bandwagon.  This is an amazing achievement that is not likely to be replicated simply because the novelty will have worn off.  I am glad a silent throw-back was done well the first time, because I don't think any followers would have gotten the attention of the powers-that-be like the forerunner would.  Ironically, it amazed the modern viewer in the same way the "talkies" amazed the viewers in the film.

Now it's Victoria's turn!  As to what Katelyn has already said, I have but one word: Ditto!
I adored this film.  I like old films, and I also like modern films that seem like old films.  This one may be the latter, but it feels like the former.  In a silent film, the actors cannot use words and emotional dialogue to bring their characters to life; they are forced to use action and facial expressions.  However, they can easily turn that into something comical and silly if they overdo it or something shallow and unemotional if they under-perform it as well.  Bejo and Dujardin did a fantastic job pulling off their characters and making them into believable people!  As Peppy's career rises, the audience feels happy for her, and as the film progresses, they come to realize that some things mean more to her than fame.  As Valentin's career shatters, the audience suffers and feels the heartbreak and betrayal along with him.
Not only was the acting fabulous, but as Katelyn mentioned above, the music was also phenomenal!  I will certainly be buying the soundtrack!
Overall, this was one fantastic viewing experience.  I agree with Katelyn that it most likely won't make a huge impact on the history of film (after all, it's not like this is something no one has done before), but it was a lovely throwback to the olden days where sound was certainly not taken for granted and where actors had to rely on more than their speech to give a good performance.  I'd suggest it to anyone who thinks they can appreciate the loveliness of this film.  Anyone who thinks a film is no good without sound or color can just go bury their heads as far as I'm concerned.

This is Katelyn again with one last note.  We cannot forget to mention another scene-stealing actor:  Uggie the Jack Russel.  This is one of the very few films where the dog has more lines that the people.  Kudos to his trainers.  They made his actions seem very natural.  He was a performer rather than a trained monkey.  The dog person in me was immediately won over.  So if you hate black and white and silent movies, but love seeing dogs who love their jobs and are treated with dignity, give The Artist a shot.  If there was an Oscar for the best Canine Actor, I am sure Uggie would have won it hands... er... paws down.

Chicago

Wow.  One thing I'd like to say about Chicago is: what a show!  When Shakespeare said that "all the world's a stage,"  someone took him at his word.  This entire film is based around turning life into an act and giving the world something to look at.  When Roxie Hart (Renee Zellweger) murders her lover for lying and leaving, she has no idea that she'll become a star overnight; in Chicago, as Mama Morton (Queen Latifah) says, "murder is a form of entertainment."  But Roxie's got some competition in the Six Merry Murderesses of the Cook County Jail, particularly in the famous Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones), accused of murdering her husband and her co-star sister after finding them together.  Things start to look up for Roxie when she manages to hire the talented Billy Flynn (Richard Gere), the lawyer who has never lost a case for a female client.  Glittering and glamorous pandemonium ensues as Billy sets up the whole show, for, as he says, "Razzle dazzle 'em, and they'll never catch wise!"  It's a story of song, dance, scandal, murder, and all that jazz!

Hands down, the greatest part of this film is the musical numbers, which tie in so well with the storyline.  Though the actual setting is pretty drab and depressing, the glamorous song and dance acts spice up the entire movie.  The ones I would like to note particularly are "The Cell-Block Tango," "All That Jazz," and "We Both Reached for the Gun."  "Cell-Block Tango" is wonderfully choreographed and filmed, especially the murderess' use of red handkerchiefs and male dancers to demonstrate their different forms of murder.  The irony of a sexy dance number with scantily-clad women singing about their murder of men who "had it comin'" is fantastic.  Catherine Zeta-Jones does a lovely job singing "All That Jazz."  Visually, Katelyn and I agree that "Cell-Block Tango" is the best number in the film, but musically, "All That Jazz" takes the cake, hands down.  Of course, we must also mention the runner-up, "We Both Reached for the Gun," where Renee Zellweger shows her true ability to act.  She plays the part of Billy Flynn's puppet, and she is eerily convincing as a wooden doll being controlled and voiced by Billy Flynn.  It's a fantastic number showing Billy's control and manipulation of the press.  I'd have to say that the soundtrack for this film (or the Broadway musical on which it's based) would be worth the money.

Overall, I think this is a new favorite film of mine.  It's incredibly well-done visually, musically, and acting-wise.  I wouldn't suggest it for the kids, since unlike Sullivan's Travels, there's actually a bit more than a little sex in it (nothing explicit, but still) plus several instances of cursing and rather rude name-calling.  Don't forget the part about the entire film focusing on women committing murder and getting acquitted by lying, cheating, and putting on a show.

Katelyn:
Just like Singin' in the Rain, I first saw this as a stage show.  I have to say that they both have their strengths, but a film allows for more flexibility than a stage production.  The stage production I saw was much more vaudeville-esqe throughout, which for some numbers (such as "All That Jazz") worked better.  The choreography in the film is much more advanced simply because it does not have to be performed every single night like it would if it was shown live and because the music could be dubbed over.  Believe me, going through the dance work in "Cell Block Tango" would have most people gasping for air.  I really love this film and it's soundtrack alone has great listening value.  I know I, for one, will have "All that Jazz" and "Cell Block Tango" stuck in my head for at least a week.  (Another reason children probably shouldn't watch this- you don't want your child singing Start the car/ I know a whoopee spot/ Where the gin is cold/ and the piano's hot and a whole host of more suggestive lyrics on the playground.  And believe me.  They will).
As blasphemous as theater buffs would think this to be, I think I pref'erred the film. There I said it.  Catherine Zeta-Jones was wonderful in her role of Velma, and Queen Laifah's portrayal of Mama was excellent.  Richard Gere's Billy Flynn screamed "greasy lawyer" and exuded that brand of corruption Chicago is so famous for.  Sorry Chicago dwellers.  Don't worry, we bet on which politicians will end up in the clink like we bet on football.  You're not alone.  All in all, this film embodied all I loved about the stage production and added a new dimension to it.  The other plus side... you guessed it!  A dvd is portable.  A stage is decidedly not.

We have agreed to give this film an A.  Really, it's that good, fabulous, fantastic, excellent, wonderful, and all that jazz.

-V+K

PS: I wanted to mention that all the actors did their own singing and dancing, something which I thought was very impressive.

Coming Soon

Later today, we should be posting several reviews!!  We plan to post our review of The Artist, which we saw last week, and today we are watching Chicago!  Also, we have plans to post a prediction of what we think of The Hunger Games before its release next Friday.  We promise we'll try to be better with posting our reviews from now on!  Forgive our procrastination and laziness!

Thanks,
V+K

Singin' in the Rain

This one is a classic.  If you love musicals, chances are you've seen this one (if not, SHAME on you)!  Many consider it one of (if not THE) best musicals ever made (I wouldn't necessarily go that far...).  Starring Gene Kelley, Debbie Reynolds, Donald O'Connor, and Jean Hagen, the film tells the story of two silent era film stars, Don Lockwood (Kelley) and Lina Lamont (Hagen), as their studio moves to talkies.  Unfortunately, Lina's voice isn't very...attractive...to say the least, so the studio encounters problems trying to turn the pair into talkies stars.  It doesn't help that Lina is also - shall we use Don's word? - a viper.  She's also not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  When her beloved Don starts seeing Kathy Seldon (Reynolds), Lina turns downright dangerous...and rather annoying as well (though Hagan does an excellent job portraying her character!)

I really like this film.  My only issue is the one odd song and dance sequence right in the middle, where Don fantasizes about what their film will be like...it's just weird.  I don't even know how to describe it, really.  It doesn't fit well with the rest of the plot and even the color scheme and style is very different from the rest of the film.  Of course, it's difficult not to love the classic sequences of "Good Morning" and the film's namesake "Singin' in the Rain."  Gene Kelley splashing around, all in love and whatnot is rather lovely visually.  It makes it all the more impressive that Kelley had a high fever during the filming for the sequence.  Also, O'Connor in "Make 'Em Laugh" is quite the entertainer!  It's a wonderful film overall, and a must-see for any fan of either musicals or older movies (especially fans of both!).

One other thing I must mention: I'm not a very big fan of Gene Kelley, but if he sang to me the way he sang to Debbie Reynolds...I'd probably melt too, any dislike aside!

Hi!  This is Katelyn!

Victoria can say what she wants about that horribly disjointed Broadway number in the middle (and be right about all of it) but it had a beautiful dream sequence in a dream sequence.  Wonderful choreography with excellent utilization of silks and a bit of ballet technique in there for kicks.  I thought it was a great scene, even if it would have been better placed in a different movie or number.

With that out of the way, I have to admit that this is my first time seeing Singing in the Rain off stage.  It was even better than the low-budget production that I saw that was pretty brilliant for a community theater.  The tap was wonderful and the story line can't help but win you over.

Jean Hagen's comedic timing as Lina Lamont was nearly flawless.  Lina is one of those characters you love to hate.  She is quite the scene-stealer and even if Debbie Reynolds was good in her role Hagen was Lina.  Gene Kelley shone, and unfortunately outshone Reynolds in some of their scenes together.  Once again, I loved Reynolds and her performance but she was surrounded by very big personalities.

Victoria again!  Just wanted to mention: I agree^ :).

Well, we suppose we'll let you actually watch the film for yourself.  We don't wanna ruin it!  We hope you enjoyed our review and even more that you enjoy this lovely film!  We rate it a B+.

~V+K

PS: Remember: "Dignity.  Always dignity."  Except when you "make 'em laugh." :D

The Tigger Movie

I know I already reviewed the 2011 Winnie the Pooh (in a very long-winded fashion), but I will do my best to make this review short and sweet.

Overall opinion of this film: I simply adore it.  As I stated in my previous Pooh-related post, Tigger is my favorite character.  He's sweet, quirky, energetic, and fun fun fun fun fun.  He's also the only one, and that's what this entire movie stems from: Tigger is lonely from being the only Tigger, and he wants to find his Tigger family.  With some help from little Roo, who admires and looks up to Tigger in the cutest little-brother way possible, Tigger sets out to find and/or contact his family.

The movie has everything a family movie should have: sweet and adorable characters, simple yet engaging plot, some drama to shake things up a bit, and some good clean humor to round it all off.  From Eeyore's gloomy and snarky quips to Tigger's and Roo's bit of slapstick bouncing to the heartbreaking twist and heart-warming lesson, this film is for all ages, especially for those who loved the original Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh.

Chances are, you'll finish this movie in tears.  I sure did.  I love every second of it, and it warms my heart every time I watch it.  I'll have to give this film an A- (only because the original is so witty and charming, and though this one is fantastic, it's not quite  up to the same level :)).  I'd suggest it to anyone who appreciates and welcomes a bit of childhood every now and then, or any fans of Winnie the Pooh.

Enjoy the film and TTFN!!

Victoria

PS: The film has some really good music too.  The Whoop-de-Dooper Loop-de-Looper Ali-Ooper Bounce song is my favorite.

Sullivan's Travels

Sullivan's Travels is one of Hollywood's greatest movies about movies (Really... it said so on the box).  Yes, it is old... but that is part of its charm!  It is a 1941 film about a director who specializes in light-hearted fluff films with lots of laughs (but with a little sex in it) that decides he wants to make a film about human suffering (but with a little sex in it.)  His producers tell him there is no way he could make this film, after all what does he, a successful moving pictures director, know about suffering?  Challenge accepted.  Down the road he goes!  Well, he tried any way.  He makes a brief unplanned detour back home to pick up a wannabe actress known simply as "The Girl" (played by the lovely Veronica Lake, who was pregnant during filming but still managed to look 15 years old) to serve as a love interest and occasionally the brains of the outfit.  They strike off together to learn what suffering is... and instead find the importance of laughter, a quality lesson that everyone would benefit from learning, particularly some college professors (and parents).

Anyways, we both quite liked this film.  We were laughing out loud, gasping at all the right moments, and awwed when appropriate.  That's actually not quite true.  When something bad started to happen (aka a twist near the end, since otherwise this movie would have been WAY too short with little plot), we laughed really obnoxiously, mostly since Victoria kept (correctly) predicting what was going to happen a couple minutes before it did actually happen.  But she was wrong about the little bit of sex in it.  The box was misleading, she says.

But with a little bit of sex in it...except apparently not.

There were great montages, a good score, and excellent comedic timing.  It was full of great back-and-forth dialogue jokes, which were often quite punny (but with a little sex in it).  

Victoria: I have to say, I REALLY liked this movie.  I'll probably figure out a way to buy it and watch it a bunch more times.  Though not much actually happened in it, it seems, it was actually quite entertaining.  So really, if it has less plot but more entertainment, then that MUST mean that the plot it actually has was really good!!  (LOGIC!!)

Katelyn:  I also really liked it.  I was worth the twenty miles I drove to through the swamp and the woods with a faulty GPS to a public library to get it.  I like it so much I might keep it indefinitely.  I don't go to that library much anyway now that I am at University.  They will take it out on my parents, so I guess I better return it.  Ah well, there is always Amazon.

Victoria: My favorite character was The Girl, played by Veronica Lake (no really...that's what she's listed as in the credits).  She was quite smart-alec-y, and I thought it was funny and endearing.  She was only 19 at the making of this movie, so I guess that accounts for her seeming quite young (she WAS).  It's odd to think of her as my age...especially since a young 19-year-old actress running off with an older male director to pursue the life of a hobo would most-likely not be considered a very honorable pursuit in today's age, even in the name of film-making.  The main character, Sullivan, wasn't really all that remarkable.  There wasn't much about him that stood out to me (except when he runs screaming through a swamp, but I don't want to spoil the twist :)).  The minor characters whose names I wouldn't DREAM of remembering were all quite funny, since each set (they usually came in 2s and 3s) had certain personality quirks and funny lines to deliver.  There was a bit of slapstick comedy in the movie in places, as well as witty dialogue and sometimes even a bit of violent drama (one guy gets hit by a train (CALLED IT!!!) and another gets smashed on the head with a rock).  I also like black and white films, so the fact that this one was in black and white was a plus for me.  

OOH!!  There was also a very powerful shot of chained inmates walking into a church while the congregation sings "Go Down Moses."  It was excellent.  The shot is of the two rows of inmates walking towards the camera (which faces down the aisle), showing their chained and slow-moving feet as they split off into the pews on either side.  All the while, the congregation is (very slowly and soulfully) singing.  It was an excellent shot and whatnot.

Katelyn:  I also enjoy black and white, but I do not watch them quite as prolifically as Victoria.  I did grow up watching I Love Lucy re-runs.  If you like that kind of humor, then you will love this.  It has all the punny-ness, but significantly less cheese (not hating on Lucy, but let's face it... there was more cheese in one episode than an entire family pack of mozzarella sticks).  This movie contained only a single side serving of mozzarella sticks and enough serious plot line to keep you engaged.  I would definitely recommend it to anyone, even if you don't usually like old movies.

There was this one shot where The Producers are talking to The Girl in a very emotional scene, but she just stares into space, clutching her gloves.  They are ready to give her everything she thought she wanted, but she has come to realize that there is something she wanted even more.  The look on her face is absolutely heart-breaking.  In a film full of kinetic energy, the stillness is what makes this shot especially moving (pun not intended). 

To Recap:

Great movie.  It is unrated, but we rate it about PG due to violence (and a little bit of sex in it).

We give it a B, but a very sexy B :)

-Katelyn (and I suppose I should put Victoria's name too)

P.S.:  There is not really any sex in it.  You will get the joke if you watch the movie (just in case you needed any more motivation).

Small Update

I apologize for how long and rant-like my first review was.  I suppose that's what happens when I attempt to review a movie about something so dear to me (for that reason, I will probably never review a Harry Potter film!).

Second thing: Katelyn and I have to watch the film Sullivan's Travels for our film class this week, so you can expect a blog post about this film later in the week, probably either Wednesday night or sometime Thursday.  Next week's project will be Singing in the Rain.

Also this week, we are going to see the Academy Award-Winning film The Artist before it leaves theaters once again.  We shall see this film Thursday evening after Quidditch practice, and I'm sure we'll blog about it at some point in the days following.  So the blog should be fairly active this week!

Just thought I'd outline some of the immediate plans for blogs and let our dear reader(s?) know that we will be reviewing films (for real this time, not in a long-winded rant) very soon.

Thanks for reading, and check back later in the week for our thoughts on Sullivan's Travels and The Artist!

Victoria

Winnie the Pooh (2011)

     So, I am and have always been a very faithful Winnie the Pooh fan (Tigger is my favorite ^_^).  I have seen The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, Pooh's Grand Adventure, and The Tigger Movie several times over throughout my life, and they are some of my favorite movies.  So when Disney announced that they would be making a new Pooh movie last year, I was at first quite excited, but then I became very very nervous.  After I saw the trailer, I was downright terrified.  I worried that this new movie would ruin my opinion of the Hundred Acre Wood, and I vowed not to see it (it was released on the same day as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2, so that wasn't really a problem).  After reading several glowing reviews about the movie, though, I quickly changed my mind and decided I wanted to see it after all.  I have just now had the opportunity to watch it, and I have decided to make this my first film review for this blog.

     Overall, I have to say I was quite underwhelmed with this movie.  I have a very high opinion of Pooh's Grand Adventure, and I imagined this film being the same sort of emotional journey that that film was.  It's not.  It's a silly cartoon that, while it's quite humorous and entertaining, was pretty much just an excuse for Disney to use these beloved characters again to hopefully make a dime.  Honestly, it really is a cute movie.  Several scenes and lines are very funny, and it was nice to see my favorite characters again.  I just was left feeling like I didn't really watch a film at all, just a collection of events that didn't really fit well together.  I also didn't really care for the way certain characters were portrayed.  Tigger was a bit too rambunctious and energetic.  I have never before found him annoying, but I kinda did in this movie, which really bothered me since he's my favorite.  Pooh and several other characters were portrayed as just dumb sometimes, something the other movies managed to avoid excellently by showing that the characters just lived a simple kind of life.  Pooh didn't know how to read, not because he was an idiot but because he just never learned how and never needed to.  He should be cute and adorable all the time, and also be a very caring friend.  If he thought that Christopher Robin had been kidnapped, the real Pooh would have been extremely upset and concerned with getting him back, not worried about honey.  Sure, Pooh likes honey.  Who doesn't (Tigger, that's who!  Tiggers do not like honey!)?  But there is so much more to Pooh than honey and being comic relief in a story with nothing deeper than humor already.  Pooh is extremely loyal, sweet, and adorably simple.  Tigger is energetic, but he's supposed to be fun and adorable, not annoying.  Roo is supposed to be a cute kid, and should NEVER use sarcasm >_<.  Kanga is supposed to be the mom of the Hundred Acre Wood.  She's not vain or ditzy at all!!!  She's warm, sweet, and motherly to everyone, especially Roo.  Rabbit wasn't TOO far off the mark, but I feel like he should have been a bit more uptight, less silly, more serious, and a bit smarter.  Eeyore is supposed to be a bit gloomy, not clinically depressed!  Owl should have been much more boring and self-consumed and less energetic.  Piglet was alright, but there should be a bit more to his character than being frightened.  He's supposed to be a very loyal friend as well.  Christopher Robin was also okay, but I didn't like how much this kid differed in both looks and voice from the original.  In fact, except for Jim Cummings' voicing of Pooh, I was uncomfortable with all the characters' voices.  They were all way too different!  Tigger's voice should have been fine, but there was something about it I didn't like (which doesn't make sense, since Jim Cummings voiced both him and Pooh in this film as well as Pooh's Grand Adventure).  Christopher Robin, Piglet, Kanga, Owl, and Eeyore all had voices that sounded NOTHING like the original, and that drove me insane.  I know that it shouldn't matter so much, but the originals were so distinctive and characterizing that without them, it didn't feel like the same characters at all.  Rabbit, Tigger, and Roo had voices that were similar enough that I could get over it.  Jim Cummings, for the most part, did an excellent job with Pooh, and I have no complaints there (except for the one involving the fact that I adore Sterling Holloway, the original Pooh, and I wish he were still around to voice him).  Ok, now I'll let the characters go and get on to the actual MOVIE.

     If I had to summarize this movie, it wouldn't take me long at all.  Almost nothing happened.  All the events were clustered oddly, there were too many potential storylines involved that never actually played out much, and the whole thing felt like a confused mess.  I spent half the movie trying to figure out which plot line was supposed to be the main one.  Was the film focusing on finding Eeyore's tail, or was it supposed to be about saving Christopher Robin?  I couldn't tell.  Actually, though, even for those two plot lines, there wasn't much in the way of actual plot.  Eeyore lost his tail.  Alright, nothing new, this happens all the time.  Have a contest to see who can find the best substitute tail?  Well...I guess, but why not just look for the real one?  Meanwhile, Pooh keeps searching for honey (oh wait, did I say 2 plot lines?  I forgot Pooh's search for lunch.), and the whole gang discovers that Christopher Robin has been captured by the Backson!  Alright, we have a real problem now, even though the characters don't even seem to care very much.  They kinda just stand and say, "Oh dear.  We should probably do something about this, shouldn't we?" and show very little in the way of emotion at learning something has happened to one of their best friends.  Anyways, so what do these characters do?  They set objects in a path all around a pit to lure the Backson to his doom.  Dull.  They don't even leave their own backyards to try to find Christopher Robin, they just sit and wait for the Backson to come to them.  Even THAT doesn't work; Pooh, who is so hungry that he's at the point of delusions and hallucinations, leads everyone to fall into the pit and get stuck.  Piglet, the only one left not in the pit (besides Tigger, who is out searching for "Tigger Two" aka Eeyore, while dressed up like the Backson), must now find a way to get the rest of the gang out.  So he takes off through some scary woods, runs into Backson Tigger, and after a wild chase-type scene where they knock the letters of the book into the pit, they both end up in there with everyone else.  Pooh, hungry, builds a ladder with the letters to what he believes to be a honey pot, allowing everyone to climb safely out.  Then Christopher Robin walks up and tells everyone he was at school (you'd have thought they would have learned this back in the last movie).  Pooh finds Eeyore's tail, giving up his honey in the process, and the film ends with everyone rewarding Pooh with a giant honey pot for helping his friend.
     Ok, wait...what?  That's so dull!  That's not a plot!  The filmmakers should have A) narrowed the story down to ONE storyline rather than three, B) given the story actual events, and C) had a better lesson than "friends are more important than honey" if they were going to teach a lesson.  Really, the biggest problem the characters actually solved was getting out of a hole in the ground, which Pooh solved for them.  Christopher Robin came back by himself, and Pooh found Eeyore's tail on Owl's door, both of which were hardly exciting or interesting.  Overall, I felt like this movie had little in the way of plot: no real introduction, no rising action leading to some sort of climax (also nonexistent), and absolutely zero denouement.  The story kinda just stopped.  The problems were quite simple, so the solution was no big deal at all.  It certainly didn't feel like an ending; there was no sense of accomplishment, of finishing anything or having done or even tried something important.
     I didn't much care for the music in the film either.  Most of the songs were annoying rather than endearing (and I'd like to take this moment to mention that I have LOVED all the songs from previous Pooh movies).  Even Kanga thought the winning the honey pot song was annoying.  I like Zoey Deschanel, so hearing her sing the classic "Winnie the Pooh" song was alright.  I could get on board with that.  I also thought it was cute how they included Tigger in the song (he wasn't included in the original because he was introduced as a new character in the actual movie, therefore he was not a part of Christopher Robin's original group of friends named in the song).  So, props for that.  Otherwise, mediocre.  I certainly won't be buying the soundtrack.
     I know I'm being harsh, but Winnie the Pooh is something beloved to me, and I feel like I have every right to be dissatisfied with this film.  There was little of the charm I have come to associate with Winnie the Pooh, and I was quite disappointed since that's what I loved so much about it.  I felt like this film was made plot-wise for small children and character-wise for the parents to laugh.  All the other Pooh movies have managed to appeal to the children while keeping the adults entertained by charming wordplay or deeper meanings, things this film not only lacked but completely shunned.  I was quite disappointed with this film, which, while it was cute, was very shallow.  Winnie the Pooh is not supposed to be shallow, it's supposed to be simple.  They are not the same thing, and clearly the filmmakers did not know this.
     If you'd like a good chuckle or a really easy watch, go ahead and see the film.  If you'd like a little something more, you should probably avoid this film and instead enjoy one of the lovely other Pooh films from the past.

To sum it all up:
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh: Several shorts about day-to-day problems in the Hundred Acre Wood, riddled with charming and warm characters, often witty yet simple dialogue, and adorable yet funny situations and problems
Pooh's Grand Adventure: The Search for Christopher Robin: A touching story about Pooh and his friends' overcoming their fears and believed shortcomings in order to try to rescue Pooh's very best friend who he can't bear to live without
The Tigger Movie: The story of Tigger being the "only one;" his search and longing for a real family for him to belong to, and his discovery that he's had one surrounding and loving him all along
Winnie the Pooh (2011): Movie about finding Eeyore's tail, Pooh being hungry and looking for lunch, and everyone getting stuck in a pit while Christopher Robin is off at school

You be the judge of which ones you want to watch.

Thanks for reading!  I'd appreciate comments offering anyone else's opinion on this movie, Winnie the Pooh, or my blog post in general.  I'm always looking to improve :).

TTFN!
Victoria

PS: "You never can tell with bees."