Fair Game
Fair Game tells the story of Valarie Plame (Naomi Watts) and her husband Joseph Wilson (Sean Penn) – she, a CIA agent and he a former ambassador and expert about the country of Niger where the Bush administration is claiming Iraq is getting uranium from. After Wilson writes a letter to the New York Times’ claiming that the Bush administration is beefing up the facts surrounding the weapons of mass destruction claim in Iraq, his wife is then outed as a CIA agent – a fact that some of her family members had no idea about and, according to the movie, put some Iraqis working for her at risk of not being able to safely escape Iraq. Of course, one can question the veracity of the events in this movie which, of course, is always a problem when movies are based on real events. But judged solely as a movie, I found Fair Game to be very compelling. I came away from the movie feeling indignant about the way the presidency used its power to ruin reputations and distort reality – I guess, Duh, but it is a reminder of what can happen when one, “speaks truth to power.” If you like political movies, like I do, I think you would enjoy Fair Game.
Black Swan
Another cringe worthy movie for 2010. Luckily I had a friend who could fill me in on what was happening when I blocked the screen with my hand. Black Swan tells about a mentally disturbed ballerina Nina played by Natalie Portman who prepares to dance the lead in Swan Lake. Her director Thomas (a dance dictator and the most “fun” of the movie) wants Nina to get in touch with her bad side, the black swan side. Nina needs no help with this since she’s nutty already, as is her mother, by the way. This movie had some interesting plot twists and some cool scenes (especially some of the ending’s dance sequences), but its downfall for me was the movie’s pure humorlessness. Portman’s character is mousy and dour in the beginning of the movie all the way through to the end. She’s just not a very complex or interesting character – other than being just plain balmy.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Monday, December 13, 2010
Love and Other Drugs, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo series
Anne Hathaway and Jake Gyllenhaal fall in love, get nude A LOT, try to cure one of them of Parkinson’s, break up, YOU CAN’T HANDLE MY ILLNESS, and then … well, you know what happens. The unexpected thing about this movie, and no it’s not the Parkinson’s, is the fact that this movie is getting pretty ok reviews and some critics are even touting it as a substantial movie rather than a mediocre romantic comedy, which it is – in my opinion.
I finally saw the last of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo movies. I only read the first book, so I think that made me enjoy no. 2 and 3 more. The first two I saw on Netflix instant play, ok, but the quality was only so-so. I saw the third one in the theater and, as with all movies, that made the experience so much better. The Lisbeth is great in these movies and the stories are intriguing. I’m not a Steig Larson nut, like a lot of people, I know. I’m not really a mystery nut either, so that may explain why I not crazy about these movies, but I believe these movies are worthy versions of the books which is no small feat.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
The Girl who Played with Fire
The Girl who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest
I finally saw the last of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo movies. I only read the first book, so I think that made me enjoy no. 2 and 3 more. The first two I saw on Netflix instant play, ok, but the quality was only so-so. I saw the third one in the theater and, as with all movies, that made the experience so much better. The Lisbeth is great in these movies and the stories are intriguing. I’m not a Steig Larson nut, like a lot of people, I know. I’m not really a mystery nut either, so that may explain why I not crazy about these movies, but I believe these movies are worthy versions of the books which is no small feat.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
The Girl who Played with Fire
The Girl who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Morning Glory
You can’t help but compare Morning Glory to Broadcast News, the latest newsroom movie with Rachel MacAdams and Harrison Ford. Of course, this movie does quite live up to Broadcast News which was about serious news, but focused on Holly Hunter’s character, Jane. But the juxtaposition between serious news and fluff is still at work in Morning Glory, a movie about a slight morning show that rivals the Today show that is losing in the ratings. Rachel McAdams’ character Becky Fuller is given the task of raising the ratings of this silly show. Her co-anchors are played by Dianne Keaton (always funny!) and Harrison Ford, who she persuades to join morning TV even though he has only ever done serious news. The conflict between perky Becky and grave Ford’s character, Mike Pomeroy is one of the funniest things about the movie. Also, I loved the way McAdams bounced through movie with a cheerleader’s glee. I think she’s great in this movie and is what makes the movie worth watching. The downer of the movie is that fluff wins – the movie seems to celebrate the truly stupid of TV. Anyway, Morning Glory’s no Broadcast News, but pretty fun. Will it get added to some of my all time favorite newsroom movies (see sidebar?), probably not.
Favorite Newsroom Movies:
Broadcast News, Who's the devil?
His Girl Friday, Oldie but a goodie
Zodiac, spooky but good
Shattered Glass, answers the question What if I made it up?
Favorite Newsroom Movies:
Broadcast News, Who's the devil?
His Girl Friday, Oldie but a goodie
Zodiac, spooky but good
Shattered Glass, answers the question What if I made it up?
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Waiting for Superman
I had to mull over David Guggenhiem’s (the Inconvenient Truth guy) Waiting for Superman for a while. Waiting for Superman is about our nation’s failing public school system and while it asserts that charter schools are not THE answer, they may be an answer for some. And the other answer is better teachers -- it heavily puts the burden on teacher performance as a way to save our nation’s schools.
As a documentary intended to capture the audience’s attention and persuade them into a point of view, it definitely did that – it really makes you think, argue, wonder but also fear that you are being strongly manipulated. Guggenheim even uses cute, worthy, poor children to create the central dramatic tension of the movie. The resolution of the movie is when we find out if these kids get into some of the successful charter schools and are not forced to return to their squalid, worthless schools.
But is Waiting for Superman a credible source for information about the state of our educational system? I’m not so sure. Yes, there are some terrible schools in a lot of our major cities, and yes, a lot of teachers should be fired who aren’t because of the power of teacher’s unions, but is that alone going to fix the schools? And what percentage of schools need fixing?
Diane Ravitch in the New York Times wrote a scathing article slapping around Waiting for Superman and taking offence at the burden that teachers were given for fixing the problem of schools. Instead, she points out that poverty and other ills are more to blame:
“…research shows that nonschool factors matter even more than teachers. According to University of Washington economist Dan Goldhaber, about 60 percent of achievement is explained by nonschool factors, such as family income. So while teachers are the most important factor within schools, their effects pale in comparison with those of students’ backgrounds, families, and other factors beyond the control of schools and teachers. Teachers can have a profound effect on students, but it would be foolish to believe that teachers alone can undo the damage caused by poverty and its associated burdens.”
Hear, hear! Even as a teacher at a charter school, I feel the weight pressing upon me as if I alone am in charge of fixing all that ails schools. Believe me, we get this pressure enough of the time at school – now we are getting it in the media. And indeed the prevailing mantra about fixing schools is better teachers, better teachers! What’s wrong with those darn teachers? It’s enough to give one heart palpitations.
As a documentary intended to capture the audience’s attention and persuade them into a point of view, it definitely did that – it really makes you think, argue, wonder but also fear that you are being strongly manipulated. Guggenheim even uses cute, worthy, poor children to create the central dramatic tension of the movie. The resolution of the movie is when we find out if these kids get into some of the successful charter schools and are not forced to return to their squalid, worthless schools.
But is Waiting for Superman a credible source for information about the state of our educational system? I’m not so sure. Yes, there are some terrible schools in a lot of our major cities, and yes, a lot of teachers should be fired who aren’t because of the power of teacher’s unions, but is that alone going to fix the schools? And what percentage of schools need fixing?
Diane Ravitch in the New York Times wrote a scathing article slapping around Waiting for Superman and taking offence at the burden that teachers were given for fixing the problem of schools. Instead, she points out that poverty and other ills are more to blame:
“…research shows that nonschool factors matter even more than teachers. According to University of Washington economist Dan Goldhaber, about 60 percent of achievement is explained by nonschool factors, such as family income. So while teachers are the most important factor within schools, their effects pale in comparison with those of students’ backgrounds, families, and other factors beyond the control of schools and teachers. Teachers can have a profound effect on students, but it would be foolish to believe that teachers alone can undo the damage caused by poverty and its associated burdens.”
Hear, hear! Even as a teacher at a charter school, I feel the weight pressing upon me as if I alone am in charge of fixing all that ails schools. Believe me, we get this pressure enough of the time at school – now we are getting it in the media. And indeed the prevailing mantra about fixing schools is better teachers, better teachers! What’s wrong with those darn teachers? It’s enough to give one heart palpitations.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
The Up Series
In 1964, British filmmaker Michael Apted chose an assorted group of English 7-year-olds to film and chronicles their lives every 7 years. Now, those "kids" are 49 years old. I had seen some of these “episodes” many years ago but had never saw the 1964 version and certainly hadn’t seen 49 and UP. So over the last month or so I watched all the whole 7 and Up series. And, believe me, it is fascinating. You can’t wait to put in the next DVD and find out they are doing at 21 or 42. It’s reality TV at its finest. I think Apted had some preconceived ideas what he would reveal about England and the class system when he started the series, and while many of his hypothesis held true (like the upper crust will follow a plan laid out for them with private schools etc. and the East enders will never make it out of dead end jobs), the most fascinating revelations were those “kids” who broke out their mold.
The most successful lives were the ones who possessed a mixture of practicality and drive. And I am defining successful as those who had good marriages or raised happy children or were satisfied with their lives. One of my favorites was this scrappy little ruffian, Tony, who at 21 one said that all that mattered, “was mom and dad and love.” And I don’t want to give away what happens to all of them because that’s where the suspense comes in but Tony was an example of someone who has amazing resources and ambitions and a lot of love. Tony isn’t the only captivating character of the bunch. There’s feisty fellow East Ender Jackie, sad-eyed Paul, compassionate Bruce, and the future physicist Nick who ends up in Madison Wisconsin of all places. And the most, I don’t know the word, maybe heartbreaking or thoughtful, or unpredictable of all the kids is Neil, who at 7 skips across the street with glee.
One thing that is kind of annoying is the repeat of the earlier footage at each stage. I did some skipping of that when I watched it on DVD. I watched the last bit on Netflix instant play, so I was not able to skip ahead. Also, sure, Apted is a manipulative film maker, he presents the “kids” as he sees them, but I like how he occasionally gets called to task by one of his subjects. Jackie really gives him an earful in 49 and Up.
So if you’ve got some time on your hands and want to watch one of the most fascinating documentaries that I’ve ever watched, give The Up series a shot.
The most successful lives were the ones who possessed a mixture of practicality and drive. And I am defining successful as those who had good marriages or raised happy children or were satisfied with their lives. One of my favorites was this scrappy little ruffian, Tony, who at 21 one said that all that mattered, “was mom and dad and love.” And I don’t want to give away what happens to all of them because that’s where the suspense comes in but Tony was an example of someone who has amazing resources and ambitions and a lot of love. Tony isn’t the only captivating character of the bunch. There’s feisty fellow East Ender Jackie, sad-eyed Paul, compassionate Bruce, and the future physicist Nick who ends up in Madison Wisconsin of all places. And the most, I don’t know the word, maybe heartbreaking or thoughtful, or unpredictable of all the kids is Neil, who at 7 skips across the street with glee.
One thing that is kind of annoying is the repeat of the earlier footage at each stage. I did some skipping of that when I watched it on DVD. I watched the last bit on Netflix instant play, so I was not able to skip ahead. Also, sure, Apted is a manipulative film maker, he presents the “kids” as he sees them, but I like how he occasionally gets called to task by one of his subjects. Jackie really gives him an earful in 49 and Up.
So if you’ve got some time on your hands and want to watch one of the most fascinating documentaries that I’ve ever watched, give The Up series a shot.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
The Social Network
After reading great reviews about the Facebook movie, The Social Network, I was eager to see it. Even though I had also read a New Yorker profile of Mark Zuckerberg that claims that the movie distorted some of the facts about Facebook’s inception, I was still persuaded to see the movie. And It was really good.
I liked seeing the world of Harvard and the amazing gifted and privileged students at Harvard and how these youngsters, future leaders of the world, create amazing start up companies in their dorm rooms. It makes you feel old and not so smart, but it is definitely something to see.
I also enjoyed the Winklevoss brothers (two of Zuckerberg’s “victims”)– the young wealthy twins who row crew and act as if there right out of Brideshead Revisited. Plus, Zuckerberg’s friend, Eduardo, who is Facebook’s co-founder, is another reason to see the movie – played by Andrew Garfield – he’s sweet and earnest and a good friend and the perfect contrast to Zuckerberg’s icy wit.
And of course, Zuckerberg, played by Jesse Eisenberg, is great. He is downright mean but very funny throughout the movie, and it is especially pointed when he sheds some of that meanness at the end of the movie. I wondered if the real Zuckerberg is really that funny. The movie starts out as a profile of the brilliant world of Harvard with all its amazing possibilities and ends in the brighter but meaner world of California and throughout it is a great movie.
If interested, like I was, in a fact check of the movie, check out this site.
I liked seeing the world of Harvard and the amazing gifted and privileged students at Harvard and how these youngsters, future leaders of the world, create amazing start up companies in their dorm rooms. It makes you feel old and not so smart, but it is definitely something to see.
I also enjoyed the Winklevoss brothers (two of Zuckerberg’s “victims”)– the young wealthy twins who row crew and act as if there right out of Brideshead Revisited. Plus, Zuckerberg’s friend, Eduardo, who is Facebook’s co-founder, is another reason to see the movie – played by Andrew Garfield – he’s sweet and earnest and a good friend and the perfect contrast to Zuckerberg’s icy wit.
And of course, Zuckerberg, played by Jesse Eisenberg, is great. He is downright mean but very funny throughout the movie, and it is especially pointed when he sheds some of that meanness at the end of the movie. I wondered if the real Zuckerberg is really that funny. The movie starts out as a profile of the brilliant world of Harvard with all its amazing possibilities and ends in the brighter but meaner world of California and throughout it is a great movie.
If interested, like I was, in a fact check of the movie, check out this site.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Temple Grandin and Get Low
I don’t know if others have had the experience of weeping through Temple Grandin, but this movie really got to me. Besides loving Claire Danes and thinking she is amazing in this movie, I cheered on her subject, Temple Grandin, a brilliant autistic woman who overcame her fears and achieved her goals. Because of her intuitive understanding of animals, she able to make cattle lots more compassionate for the cattle. She also has been able to explain what it is like to be autistic. This movie is definitely one that tugs at your heartstrings (which normally I hate in a movie) but the combination of Claire Danes’ great acting and Temple Grandin’s remarkable life, makes this movie well worth watching and a genuinely inspirational story.
I also saw Get Low about a grizzled hermit who emerges from the woods and declares he would like to plan his funeral and attend it. Robert Duvall is the crusty old guy; Bill Murray is the potentially shady funeral director; and Sissy Spacek is the old girlfriend. Holding the movie together and giving it some perspective is the young guy named Buddy played by Lucas Black who works for Murray’s character. For me, his reactions to the events of the movie was the most interesting part. The movie had a few genuine original moments but was mostly pretty forgettable.
I also saw Get Low about a grizzled hermit who emerges from the woods and declares he would like to plan his funeral and attend it. Robert Duvall is the crusty old guy; Bill Murray is the potentially shady funeral director; and Sissy Spacek is the old girlfriend. Holding the movie together and giving it some perspective is the young guy named Buddy played by Lucas Black who works for Murray’s character. For me, his reactions to the events of the movie was the most interesting part. The movie had a few genuine original moments but was mostly pretty forgettable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
