Category Archives: Movies

Last week, my husband and I went to see the movie “Begin Again” with Keira Knightley and Mark Ruffalo. It’s by the same director who made the 2006 movie “Once” that’s about a pair in Dublin who collaborate on some songs and end up falling in love. Like “Once,” “Begin Again” is about an unlikely pair who end up working together to create a music album, although this time it’s set in New York City. Mark Ruffalo plays the down-and-out music producer who teams with a stage-shy songwriter (played by Keira Knightley) whom he happens to hear perform at a bar’s open mic night.

As it so happens, I almost skipped this movie because of rough reviews in various newspapers, but luckily I was steered back by the positive review on Nose in a Book’s blog and my husband’s apparent preference for films with Ms. Knightley. And come on, it’s a movie about the magic of music — listening, playing, creating music — with a few bankable actors set against a backdrop of the streets of the Big Apple by the same writer and director who did “Once.” Why wouldn’t I see it? Adam Levine is in it, too; the frontman for Maroon 5 plays Knightley’s rockstar boyfriend, so I was curious and thought it might be good.

Luckily it is. “Begin Again” turns out to be quite an enjoyable film, clearly better than the regular summer schlock out nowadays. Its message about how music can transform people’s lives comes across in an engaging, creative way, set against scenes in New York that bring the city vibrantly to life. I had trouble believing the singing was actually Knightley’s own voice in the movie, but impressively it is. Somehow she manages to pull it off, and it helps that Levine lends his considerable singing talents as well.

In the movie, both the music producer and the songwriter’s lives become transformed by the album they’re working on. Ruffalo’s character finds his purpose again and tries to win back his estranged wife and daughter, while Knightley’s character gains more confidence as a singer-songwriter and comes to realize her rockstar boyfriend and her are heading in different directions.

It’s a bittersweet story — one sparked by the music and performances. Although some critics say “Begin Again’s” music and songs are too weak and that it pales in comparison to the film “Once,” I didn’t get that feeling at all. Similar to “Once,” I thought the music had a transcendent effect. And while “Once” might be considered a more artful, off-the-cuff film, “Begin Again” felt more enjoyable and uplifting. If you haven’t already seen it, check it out for yourself.

And let me know what you think. Have you seen either “Once” or “Begin Again”?

Meanwhile in book news, I’m half way through the mystery “The Silkworm” by Robert Galbraith (aka J.K. Rowling) and like it quite a bit. Admittedly, I started “The Silkworm” before reading Galbraith’s first mystery with the same detective “The Cuckoo’s Calling,” but I plan to go back and read that one later. I can already imagine these books will make good movies, so I’m sure the bidding war is intense. I’m just trying to figure out which actor I would pick to be the private investigator Cormoran Strike from Cornwall. From the book, he’s very tall, a bit heavy and has slightly curly hair. He’s also a war vet who has a prosthetic right leg. For some reason, I want to say he’s in his mid-30s, but I’m not sure she really says. So who’s a tall British actor that could play him? Any guesses ??? I sort of want to say Benedict Cumberbatch from the show “Sherlock Holmes” but I’m sure he’s too typecast as Sherlock by now, so I’ll have to pick another. Continue reading →

Happy Sunday, or maybe not. We are under an extreme wind chill warning of -40F and here it is March now and the Academy Awards are on tonight. If Oscar were here, his privates would shrivel considerably. So I will make some cocoa, do some reading today and make my picks for the big night.

There’s been a strong field of movies this year on a wide variety of subject matter, from space to slavery, to pirates, AIDS, sting operations, war, lost babies, breakdowns and heartbreak. I’ve seen quite a few of the nominated ones. Here’s a list of the films I’ve seen so far:

The Great Gatsby
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Saving Mr. Banks
Blue Jasmine
All Is Lost
Gravity
Captain Phillips
12 Years a Slave
American Hustle
Philomena
Lone Survivor
Her
Dallas Buyer’s Club
Frances Ha

And here’s a list of films I haven’t seen but still hope to in the future:

Inside Llewyn Davis
Labor Day
The Wolf of Wall Street
August: Osage County
Nebraska
The Book Thief

I’m sorry to say I also haven’t seen any of the foreign film nominees this year, or the documentaries either, which is a bit surprising, but I hope at least they become more readily available after the awards.

Of the films I’ve seen, it’s hard to say which one I liked the very best. Quite a few of them had moments that blew me away. “Captain Phillips,” “Philomena,” “Saving Mr. Banks” and “Her,” particularly struck me, and I was haunted for a week after “Lone Survivor” and “12 Years a Slave.”

I actually liked all of the nominated films I saw and wouldn’t be surprised if “12 Years a Slave” won for Best Picture and “American Hustle” won for Best Director, or vice versa, and the rest of the awards were sprinkled about. “Her” seems a good pick for Best Original Screenplay as I enjoyed its creativity and explorations of the heart and feelings of alienation.

The performances by Cate Blanchett in “Blue Jasmine” and Matthew McConaughey in “Dallas Buyer’s Club” are hard to argue, though it would’ve been nice if Emma Thompson in “Saving Mr. Banks” or Robert Redford in “All Is Lost” hadn’t been passed over for nominations. Still the categories are tight with some excellent performances. The winners for Best Supporting roles always wind up a bit interesting or surprising. And hopefully there will be some surprises tonight. If it’s the same winners as the previous awards’ shows, it’ll be quite dull, don’t you think?

What about you — which movie did you like best this year and which ones are your picks for tonight? Continue reading →

I finally worked up the nerve to see the film “12 Years a Slave,” which I knew would be brutal and intense. It’s the true story of a freed slave in New York who is kidnapped in 1841 and sold into slavery to work on plantations in Louisiana. I felt I should see it, slavery being such a big part of U.S. history — and the evil indelible toll that it took on a good portion of the population and its effects there ever after.

Many films before have sugar-coated or skirted the evils of slavery, such as “Gone With the Wind” in 1939. But director Steve McQueen’s film doesn’t pull any punches. It depicts the violence, brutality and inhumanity of slavery while following Solomon Northup’s life story. It’s harrowing and hard to watch at times: the family break-ups, beatings, rapes, and lynchings. You just keep hoping that Solomon will be able to put an end to his captivity. Chiwetel Ejiofor is terrific in the lead role, expressing so much pain with little dialogue, and Michael Fassbender is simply chilling as the Southern plantation owner. But as evil as he is, his character is seemingly typical of whites’ attitudes during those times and places, which the film so faithfully illustrates.

I can’t think of many films that so boldly face up to slavery such as this one. Granted, I did not see “Django Unchained” last year, which I should have, but it seems perhaps a different kind of film, more Tarantino-ish. I remember as a kid watching “Roots” on TV in the ’70s and being stunned that people were actually shackled like that and sold as property. You might read it in history books, but “Roots” really brought it home. There’s been other affecting slavery movies over the years such as “Glory” in 1989 and “Amistad” in 1997. I also liked Toni Morrison’s novel “Beloved” but never saw Jonathan Demme’s film based on it.

Despite its brutality, I wouldn’t skip over “12 Years a Slave.” It’s a shattering but courageous story, one that director Steve McQueen has compared in its importance to “The Diary of Anne Frank.” I still plan to read the 1853 memoir by Solomon Northup that it’s based on, which is considered one of the best narratives about slavery in the U.S.

What about you: what did you think of the film? And what has been the most affecting movie that you’ve ever seen about slavery? Continue reading →

Happy U.S. Thanksgiving weekend. I have been in California enjoying the holiday with family so I’m just now posting some thoughts on “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” movie, which I saw last Monday after its opening weekend took in $158 million at the box office. It beat out the first Hunger Games movie in sales and is continuing to haul in more over Thanksgiving break.

I found it similarly as good as the first movie and it follows the novel quite closely. “Catching Fire” finds Katniss and Peeta on a Victory Tour of the 12 districts after their win in the 74th Hunger Games. But all is not well as rebellion against the tyrannical Capitol is in the air and Katniss turns into a symbol for the cause. President Snow retaliates by making many of the former victors return to the arena for the next Games. And soon, Katniss and Peeta are back there fighting for their lives once again.

The sets, costumes and special effects make it an eye-catching spectacle in a post-apocalyptic world. And the expanded cast is entertaining, too, seeing which actor will turn up as what character in the movie. It’s a large, diverse cast with everyone from Stanley Tucci to Amanda Plummer to Jeffrey Wright and Donald Sutherland to even Philip Seymour Hoffman this time around. They’re all fun to watch, as well as the returning cast, notably Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson and Woody Harrelson who are the main protagonists.

“Catching Fire” takes some time positioning itself at the movie’s beginning. I think people who haven’t read Suzanne Collins’s trilogy might find the movie quite slow in parts especially at the start, or they might be confused about particular parts of the movie. It’s more enjoyable I think to have read the books before seeing either of the movies to get the full experience, though it’s not a complex story like “Game of Thrones” or anything. But it’s good to remember such things as who Seneca Crane was. You might recall he was the head gamemaker of the 74th Hunger Games who ultimately is put to death for allowing there to be two victors (Peeta and Katniss) from the same district. His circumstances come up again in this movie.

“Catching Fire” does get suspenseful as the Capitol starts cracking down on the districts and Katniss threatens to run away and especially once the next Hunger Games starts. You might flinch a few times when they’re making their way through the forest, and since you know the ending can’t be as fortunate to have two victors as in the original.

But one segment of the book I was sorry they left out in the movie is when Katniss comes across two runaways from District 8 in her woods at home in District 12. They tell her there’s reason to believe that District 13 was not wiped out as they were always lead to believe but is still populated, how so they don’t know. The mystery surrounding District 13 and its hoped for part in the underground rebellion, which is quite interesting in the book, is not much touched on till the very end of the movie, which is too bad. That’s one example of why books that are made into films are usually so much better. The movie misses a bit of the mystery, as well as the thoughts that are explored in the book’s first-person narrative.

Still “Catching Fire” is an entertaining adaptation of the book to the big screen. It’s dark, it’s brutal and still there’s the love triangle between Katniss and Gale and Katniss and Peeta that’s not all figured out. At the end you’ll want to know more about what will happen to all of them, but you’ll need to hang on till November 2014 when “Mockingjay Part 1” comes out. So till then Happy Hunger Games and may the odds be ever in your favor!

Now what did you think of the movie? Continue reading →

I know, I know, I know: it’s “Hunger Games: Catching Fire” week but I saw two notable films recently that are still on my mind. First, the Robert Redford film “All Is Lost” about a 70-ish year-old man sailing solo in the Indian Ocean whose boat collides with a shipping container. He’s left struggling to survive for eight days adrift at sea, with seemingly no one else around for hundreds of miles.

It’s a different kind of film because it’s so quiet and just one person is in it, with no dialogue. It has a documentary feel to it as you watch the sailor (played by Redford) try to repair the damaged boat and overcome the elements. He moves methodically about his work and remains calm in the face of a very scary situation. At points you want him to hurry up (!) as the water swells in the boat, but he moves slowly as an older person and must be a seasoned sailor because he doesn’t panic like I would be doing.

You might wonder after his boat radio goes out why he doesn’t have a GPS device to locate his position or the internet or an emergency beacon to alert others to rescue him, but alas no. He’s way out there, alone with none of these things, which perhaps might speak to what kind of person he is or what he’s doing out there in first place. You might also second-guess a couple other decisions of him as a sailor, such as leaving the boat to jump onto the drifting container, or going on deck during a tropical cyclone, or not wearing a life jacket at certain times, but despite such recklessness, you’ll be taken in, too, by his utter resourcefulness and courage as he’s adrift at sea. He’s no quitter.

Redford is terrific in the role as a man facing his own mortality. Perhaps not since 1972’s “Jeremiah Johnson” has he shone as a survivor like this. Apparently the 77-year-old Redford insisted on doing all his own stunts in the film, which makes it feel quite real. “All Is Lost” is a quiet, yet compelling meditation at sea.

“Blue Jasmine,” on the other hand, is a film completely different from that but also includes a strong performance of the lead character played this time by Cate Blanchett. I do hope Ms. Blanchett receives some award nominations because she is superb as the New York socialite Jasmine who comes to stay with her sister in San Francisco after her life falls apart.

The story of what goes wrong in New York for Jasmine and her very rich financier husband (played by Alec Baldwin) unfolds in flashbacks while Jasmine is trying to get back on her feet in California.

In San Fran, the dynamic between the sisters is awkward at best, whereas Jasmine’s been wealthy, and is a bit haughty, her sister is divorced with two boys, doesn’t have much money, and is dating a low-life mechanic. Jasmine influences her sister to see someone better, while she eventually meets a well-to-do man who plans to run for Congress. But eventually all begins to unravel once the veneer Jasmine’s created gets pulled away.

It’s typical Woody Allen: a film full of relationships, deceits and their sticky consequences. It’s a bit depressing, watching the impending outcome. I didn’t think of a modern-day version of Tennessee Williams’s “A Streetcar Named Desire” when I was watching it, but have read since that some critics have compared it to that. And I guess the plot of “Blue Jasmine” is quite like that: A troubled woman comes to stay with her sister and affects her sister’s relationship with her guy and things end badly for her. It differs a bit in this modern telling with more characters etc., but there are some similarities.

The best part of “Blue Jasmine” is the cast and acting. Blanchett, of course is excellent as Jasmine, but so is Sally Hawkins as her sister who plays off Jasmine so well. Then there’s Andrew Dice Clay (remember the crude, stand-up comedian?) who is surprisingly good as the sister’s ex-husband, as well as Bobby Cannavale who plays the sister’s mechanic boyfriend, Chili. I was delighted, too, to see comedian C.K. Louis play the guy the sister has a fling with. He’s terrific! How can anyone not like C.K., even though his role here is pretty slimy.

Despite its dark overtones, “Blue Jasmine” makes for an entertaining romp, thanks to its cast that gives the script just the right touch. Continue reading →

The space-action movie “Gravity” is a visual wonder that puts one into orbit from the very start, capturing two astronauts left adrift after debris crashes into them during a spacewalk. It’s a harrowing situation, and from the amazing special effects what unfolds feels immediate and very up close. George Clooney and Sandra Bullock play the astronauts who work together to try and survive untethered in a place 372 miles above Earth where there’s no air pressure, no oxygen and way beyond cold.

And wow, does Sandra’s character go through Hell and back. She’s got to fight for everything! At the start she’s a bit of weakling but towards the end she’s changed and is emboldened. I got sort of dizzy just watching her go end over end through space. She didn’t even puke into her helmet. And the scrapes and the bruises from being thrown into steel objects must have been a nightmare! But George helps. Thank goodness his character is a very seasoned astronaut. And Clooney is Clooney.

I liked “Gravity.” I could feel space at my fingertips, awe-inspiring and beautiful, albeit in the movie it’s often from a pretty hair-raising viewpoint. It’s certainly a well-done adrenaline-action-packed visual space experience but I’m not sure I took away from it much more than that. As for depth or character development that might leave a more lasting impact, well there just isn’t time!

For more commentary on “Gravity,” check out former astronaut Mark Kelly’s generally favorable review of the movie in The Washington Post. Continue reading →