giandujakiss: (Default)
From a legal-mystery standpoint, it's fairly by-the-numbers. But I am excited to see a woman play the maverick-operates-on-her-own-rules-because-she's-just-that-good character. The last time I saw it attempted was Dana Delaney in Body of Proof, where she was basically a Dr. House-like medical examiner, but they couldn't quite commit to her being just as obnoxious as House, so they had to soften her.

Also, they're 'shipping her with Eddie Cahill and I've always had soft spot for Eddie Cahill. Which means, I have no hope for the actual plots, but I am interested to see where they're going with the characters.

Also, they've got a Hillary Clinton analog who looks like she'll be appropriately complex and ruthless.

BTW, I am in love with Pitch, so that's a thing.  And I didn't even realize it was the Saved by the Bell dude under that beard.  I feel very old.
giandujakiss: (Default)
Is anyone else amused that Bianca Lawson is playing a character named Darla?

One detail that keeps striking me - Blue, the little boy, plays with what appears to be some kind of Barbie-like doll, and it's entirely unremarked. That's just his favorite toy, whatever.
giandujakiss: (Default)
Because I can't find any (i.e., on the actual teevee, not purely internet streaming).
giandujakiss: (Default)
After Trump's lineup of A-List speakers, how awesome would it be if the Dems could round out their speakers with Henry Winkler or Ron Howard?
giandujakiss: (Default)
Quick nonspoilery thoughts:

It was a lot of fun, if a bit broader than my taste, and I found myself just sitting there smiling.

It was flawed in that modern action movie way, where it's facially obvious that a lot of exposition and plotting was cut. The only reason it wasn't entirely incoherent was because you kind of know the story from the original - like, not the same plot exactly, but the same story beats. For that reason, I think the original is a superior piece of filmmaking.

Everyone's awesome but Kate McKinnon steals the show.

With the caveat that I've never seen a Paul Feig movie before (again, his humor is too broad for my taste), it was a revelation to see women playing these kinds of roles. Not just comedic, but awkward and goofy and loud and taking up space and with no concern at all for whether they were pretty. (Let's all remember that Joss Whedon told Elizabeth Olsen not to scrunch up her face during the Avengers action scenes, because it made her look unattractive.) That they are women is essentially unremarked.

Case in point: There's a running joke thing about Melissa McCarthy and food, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that she's heavy. She does physical comedy and it has nothing to do with the fact that she's heavy.

I remember the original Ghostbusters, which I loved as a kid. It was hilarious and I saw it many times. And always, always - even before I had any particular political consciousness - I disliked the bits that had to do with Bill Murray skeevily coming on to women, and hated the whole part of the plot where Sigourney Weaver is possessed, turned into a weird sex maniac, and has to sleep with Rick Moranis. It was like this horrible sour note in the middle of the film. I wasn't really old enough to understand why I hated those bits, I just knew I found them basically unwatchable.

But with the new Ghostbusters, I get a glimpse of how different it would have been for me - for all of us - if we'd gotten stories about women like this as we were growing up.

There is a scene at the very end of the credits so don't leave.

Oh also good commentary here.
giandujakiss: (Default)
Makes what's coming after season 1 all the more painful.

(If you haven't seen at least season 1 of Gilmore Girls, and you care about complex stories involving relationships between women, you are totally missing out)
giandujakiss: (Default)
I have no idea what that was but I'm looking forward to next week.
giandujakiss: (Default)
Ummm ... that scene was perhaps a little too ... attractive ... for my comfort.

In other news, I am absolutely in complete love with - well, after seeing the episode, you'll know who. Give me all the fic please.
giandujakiss: (Default)
Wonder Woman first appeared during WWII - where's my Captain America meets Wonder Woman fanfic?
giandujakiss: (gay batman)
This weekend, Batman versus Superman opens. And I'd pretty much decided I was done with endless Batman and Superman recycles, and even though they're trying to lure me in by having Wonder Woman in a secondary role, I was not going to be fooled. My thinking has been, when I'm actually holding a advance ticket to see the Wonder Woman movie in my little hands, then I'll go back and watch the Batman versus Superman movie, as backstory.

That said, I might be willing to depart from this stance if I am reliably informed that Wonder Woman has a very large, awesome role in Batman versus Superman.

So y'all to report back and tell me what I should do.
giandujakiss: (Default)
How quickly I get my work done when I know I can read Captive Prince: Kings Rising once I've finished.
giandujakiss: (Default)
So I hadn't seen the Star Wars movie because I'm really not a Star Wars fan. But everyone was screaming about how awesome it is that a woman gets the Skywalker role, and that two non-white men are cast in supporting roles, and Leia's a general, etc, etc, and so I finally went.

And now, having seen the movie, yes, kudos to the casting and all, but ... there's a reason I'm not a Star Wars fan. I'm going to have to stand my ground on that one.

And as glad as I am that they're clearly setting up for sequels, and given the tremendous box office success I'd say sequels are a certainty, the cynical part of my brain thinks that the sequels will dial back Rey's role. The studio heads will dismiss the success of TFA despite the female lead as being due to the brand name of the franchise; they'll convince themselves that now that the novelty has worn off, boys will need a male hero to maintain interest, and also how are they supposed to sell toys with breasts on them? And Rey will be reduced to a supporting role in her own story.

giandujakiss: (Default)
Loved it. Was riveted.

I'm consistently amazed by movies (All The President's Men, its obvious forerunner; The Big Short) where everyone knows going in how the movie ends, but it still holds your attention because it's just such a great journey.

Anyway, at first I was afraid to watch Spotlight because I just didn't think I could take wallowing in the subject matter. But the movie is really more about reporting than the scandal itself. Don't get me wrong - the movie doesn't shy away from its subject - but it's the reporting that's in focus. What holds your attention is watching the reporters' growing amazement as they realize the extent of the problem - and the coverup.

Of course, after I saw Spotlight, Sister Act was on television, and man, talk about whiplash in terms of portrayals of the Catholic church.

Also saw Suffragette. Sadly, I found that very disappointing. A great example to prove the old adage, "If you want to send a message, use Western Union." The political polemic overshadows the storytelling, which is a pity, because if the movie had focused more on the story, the politics would have sold themselves - there's a lot of wonderful, heroic, tragic, horrifying history to mine. The movie is massively uninterested in portraying how anyone could have believed in this system, lived under it - which I dislike, because if there are any lessons to be learned from this kind of history, it has to be that people who thought themselves to be fair and good were able to justify this system to themselves. The lesson is how people in power convince themselves that the power is earned; and the distorting effects of that power on their behavior. And of course, that power doesn't give ground without a fight, no matter how justified the cause may seem in retrospect.

The movie tries to capture the idea of the suffragette movement through one woman's gradual conversion to the cause, except her conversion actually happens incredibly quickly; meanwhile, most of the other characters are more symbols than actual people. Lots of speeches by lots of characters, but I didn't get a real sense of where the movement was, its effect on the public, its relative popularity at the time. Critical things that might have had more of an emotional impact - the idea that politicians were keeping suffragette protests out of the press, for example, to keep them from making waves - were almost an afterthought. Compare, for example, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, which makes the suppression of press coverage into an incredibly powerful rallying point (I'm not suggesting Suffragette should have shown an army of children printing a newspaper; just that it's an easy outrage-button to push and they didn't push it). Frankly, this vid of the movie Iron Jawed Angels is more powerful than the entire Suffragette movie.


Dec. 27th, 2015 08:28 am
giandujakiss: (Default)
I'm going with the critical consensus. Jennifer Lawrence is a joy to watch, and there was a really great idea for a movie hiding in here, but sadly, there's too much other poorly conceptualized crap obscuring it. Because the tale that wants to be told is a straight up American dream sort of story - and that part's charming - but David O Russell couldn't leave it there; he wanted to make it also about some kind of dysfunctional family drama, and as a result, everything's kind of a mess.
giandujakiss: (Default)
loved it. It was extremely creative in the way that it jazzed up both the characters and the film style in order to turn an essentially unfilmable story into a surprisingly suspenseful film, considering we know how it ends.

It came up with some marvelously entertaining and original ways to explain the financial maneuvering behind the crisis, though I'm not certain how well they'd translate to someone who genuinely went in not knowing the basics.

October 2017

12345 6 7
8 9101112 1314


RSS Atom


Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 19th, 2017 09:09 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios