Freak out.

Just ruffling through a random copy of Entertainment Magazine, got to the section where some reviewer named Lisa mentions her top movies of the year, and guess what her first three are?

History of Violence
Brokeback Mountain
The Best of Youth

I am so. Freaking. Out.

-Lori

Eric, I don't know even know where to begin. Do you realize, my non-40-year-old non-virginal friend, the ribbing you have set yourself up for? Good thing nobody reads this blog.

The Best (Dysfunctional) Movies of 2005

I love a good challenge, and this is my answer to Lori's call. While not the best movies of 2005, here are three of the best:

The Weather Man
40 Year Old Virgin
Shopgirl

---

The Weather Man

Well, not much to say here, just read my review. I really love seeing Nicolas Cage play the straining, self-restrained role he's born to play. And I can relate.

40 Year Old Virgin

Again, I really related to the character in this movie. No, I'm not 40. And no, I'm not a virgin, but I've shared in a couple of his hobbies and frustrations. This is a There's Something About Mary -type of movie, and in that sense it's very well done. Sweet, funny, perverse.

Shopgirl

Wow - this is a Top 5 movie for me, and it caught me completely by surprise. In fact, I had gone to the theatre to watch a different movie, but due to being overcharged for a ticket and the subsequent delay in waiting for my refund, Shopgirl was the only movie left to see. I really can't wait to see it again.

In a nutshell, this movie is a romantic version of Lost In Translation, with a dash of L.A. Story thrown in. If someone had described Shopgirl like this, then I would have purposefully seen this movie, as these are fairly realistic romantic comedies depicting the fun and despair of May-December relationships.

Steve Martin is playing subdued, as he does in The Spanish Prisoner, and he's quite effective as the emotionally unavailable savior. I found Claire Danes to be nothing short of a revelation here, a performance I didn't know she was able to give. Jason Schwartzman plays the oddball he normally plays, and though it was the weakest part of the story, I think he brought some much needed comic relief.

Sooo... These are a few of my favorite things. There are some movies I'd like to add to this list, and there are even more I've missed that could probably be on it. Hmmm... there are 5 days left in the year!
-Eric

Best Films of 2005 and a Challenge to Eric.

This is a warning shot over the bow--a list of the Best Movies of 2005 According to Me, based on what I've actually seen, is coming soon. First I have to remember what I saw, and that's where this gets tricky. For starters I'll name three, and reveal why later: A History of Violence, Brokeback Mountain, and The Best of Youth.

-Lori

Oh, yeah. The challenge is to list his favorites, of course.

Brokeback Mountain

I saw it Friday night. It is truly beautiful, layered, heartbreaking. You must see it.

-Lori

On DVD: Woody's latest

So, this morning as I'm drinking my usual latte and oj, I decide to quickly watch this DVD I rented last night, pretty sure it wouldn't interfere with my duty to take Ando out for a walk, since it got such generally terrible reviews, it would be a cinch to put it on pause and go about the tasks and activities I had assigned myself for today, which, being generally single, I find weekends tough if I haven't planned them out, but enough about that, that's between me and my non-existent therapist, so, anyway, I push 'play' and start to watch Melinda and Melinda, and guess what, I get engrossed in it, enough to ignore Andy's baleful looks for 100 minutes.

And after it's over, and I've gotten bit in the shin several times by the graying canine for not paying attention to him, I go to MRQE and read Roger Ebert's review, and sure, he likes pretty much anything these days, but he likes it too, and he asks the same question I'd already asked myself, which is, "If this had been done by someone NOT Woody Allen, it would have gotten much better reviews." And it's true. I thought it was light, fun, well-acted, and although it will not change my life, I really enjoyed it.

It's worth a rent--witty dialogue, and it sure makes me wish I lived in Manhattan and attended lots of dinner parties all the time. So, I say, if you like Woody, give it a shot. He's not in it, except as channeled by Will Ferrell, and it's not his best, but sure ain't his worse.

-L

Pride and Pig Testicles

Hmm. I was there with Eric in the theater watching Pride/Pred, and he seemed to take the pig in stride. At least at the time.

I liked it (the film, not the pig, well the pig was fine, but really had such a small walk-on role it was difficult to get attached to him, although I know there are no small parts-just small actors, he did his best, I imagine, maybe he'll get a shot at a role if they do another sequel to Babe), except that I'm getting tired of constant remakes of that particular Austen novel. A few things about this version stand out to me:

1. The depiction of the extremes of the wealth of Darcy and the not-so-much of Elizabeth's family. I don't know if Austen wrote this scene or not, but toward the end of the film Elizabeth wanders around Darcy's house when she passes by with her aunt and uncle and they pay a visit--seeing the mansion he lived in made me realize completely why he might have had doubts about the suitability of Elizabeth's family in the world of Darcy and his ilk. Brenda Blethyn plays Elizabeth's mother, and as you might well imagine, she is annoying as hell. I was horrified to think of Brenda and her daughters giggling and screeching around Darcy's. Horrified, I tell you, and I knew it was only a movie. So I finally understood why Darcy was a mite...standoffish.

2. That actor who plays Darcy...woola. Not only was he smolderingly attractive by the end of the film (maybe I need to get out more), but he was coldly unattractive at the beginning. No, really. He was. I asked myself, seeing him in the opening scenes, how I was ever going to like him and want to see him with Elizabeth. I don't know what he did, but whatever he did, he did it well. I didn't care that much if he was with Elizabeth at the end, but he coulda done a Purple Rose of Cairo at my screening and maybe we could have at least gone out for a drink. Oh, wait. He was born three years before I graduated from high school.

3. Not so crazy about Keira Knightly in this film. Too flightly, and she has really small teeth, and I never noticed that before, and it bugged me. Before you call me superficial, get your own blog.

4. Donald Sutherland: yikes. He plays the longsuffering husband of Brenda and father of Elizabeth and the rest of the gaggle. But please, does he actually ever really act? All I seem to see him do is laugh that predictable laugh of his and raise his eyebrows. He was the weakest link in the film.

So, that's my take. I want to write about the other movies I saw this November, but for now I must go and savor the lastest episode of did I mention the best show on television Veronica Mars? Ah, I thought not.

Until next time, a shout-out to the little border collie wanna-be: La-la-lah!!!!
-Lori

Blog Kong

What we've got here is... failure to communicate.

I can't believe it's been a month since my last post. Wish I could say that I've been too busy living life to be watching movies, but that wouldn't be living life now, would it? I've seen many, and enjoyed most.

As I type, I'm watching one of my favorite Oliver Stone movies, Talk Radio. It's considered an Independent, but it's more polished than most, considering it was made in 1988. The movie is about a talk radio personality, shot mostly in a radio studio during a broadcast. It stars Eric Bogosian, who co-wrote the script, loosely based on Alan Berg, an outspoken radio host who was gunned down by white supremacists, and similar to a Tom Leykis style of presentation. It's verbally combative and over the top, but very engaging. Recommended if you're a fan of talk radio and character studies.

Last night I saw King Kong, the 1933 original starring Fay Wray. I had never seen it, but was quite impressed. My grandma saw it during its original release, when she was only 11 years old and remembers it quite clearly. Kong is quite dated, but not as much as a 72 year old movie should be. The special FX are laughable in some scenes, but always entertaining, even believable in some respects and still packing an emotional punch. This is a movie all film enthusiasts should see -- especially if one is planning on seeing the new Kong coming out in 2 weeks, like myself.

Before blogging off, I must say I recommend seeing 2005's Pride and Prejudice, especially if you're a fan of Jane Austen's work. While it's quite good, it's not my favorite P&P -- 1995's miniseries is a superior version, which is about twice as long as this new one, allowing the full story to unfold. There are characters that get shorted this time around, but this 2005 version ultimately holds its own.

Halfway through the first act, I didn't think I was going to like P&P for 2 reasons: Giggling girls and pig testicles.

The director, Joe Wright, must have been going for a cheap laugh in the early scenes because there was a very blatant quick-shot (almost a double-take) of a large pig's testicles as its lead through the front door. If you ask me, it was completely out of place, drawing me out of the picture. I probably would have forgiven this bizarre shot more quickly, but I'm fairly certain that Jane Austen does not refer to them in her book.

The second thing that slightly bothered me were the annoying giggles of the young Bennet girls. This was probably done intentionally as to accentuate the crude behavior of which is so objectionable to the upper class. The 1995 version was a more refined version, and the casting was much older. The actual age of the Bennet girls in Austen's novel are more on scale with the actors cast in this new P&P, but again it was done for forgivable reasons, though I still found it somewhat bothersome.

As for the lead characters, I liked the ultra-stoic portrayal of Mr. Darcy, but he was too sober at times. Again, I'm used to the 1995 Mr. Darcy, and also found that version to have much better chemistry between Darcy and Lizzie. Which brings me to Keira Knightley's role: I like Keira -- she's a good actress, however, I don't entirely buy her as the well-grounded Elizabeth Bennet. She was a bit too 'girlish' for my tastes.

Wow - reading back over this, it seems I didn't like this Pride and Prejudice much? I don't mean to come across that way because I did really enjoy this movie, and would like to see it again. The cinematography was beautiful, and the overall acting was rewarding. The writers did an excellent job cutting down the material into a bite size morsel, while keeping the flavor entirely Jane Austen.