slammerkinbabe: (jane in songcatcher)
So Jane Adams is in a new movie called Lifelines1, 2. Here are some things to note about this movie:

  • It is getting good reviews.3
  • It is the first movie in which Jane Adams has had top billing, or indeed any sort of major role at all, since Happiness in 1998.
  • It is only showing in New York and LA.

When I originally wrote this entry I drafted it out in Notepad and I had a very long and punctuationless spiel here about how I was posting a poll but the posting of the poll should not be taken to indicate in any way shape or form that I was considering either or perhaps any of the options that it included, because so far from considering them I didn't even know what they would be or how many of them there would be, hence the "either or any" part, because sometimes my fingers just take over and ask things about Hannah Montana and it is not my fault at all and no one should ever suspect that I would do anything as wacky or excruciatingly uncool as the options that I think my fingers might want to type into the poll only I couldn't be sure, you see, because I hadn't typed it yet. Anyway, I forgot to copy-paste that part, and then I closed Notepad without saving. I know you all mourn its loss. Ahem.

We now return to our regularly scheduled broadcasting:

[Poll #1381297]

Thank you for your input. Of course I have already forgotten what the poll says, my fingers’ muscle memory being short; but I am sure I will value your contributions.

1Yes, the movie used to be titled Wherever You Are, and no, IMDb hasn’t caught up with the change yet.
2Yes, the art on the movie poster for this looks exactly like the one for Happiness.
3”One of the most exquisite images on screen this year was the lovely face of the brilliantly talented Jane Adams, who plays Nancy, the mother of a profoundly dysfunctional family in this film from first-time writer-director Rob Margolies.” There are other good reviews but this is the one I am plucking because I TOLD YOU SHE IS AWESOME AND ALSO BEAUTIFUL, I TOLD YOU ALL, AND NOW MOVIE MOM SAYS IT TOO, AND SURELY YOU WILL NOT CONTRADICT THE AUGUST (ALBEIT ADVERB-ADDLED)iAUTHORITY OF MOVIE MOM



slammerkinbabe: (Default)
λ and I just got back from seeing Horton Hears a Who. It was quite relatively cute.

However, throughout the movie, I kept trying to figure out what its point was. You know, in the political/philosophical/psychological/religious/cultural/historical sense. I blame the pro-lifers who laid claim to the "A person's a person, no matter how small" line. I myself, though I love Dr. Seuss and read a great deal of his books as a child, never did own a copy of Horton Hears a Who, so I squinted very hard at the screen as I attempted to determine whether its message was that of:

-A religious fable
-An anti-religious fable
-A pro-life movie
-A pro-choice movie
-A movie about the perils of Skinnerian behaviorism
-A movie about why we should go back to considering psychotic people to be prophets or saints
-A movie about why you should trust that there are more things in the world than you can perceive with your senses
-A movie about why the only things you should believe in are the things you can perceive with your senses
-A movie about the evils of fascism
-A movie about the evils of communism
-A movie about pacifism
-A movie about the cruel indifference of nature to human suffering
-A movie seeking to debunk Darwin's theory of natural selection and to support instead a new theory which might be designated "elephant ex machina"
-A movie about how apparently when you decide to include in your soundtrack a classic'80s romantic ballad of gorgeous and transcendent schmaltz, you should only sing a third of it, then put that third in all the commercials for the movie as a tease so that people will go to the movie and look forward the whole time to hearing Carol Burnett sing "I Can't Fight This Feeling Anymore" in the voice of a purple kangaroo, only to find out that, oh, no, wait, sorry, the clip is only thirty seconds long and twenty seconds of them are a duet between Steve Carell and Jim Carrey

I think maybe I don't quite have the hang of watching children's movies.

I still need an icon of Carol Burnett as a purple kangaroo though.
slammerkinbabe: (oh no murky dismal)
λ and I just bought the Back to the Future trilogy on DVD with all kinds of awesome special features and we are children of the eighties, so we have been watching them marathon-style.

I am watching Back to the Future III for the first time in about twelve, fifteen years.

I have just one question:

OKAY SO WHAT IS WITH MARTY'S "MCFLY" GREAT-GREAT-GRANDMOTHER LOOKING JUST LIKE HIS OWN MOTHER, OKAY. HIS GREAT-GREAT GRANDFATHER LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE HIM WHICH IS OKAY I GUESS BUT I MEAN TO SAY WHY BECAUSE SEE OMFG WHAT MCFLY BROTHER SLEPT WITH HIS MCFLY SISTER AND PRODUCED ANOTHER MCFLY GIRL AKA HIS MOM WHO MARRIED ANOTHER MCFLY BOY AKA HIS DAD. OR. WHAT. Because like maybe his great-great grandmother nee Somethingelse married his great-great-grandfather and became a McFly, and then they had a son who was another McFly and a daughter who married someone else and became - Somethingelse2, and then that daughter had another daughter who became a Baines at some point and gave birth to another Baines who was Lorraine who married THE DESCENDANT OF HER OWN GREAT-GRANDFATHER?! OMFG THIS IS SO NOT RIGHT. And where the fuck does George come in, if it's just Lorraine's twin who's running around in 1885? It is - I mean - THIS IS ENTIRELY TOO MUCH INCESTUOUS COMPLICATION IN THIS FAMILY, OKAY. WHY IN THE HELL DIDN'T THEY JUST GET CRISPIN GLOVER TO PLAY THE GF2 AND HAVE DONE WITH IT? OMFG WTF.

Also, why is Marty randomly moonwalking in the middle of the bar? Inquiring minds want to know.

Also also, λ informs me that many of the historical details are inaccurate and seem to be referencing either the wrong era or pure American Western mythology. I, myself, am confused by the fact that Marty is referenced as a "runt" by the others around him, despite the fact that he is 5'4.5" (according to IMDb) and, if each generation has been gaining roughly one inch in average height per generation, and the average height for a man in this generation (four generations hence from the Old West depicted in this movie) is roughly five feet nine inches, then he should be a bare half-inch shorter than the people calling him "runt". I'm sure you'll agree that this height differential is nowhere near significant enough to provoke such mocking, and that a letter to Universal Studios is probably in order at this point.

I am sad to say that Back to the Future III is not holding up to intellectual scrutiny. I'm sure you are all devastated by this news.
slammerkinbabe: (Default)
So, on the wave of my latest Julie Andrews/Carol Burnett kick, I watched S.O.B. tonight. My Lord. It has the distinction of being one of the worst movies I've ever seen, without being stupid. That takes talent. Few things piss me off more in a movie than pandering to the lowest common denominator, and so dumb movies tend to be the movies I like least of all; for a reasonably intelligent movie to fall into that category means that it was doing something really, really wrong.

To give you an idea, here is a brief summary of the plot:

I absolutely cannot imagine that any of you are worried about spoilers in this instance, but I am a good little LJer )

I think the point of the movie is buried somewhere in the middle of that summary. I bet you can't guess what it is!

Man, I never thought I'd see the day when that wouldn't be enough to redeem a movie for me.


slammerkinbabe: (Default)

April 2017

910 1112131415


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 02:35 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios