The Amazing Spider-Man stars a very different Peter Parker with a very different heroine and a fairly different premise. In the earlier Spider-man trilogy, Parker gets bitten by a radioactive spider in a lab on a school field trip. Here, he gets bitten in a more sophisticated setting: at Oscorp Company on an official internship, and although he technically sneaks his way in, we know that he's smarter than the scientists.
I guess the way to tackle the rest of this review is to compare it to the older Spider-Man movies, which I liked more.
Starting with the characters:
Toby McGuire's Peter Parker has this quality of sensitive maturity that makes him very likable. He is a very sweet, lovestruck Peter Parker. Andrew Garfield comes across I believe as the comic book version of Peter Parker, who he portrays as a punk geek that uses more hand motions and batters his eyes and cocks his head and repeats "yeah" many times before saying a sentence. Although I personally find this Peter Parker less endearing, I admire Garfield's effort to make him more of a kid. Sure it's implied in his stance, poise and mannerisms, but I feel the dialogue also makes a big contribution. In this one scene, Spider-Man invades a car that a robber is trying to steal and says with a quirky confidence, "Next time, if you're gonna steal a car, don't dress like a car-robber." Another dimension the Garfield character adds is initial cockiness. The moment he realizes he can, he isn't hesitant to give the school bully a hard time, and argues with the police when they call him a vigilante ("I did eighty per cent of the work for you!"). I enjoyed that element. ALL in all however, Toby McGuire stuck with me more.
HOWEVER, I like the heroine Emma Stone brings to Gwen Stacey. She is smart, plucky and sweet. And Stone brings a sense of charm to her roles that makes it seem like she's secretly teasing the hero. It's entertaining. I liked her WAY more than the Mary Jane Watson character portrayed by Kirsten Dunst, who at the end of every movie HAD to go through one maniacal booby trap after another and needed to be desperately saved at least five times.
The villain played by Rhys Ifans is Dr. Curt Connors, who lost a hand limb and desperately wants to regenerate it. So Peter derives this formula that Connors uses... but alas. It turns him into a giant lizard. Is he scary? Overall, he's not THAT intimidating. Well, there are a couple of scenes where I jumped because he appears out of the blue in well-timed shots, but overall, when I saw a giant lizard moving on top of cars, I was not impressed. Would I look back, and cringe? No.
The rest of the characters are well-acted but not significant. Sally Fields (from Brothers and Sisters) plays Peter Parker's aunt. There is no Harry Osbourne and it seems as though Peter doesn't have any friends in this installment (until his uncle dies and the bully becomes his school buddy, I guess).
The special-effects are overall dialed down, which I am ambivalent about. I don't think "dialing them down" adds any emotional depth to the movie. Yes, there is this one touching scene where Spider-Man saves a boy from a falling car. It is moving yes, but visually, not that exciting. I thought the train sequence from the first Spider-Man movie is MUCH better, because it is NOT ONLY moving, but there are more people being saved, and more amazement on screen. Also, I guess Peter Parker's past is explored a BIT more, in that we realize his dad's a scientist, had to run away, and left him at his uncle's, but there are a LOT of loopholes that remain unanswered.
and the sound track is DEFINITELY not as good as the previous movies.
BUT, the romance is based more on chemistry than the usual "damsel in distress" sequence, which pleases me.
Yet I still find this movie to be blah. It is not amazing. I do not think there needs to be a sequel to this prequel. I would rather watch a sequel to Spider-Man 3 (with Emma Stone being Mary Jane Watson perhaps).
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Game of Thrones
When I first saw Game of Thrones, I flinched. All the characters seemed flawed in major ways -- including the so called Queen of "Westeros" (the Kingdom a bunch of people are fighting for). But, nonetheless, I found myself getting hooked on.
Game of Thrones is about a series of sexual, historical, and above all, political transgressions that occur between "Lords" and "Houses" spanning across seven kingdoms, all fighting for the throne at King's Landing. I am not sure if the whole world in Game of Thrones consists of seven kingdoms or more, but it seems as though people, who are not kings, princes, or part of the "kings guard" are poor, illegitimate, and unhappy. Wearing rags and other variations of dark meager clothing, they languish at the feet of their feudal owners and cry morosely for justice in the courts. It seems that the fate of men depend solely on their fathers and that women are either married off or sold to the local brothel.
This leads the high rulers being the only ones who can read, talk and participate in the "Game of Thrones," constantly scheming and backstabbing each other.
So yeah, the tone is grim and the people are doomed --Yet things may not entirely be what they seem; there may be a ray of hope -- and that's what makes Game of Thrones a remarkably good show: the complexity, the complexity, and the complexity. The complexity of the characters, the complexity of the rules, the complexity of the circumstances, the complexity between reality and fantasy, insanity and ingenuity...
The show is incredibly well made and well acted, with scenes so grim and real, they make Lord of the Rings look like an amateur kids movie. Also, it's incredibly juicy, with a lot of the characters having motivations so immoral that revenge seems the most righteous one.
There are also dragons, magical fabrications and terrifying creatures called "white walkers." What is not intriguing about that?
In an interview with George R.R. Martin, the author of "the Game of Thrones" trilogy, it is revealed that none of the characters are entirely good or bad, and reflect real people, including Martin himself. If this is true, then Martin must be one messed up fool. I wonder if he shadily negotiated his way into getting his series made into a TV show...
Game of Thrones is about a series of sexual, historical, and above all, political transgressions that occur between "Lords" and "Houses" spanning across seven kingdoms, all fighting for the throne at King's Landing. I am not sure if the whole world in Game of Thrones consists of seven kingdoms or more, but it seems as though people, who are not kings, princes, or part of the "kings guard" are poor, illegitimate, and unhappy. Wearing rags and other variations of dark meager clothing, they languish at the feet of their feudal owners and cry morosely for justice in the courts. It seems that the fate of men depend solely on their fathers and that women are either married off or sold to the local brothel.
This leads the high rulers being the only ones who can read, talk and participate in the "Game of Thrones," constantly scheming and backstabbing each other.
So yeah, the tone is grim and the people are doomed --Yet things may not entirely be what they seem; there may be a ray of hope -- and that's what makes Game of Thrones a remarkably good show: the complexity, the complexity, and the complexity. The complexity of the characters, the complexity of the rules, the complexity of the circumstances, the complexity between reality and fantasy, insanity and ingenuity...
The show is incredibly well made and well acted, with scenes so grim and real, they make Lord of the Rings look like an amateur kids movie. Also, it's incredibly juicy, with a lot of the characters having motivations so immoral that revenge seems the most righteous one.
There are also dragons, magical fabrications and terrifying creatures called "white walkers." What is not intriguing about that?
In an interview with George R.R. Martin, the author of "the Game of Thrones" trilogy, it is revealed that none of the characters are entirely good or bad, and reflect real people, including Martin himself. If this is true, then Martin must be one messed up fool. I wonder if he shadily negotiated his way into getting his series made into a TV show...
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Burnt Money
This Argentinian Film is like a porn reel. I did not expect to see that much nudity in my life. It looks like Argentina is ahead of Hollywood in the art of lovemaking. Anyway, this movie is a rather dramatic depiction of two gay lovers "the twins" who plot a heist that backfires and sends them on a trip to Uruguay with their wayward driver, Cuervo. Their supervisor, Nando, gives them advice which they are too experienced to take. As a matter of fact, the dominant partner of "the twins" Nene, seems to always know what he's dealing with and what he's doing. After a rather dramatic shooting at the beginning of the movie, one of the twins Angel, gets shot, and Nene patiently removes the bullet from his bloody chest, as though he's some sort of surgeon.
Although this film masquerades as a crime action flick, the action is pretty latent behind the paranoid romance between "the Twins." You could argue that there is quite a bit of shooting and escaping going on, but even though there is an all out barrage at the end of the film, the scene essentially has the same theatricality of "Scarface," and is more focused on the relationships between the characters and the emotion filling the atmosphere.
In that sense, I can safely say that "Burnt Money" SUCKS as a crime movie. It is more of a film driven by pathos.
As for the love between "the twins": it's mediocre at best. Nene is supposed to be a serious and aggressive robber. What leads him to pickup a religious, schizophrenic man (Angel) from a bathroom stall is beyond me. As a couple, they are bizarre, and I know that Angel is hot, but if Nene is so intent on surviving in his profession, then why would he chose a partner in crime that would randomly fire off a police officer while listening to "the voices" in his head. Not that I totally approve of Nene cheating on Angel with Giselle, the lovelorn prostitute, but still... SHE would be a better accomplice.
So I would say, watch the movie, if you are really into a sexy movie with a gay couple. But do not watch this movie if you are looking for an Ocean's Eleven with a procedural heist and action-packed escape.
Although this film masquerades as a crime action flick, the action is pretty latent behind the paranoid romance between "the Twins." You could argue that there is quite a bit of shooting and escaping going on, but even though there is an all out barrage at the end of the film, the scene essentially has the same theatricality of "Scarface," and is more focused on the relationships between the characters and the emotion filling the atmosphere.
In that sense, I can safely say that "Burnt Money" SUCKS as a crime movie. It is more of a film driven by pathos.
As for the love between "the twins": it's mediocre at best. Nene is supposed to be a serious and aggressive robber. What leads him to pickup a religious, schizophrenic man (Angel) from a bathroom stall is beyond me. As a couple, they are bizarre, and I know that Angel is hot, but if Nene is so intent on surviving in his profession, then why would he chose a partner in crime that would randomly fire off a police officer while listening to "the voices" in his head. Not that I totally approve of Nene cheating on Angel with Giselle, the lovelorn prostitute, but still... SHE would be a better accomplice.
So I would say, watch the movie, if you are really into a sexy movie with a gay couple. But do not watch this movie if you are looking for an Ocean's Eleven with a procedural heist and action-packed escape.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Brave
So I was expecting a lot from this movie. I was expecting an amazing tale of fiction and action, with the main character being an extremely skilled warrior. I was expecting some sort of fantastical journey with wolves and dangerous beasts. Well, I got quite a bit of that, but I also got something that I felt was not needed: marriage proposals and a mother turning into a bear.
The story could have been more epic. I thought that although it was comedic at first, the very concept of turning your mother into a bear is rather odd for a Disney movie. The girl does go on a journey to turn her mother back into a human being, but more out of necessity. She does not develop or become "brave" the way I expected, she rather goes on this race through the forest to break the spell. I would imagine that if I were a Disney princess, or expert tomboy archer in this case, I would also want to rescue my mom as a first resort. So if that is resolved then I guess the bigger picture of the movie is the relationship between the mother and daughter that must be fixed.
I could not relate to this movie. The mother, grasping on to the traditions of their barbaric Scottish dynasty forces her daughter to consider three suitors, who are ALL dweebs. I never had such an argument like that with my mother...
Well, with reasonable resort, the girl (who's name is Merida) follows the "will-o-the-wisps" these Avatar-like lights that hum, and follows her fate. She eventually comes upon an old witch's hut, which makes for some of the funniest scenes in the movie. She asks the witch for a spell that will change her mother, but the witch, being the cheeky woman she is, gives her a potion that would quite literally change her mother.... into, well, an animal.
Most of us cannot change our parents into animals, but I suppose that if we did, we would be forced to mend our relationships too..
The story could have been more epic. I thought that although it was comedic at first, the very concept of turning your mother into a bear is rather odd for a Disney movie. The girl does go on a journey to turn her mother back into a human being, but more out of necessity. She does not develop or become "brave" the way I expected, she rather goes on this race through the forest to break the spell. I would imagine that if I were a Disney princess, or expert tomboy archer in this case, I would also want to rescue my mom as a first resort. So if that is resolved then I guess the bigger picture of the movie is the relationship between the mother and daughter that must be fixed.
I could not relate to this movie. The mother, grasping on to the traditions of their barbaric Scottish dynasty forces her daughter to consider three suitors, who are ALL dweebs. I never had such an argument like that with my mother...
Well, with reasonable resort, the girl (who's name is Merida) follows the "will-o-the-wisps" these Avatar-like lights that hum, and follows her fate. She eventually comes upon an old witch's hut, which makes for some of the funniest scenes in the movie. She asks the witch for a spell that will change her mother, but the witch, being the cheeky woman she is, gives her a potion that would quite literally change her mother.... into, well, an animal.
Most of us cannot change our parents into animals, but I suppose that if we did, we would be forced to mend our relationships too..
Brothers and Sisters
Brothers and Sisters is an ABC family drama with an amazing actress:
Sally Field, who is well-suited as a mother, but finds herself in a plot
that would strangle anyone with exhaustion. The story is about a
family, the Walkers: with Sally Field playing Nora Walker, the mother,
with a gay lawyer son Kevin, an older daughter Sarah who is the newly
named President of the family business (Ojai Foods), an older son Tommy
who is the Vice President of sales of Ojai, a daughter Kitty who is
politically active and has her own radio show "Red, White and Blue" and
the youngest son, Jason, who was addicted to drugs for a long, long
time. The brothers and sisters are like a close-knit gang that share all
their family secrets and stick together like a bunch of army ants. The
main character is Kitty, who starts out trying to cook a dish for her
boyfriend, and in the process must go through all her siblings on the
phone.
The show essentially covers a vast array of plot points, from political disagreements between mother and daughter to the almost bankruptcy of Ojai after their father William Walker dies, to the many romantic entanglements that their siblings either approve or disapprove of.
There is one thing for sure though: after their father William Walker dies, and he had turned out to be an embezzler and an adulterer (allowing one of his mistresses to stay in a property owned by the company), a LOT of problems ensue.
Through the course of the show though, the family becomes closer and learns to resolve its problems one by one.
Now being a lover of drama and romance, I thought this show had a lot to offer. But being the soap opera it is, I noticed how the characters took something that could be resolved and essentially blew it up into a bigger problem than it had to be.
For example, Kitty marries a senator Robert (Rob Lowe), and when he gets a stroke she must take care of him. But he is intent on running for governor and pulls himself back from talking to his wife because he is ashamed of the future that may await him. Kitty, being the mature woman she is, "reacts" by distancing herself equally from her husband and getting into an almost-affair with another man who she meets in a school playground (yup -- the cliched kid-bonding scene). The way the characters talk about this problem is that "once Kitty distances herself, it means she's shut off and it's NOT a good sign." This may be true, but I think that such a problem in real life could be resolved more easily. I mean, a normal person would think beyond themselves if their loved one has a heart attack.
And it seems that EVERY character on this show has an affair as an escape from dealing with their problems. It gets a little tiresome actually.
*Spoiler Alert*....
Another problem with the show is the overstretch of problems that the characters are bulldozed with. The mother, Sally Fields realizes that her husband not only cheated on her once, but twice, and caused one of his mistresses to commit suicide. Also, Kitty gets cancer right after her husband suffers from a stroke, and Jason falls in love with the mistress's daughter (who is not William's), Tommy cannot have children because his semen are too slow and out in the middle of nowhere, we find out that Kevin caused a young boy to be paralyzed and his parents have been paying for his recovery ever since. Yes, drama is good, but at the level this show is going at... it simply becomes BLAH BLAH BLAH. And what's worse is to resolve all of this, the characters talk, cry and talk, cry, talk, talk and Norah Walker, being the nosy parent, butts into everything. Hell, if I made it through any one of these circumstances, then I would be a saint.
The best romance on the show in my opinion is the one between Kevin and Scotty because they not only happen to have the best chemistry, but face real issues about surrogacy, who holds the power in the relationship, finance, and even acceptance of homosexuality (Scotty's mom does not approve).
I always felt that the sure sign of a good romance is that it would leave the audience pining for more drama, and frankly, nothing on this show is THAT spectacular, except Kevin's love life.
Sally Field already does a phenomenal job being a paranoid parent that tries to bridge the gap between her children and annoy the hell out of the audience. I do NOT need her romantic drama as well. Being sixty years old, Nora has found a way to maintain on average one new boyfriend per week. I think the show could have used that energy focusing more on her children which it does plenty, but it wouldn't hurt as much to explore that territory further.
So, would I recommend this show? It depends on whether you like Soap Operas where people talk, talk and talk. The show can get exhausting at times because the characters give each other lectures and lectures and lectures. But some of the drama and romance is good and some of the situations might be real since all the characters are selfish, and experience some hidden traumas that could hit anyone in life.
I kept watching it because I liked some of the episodes and some of the romances and some of the situations. I did not like the way they were resolved but I thought it was interesting the way those occurrences came about. Would I watch this show again though? Maybe if I'm really bored.
The show essentially covers a vast array of plot points, from political disagreements between mother and daughter to the almost bankruptcy of Ojai after their father William Walker dies, to the many romantic entanglements that their siblings either approve or disapprove of.
There is one thing for sure though: after their father William Walker dies, and he had turned out to be an embezzler and an adulterer (allowing one of his mistresses to stay in a property owned by the company), a LOT of problems ensue.
Through the course of the show though, the family becomes closer and learns to resolve its problems one by one.
Now being a lover of drama and romance, I thought this show had a lot to offer. But being the soap opera it is, I noticed how the characters took something that could be resolved and essentially blew it up into a bigger problem than it had to be.
For example, Kitty marries a senator Robert (Rob Lowe), and when he gets a stroke she must take care of him. But he is intent on running for governor and pulls himself back from talking to his wife because he is ashamed of the future that may await him. Kitty, being the mature woman she is, "reacts" by distancing herself equally from her husband and getting into an almost-affair with another man who she meets in a school playground (yup -- the cliched kid-bonding scene). The way the characters talk about this problem is that "once Kitty distances herself, it means she's shut off and it's NOT a good sign." This may be true, but I think that such a problem in real life could be resolved more easily. I mean, a normal person would think beyond themselves if their loved one has a heart attack.
And it seems that EVERY character on this show has an affair as an escape from dealing with their problems. It gets a little tiresome actually.
*Spoiler Alert*....
Another problem with the show is the overstretch of problems that the characters are bulldozed with. The mother, Sally Fields realizes that her husband not only cheated on her once, but twice, and caused one of his mistresses to commit suicide. Also, Kitty gets cancer right after her husband suffers from a stroke, and Jason falls in love with the mistress's daughter (who is not William's), Tommy cannot have children because his semen are too slow and out in the middle of nowhere, we find out that Kevin caused a young boy to be paralyzed and his parents have been paying for his recovery ever since. Yes, drama is good, but at the level this show is going at... it simply becomes BLAH BLAH BLAH. And what's worse is to resolve all of this, the characters talk, cry and talk, cry, talk, talk and Norah Walker, being the nosy parent, butts into everything. Hell, if I made it through any one of these circumstances, then I would be a saint.
The best romance on the show in my opinion is the one between Kevin and Scotty because they not only happen to have the best chemistry, but face real issues about surrogacy, who holds the power in the relationship, finance, and even acceptance of homosexuality (Scotty's mom does not approve).
I always felt that the sure sign of a good romance is that it would leave the audience pining for more drama, and frankly, nothing on this show is THAT spectacular, except Kevin's love life.
Sally Field already does a phenomenal job being a paranoid parent that tries to bridge the gap between her children and annoy the hell out of the audience. I do NOT need her romantic drama as well. Being sixty years old, Nora has found a way to maintain on average one new boyfriend per week. I think the show could have used that energy focusing more on her children which it does plenty, but it wouldn't hurt as much to explore that territory further.
So, would I recommend this show? It depends on whether you like Soap Operas where people talk, talk and talk. The show can get exhausting at times because the characters give each other lectures and lectures and lectures. But some of the drama and romance is good and some of the situations might be real since all the characters are selfish, and experience some hidden traumas that could hit anyone in life.
I kept watching it because I liked some of the episodes and some of the romances and some of the situations. I did not like the way they were resolved but I thought it was interesting the way those occurrences came about. Would I watch this show again though? Maybe if I'm really bored.
Brokeback Mountain Analysis
Over the short summer break I had, I decided to re-watch Ang Lee's
"Brokeback Mountain." I have to admit that I was extremely taken
away/impressed with this movie. The acting is phenomenal -- it's natural
and at the same time portrays a total movie escapade. The love between
the two men seems so beautiful and passionate, with the right amount of
lust. The scenery accentuates the love story a lot.
After watching this movie for probably the fifth time over break (and yes -- once with my parents, although being awkward), I discussed the themes of the film and came up with a few really interesting/perplexing questions:
1. If Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar got married, would they still love each other as much or would the thrill disappear?
2. Who is the bigger sinner? Is Ennis the bigger sinner because his wife finds out, or is Jack the bigger sinner because he sleeps with other men?
3. Did Ennis do the right thing by worrying about what society thinks of their relationship?
4. Is their passion something that can really be controlled?
Here are some answers that are not necessarily the right ones, but just further speculations...
2. I'd like to believe the movie has no sinners just victims, but if I have to choose between Ennis and Jack, I would choose Jack. Unfortunately, Jack cheats more and pays the bigger price for his actions. He's more adventurous and susceptible to his emotions and romantic intuition. Even at the cost of what could happen in society, Jack pays more attention to his dreams and feelings. Yet even though he cheats, even on Ennis, I sympathize with Jack's character. It is just sad that Jack has to resort to prostitution and other means to satisfy his needs since Ennis is not always available. Yet I believe that it may have been a mistake on Jack's part to not look at the bigger picture. Ennis, on the other hand, cheats less, and does get caught by his wife. He suffers the repercussions early on: he gets a divorce from his wife and is forced to take care of his children through child support, even if it means leaving his comfortable romance with Jack behind. In fact, after the divorce, he sobers down his emotions a lot and does not escape with Jack as often. Despite all his feelings, he manages to keep the priority of his family first. Ennis continues worrying about what society thinks because he knows and understands the dangers: as a kid he witnesses the brutal murdering of a gay rancher, thanks to his own father who "might as well have done the job." For all this, even if it may not be happy, Ennis gets the better end of the deal: he lives, perhaps gets to see his daughter's wedding and finally learns the importance of expressing love, whereas Jack gets murdered by ruthless conservatives. It is a sad sad tale.
3. This is one of the million dollar questions of the movie: did Ennis do the right thing by wanting to hide his feelings for Jack from society? I believe that there is no right or wrong answer to this question, given the setting of the story. Initially, I felt that he could have fought more for his relationship with Jack and perhaps could have avoided marrying Alma. But this is 1963 Wyoming, and that would be a huge risk for both men. Also, at that point, how could Ennis have fought? He was not even ready to accept his own homosexuality. Being in love with Jack did not fall under his category of a tough Western ideal. What's more is that Ennis did not foresee him and Jack getting into a full-fledged affair in the future. Therefore, I personally would sympathize and feel sorry for him more than blame him. He just wanted to avoid conflict. And it is not like he did not pay a price for his repressed feelings: he practically puked on the side of the road after saying goodbye to Jack because of his grief. As for later circumstances, as awful and boring as it sounds, I think he did the right thing by sticking to his obligations to his daughters and society. I mean, who knows how they would have reacted if they found out. Maybe Alma Jr, his older daughter, would have understood, but what about Alma Jr's classmates or future husband? Ennis was simply being a pragmatist. As for his doomed love with Jack, the movie shows that at the end, it does not really matter whether Jack and Ennis spent a whole lifetime together or just a few moments: love transcends boundaries. Even if Jack wasn't there physically right next to him, Ennis still had a semblance of a memory (the blue jacket and the postcard) that he could use to remind himself that love in any form is pure and real, and perhaps worth fighting for.
4. The last question is speculative at best, but I think their passion could be controlled. It's just that it would have left a cleft in their hearts. Perhaps it would be easier for both men, Ennis especially, to live their lives complacently with their wives and children. But clearly, their attraction for each other was strong enough to make them have an affair that is discrete and against their values. The result may not be pleasant, but hey, this is a movie about two people, not two saints.
After watching this movie for probably the fifth time over break (and yes -- once with my parents, although being awkward), I discussed the themes of the film and came up with a few really interesting/perplexing questions:
1. If Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar got married, would they still love each other as much or would the thrill disappear?
2. Who is the bigger sinner? Is Ennis the bigger sinner because his wife finds out, or is Jack the bigger sinner because he sleeps with other men?
3. Did Ennis do the right thing by worrying about what society thinks of their relationship?
4. Is their passion something that can really be controlled?
Here are some answers that are not necessarily the right ones, but just further speculations...
1.
Well, the movie definitely does not explore the answer to this
question. It just focuses on the forbidden love between the two men. I
think that whether their marriage would work or not is not the point.
The point is that they are happier together and find more meaning in
their lives doing what they love together (ranching, shepherding, etc.),
and because of the string of obligations tied to Ennis and the fear of
being caught, they do not give themselves the opportunity to explore
that option fully. That's why this movie is, in a sense further than
Jack's death, a bigger tragedy. It reflects a lost cause that if mended,
could have perhaps made two people completely and utterly content. But
just to offer an actual answer to the question, my mom thinks their
marriage would last because if they did not have kids and just spent all
their days ranching together on that beautiful mountain, then it would be stress-free like hell.
2. I'd like to believe the movie has no sinners just victims, but if I have to choose between Ennis and Jack, I would choose Jack. Unfortunately, Jack cheats more and pays the bigger price for his actions. He's more adventurous and susceptible to his emotions and romantic intuition. Even at the cost of what could happen in society, Jack pays more attention to his dreams and feelings. Yet even though he cheats, even on Ennis, I sympathize with Jack's character. It is just sad that Jack has to resort to prostitution and other means to satisfy his needs since Ennis is not always available. Yet I believe that it may have been a mistake on Jack's part to not look at the bigger picture. Ennis, on the other hand, cheats less, and does get caught by his wife. He suffers the repercussions early on: he gets a divorce from his wife and is forced to take care of his children through child support, even if it means leaving his comfortable romance with Jack behind. In fact, after the divorce, he sobers down his emotions a lot and does not escape with Jack as often. Despite all his feelings, he manages to keep the priority of his family first. Ennis continues worrying about what society thinks because he knows and understands the dangers: as a kid he witnesses the brutal murdering of a gay rancher, thanks to his own father who "might as well have done the job." For all this, even if it may not be happy, Ennis gets the better end of the deal: he lives, perhaps gets to see his daughter's wedding and finally learns the importance of expressing love, whereas Jack gets murdered by ruthless conservatives. It is a sad sad tale.
3. This is one of the million dollar questions of the movie: did Ennis do the right thing by wanting to hide his feelings for Jack from society? I believe that there is no right or wrong answer to this question, given the setting of the story. Initially, I felt that he could have fought more for his relationship with Jack and perhaps could have avoided marrying Alma. But this is 1963 Wyoming, and that would be a huge risk for both men. Also, at that point, how could Ennis have fought? He was not even ready to accept his own homosexuality. Being in love with Jack did not fall under his category of a tough Western ideal. What's more is that Ennis did not foresee him and Jack getting into a full-fledged affair in the future. Therefore, I personally would sympathize and feel sorry for him more than blame him. He just wanted to avoid conflict. And it is not like he did not pay a price for his repressed feelings: he practically puked on the side of the road after saying goodbye to Jack because of his grief. As for later circumstances, as awful and boring as it sounds, I think he did the right thing by sticking to his obligations to his daughters and society. I mean, who knows how they would have reacted if they found out. Maybe Alma Jr, his older daughter, would have understood, but what about Alma Jr's classmates or future husband? Ennis was simply being a pragmatist. As for his doomed love with Jack, the movie shows that at the end, it does not really matter whether Jack and Ennis spent a whole lifetime together or just a few moments: love transcends boundaries. Even if Jack wasn't there physically right next to him, Ennis still had a semblance of a memory (the blue jacket and the postcard) that he could use to remind himself that love in any form is pure and real, and perhaps worth fighting for.
4. The last question is speculative at best, but I think their passion could be controlled. It's just that it would have left a cleft in their hearts. Perhaps it would be easier for both men, Ennis especially, to live their lives complacently with their wives and children. But clearly, their attraction for each other was strong enough to make them have an affair that is discrete and against their values. The result may not be pleasant, but hey, this is a movie about two people, not two saints.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
The Hunger Games
Hunger Games is a good summer movie. It is filled with action, some wry humor and a spark of romance. Is it worth watching though? Well, here's my opinion (with a summary first...)
"Hunger Games" is a science fiction movie about a despotic government that controls twelve districts out of fear.... and possibly hope. They spark this hope and instill this fear out of a TV show called "Hunger Games" that occurs every year, involving two tributes (one boy and one girl) from each district, aged 12-18, who are chosen purely by chance. The Hunger Games involves these twenty four children trying to kill each other until one sole victor remains. And that victor's district gets a bunch of donations from the government (aka Panem). An example of how unfair and biased the system is can easily be seen by the awful and barren environment of the higher numbered districts, where people barely have anything to eat.
Lucky for District 12, however, their tribute (who rushes to replace her sister as a volunteer in the reaping) is a skilled huntsman who uses her intelligence and the support of her fellow tribute Peeta, to come out (SPOILER ALERT)... alive.
Overall, I think the movie is well-made. The Central City of Panem is depicted very well with all the citizens wearing flamboyant makeup: fake eyelashes and all. The island doom that the contestants must face is also well portrayed. It is shown as an area that breeds violence, but not to the extent of warranting an R rating. Jennifer Lawrence is spectacular in the role. She is good as a grim and down-to-earth warrior.
Would I recommend you to see this movie? If you are a general fan of science fiction, then this would whet your appetite.
"Hunger Games" is a science fiction movie about a despotic government that controls twelve districts out of fear.... and possibly hope. They spark this hope and instill this fear out of a TV show called "Hunger Games" that occurs every year, involving two tributes (one boy and one girl) from each district, aged 12-18, who are chosen purely by chance. The Hunger Games involves these twenty four children trying to kill each other until one sole victor remains. And that victor's district gets a bunch of donations from the government (aka Panem). An example of how unfair and biased the system is can easily be seen by the awful and barren environment of the higher numbered districts, where people barely have anything to eat.
Lucky for District 12, however, their tribute (who rushes to replace her sister as a volunteer in the reaping) is a skilled huntsman who uses her intelligence and the support of her fellow tribute Peeta, to come out (SPOILER ALERT)... alive.
Overall, I think the movie is well-made. The Central City of Panem is depicted very well with all the citizens wearing flamboyant makeup: fake eyelashes and all. The island doom that the contestants must face is also well portrayed. It is shown as an area that breeds violence, but not to the extent of warranting an R rating. Jennifer Lawrence is spectacular in the role. She is good as a grim and down-to-earth warrior.
Would I recommend you to see this movie? If you are a general fan of science fiction, then this would whet your appetite.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
No Strings Attached
I could not finish watching this movie... it was so cliche and unromantic...
I knew from the get go that it wouldn't exactly be a great movie, but I expected it to be funny. It's NOT that funny. Friends with Benefits is wayyyyy more humorous. It has better jokes, and the characters seem to be unique. Mila Kunis is more suited for a ha-ha role than Natalie Portman although I LOVE Natalie Portman, which is why I even considered watching the movie in the first place.
Well, I guess this is just one of those chick flicks that's not worth watching...
I knew from the get go that it wouldn't exactly be a great movie, but I expected it to be funny. It's NOT that funny. Friends with Benefits is wayyyyy more humorous. It has better jokes, and the characters seem to be unique. Mila Kunis is more suited for a ha-ha role than Natalie Portman although I LOVE Natalie Portman, which is why I even considered watching the movie in the first place.
Well, I guess this is just one of those chick flicks that's not worth watching...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
