Before You Know It

I wish I could say I'm all better, but I'm not. I spent most of the last week curled up on the couch with no energy and a cough that wouldn't quit. While I'm still pushing myself back to health, the one bright side was that I got to watch a lot of movies and TV.

One of those movies was the documentary, Before You Know It. It follows three senior citizens, all of whom happen to be gay. There's Dennis, a widowed crossdresser who wanders from his home in Florida to a retirement community in Oregon to a gay cruise in search of companionship. There's Robert, an aging drag queen who owns a bar in Texas and is surrounded by friends. There's Ty, a gay rights activist in NYC who seems the most well-adjusted of the three. There is no judgment or even intense scrutiny here. The filmmaker seems content in capturing these men as they truly are, though a distinct melancholy permeates the entire film.

The men couldn't be any more different, and yet, in a lot of ways, their stories are universal. Dennis represents the loneliness that plagues so many senior citizens. All he wants is company, and though he's treated politely by the younger generations, he spends most of the movie a single satellite roving around the world. Robert seems to be happy, with raucous friends who would do anything for him, and yet his health is failing and he suffers from depression as he mourns his dead partner. These are issues that plague many of our older generation. They're not unique to these men just because they're gay. It doesn't take away from how affecting it can be, but at the same time, I couldn't shake the feeling that there were some real missed opportunities. I liked the documentary, but I didn't love it.

But you be the judge. It's streaming on Netflix right now.

Book to Film - The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

A lot of voracious readers I know have problems with film adaptations. They have their own ideas about how the story should play out, or want to see faithful versions in live action, or have very specific ideas about casting. I'm not one of them. Films are my second love, which pushed me to be a film major in college, so for me the two media are very, very different. I have different expectations from each, partially because I'm intimately acquainted with the film process, partially because they satisfy different needs in me.

Take The Hunger Games. I love both the books and the film franchise, but I know people who have problems with both. Some book lovers rebelled against the casting--Jennifer Lawrence, though wonderful, is not the physical type of Katniss at all, just as Josh Hutcherson isn't--while some film lovers preferred the plot choices made onscreen rather than those on the pages. I love both because I'm not trying to compare them to anything, which is where I think a lot of people fail.

But sometimes, movies manage to capture the beauty of the book. Last week, I watched The Diving Bell and the Butterfly for the first time. For those who aren't familiar with it, it's a French movie released in 2007 based on Jean-Dominique Bauby's autobiography of the same title. Bauby was the editor for French Elle when he suffered a stroke at the age of 43 that left him completely paralyzed except for his left eye. His brain was fully functional, putting him in what the doctors called locked-in syndrome. He learned to communicate by spelling out words by blinking his left eye. In fact, he dictated his entire biography like that.

It's an amazing story, but the film was just as magnificent. In order to recreate the feeling of being locked-in, the director, Julian Schnabel, shot the first thirty minutes from the perspective of Bauby, after we wakes up from the coma he was in from the stroke. He can't move, so people move in and out of camera. We hear his internal monologue, but we're as mute as he is when the people around him answer their own questions to him. When the doctor has to sew his right eye shut to keep it from going septic, we're there, in his head, watching darkness fall as it's stitched together.

It's a stunning choice. We don't even see what Bauby looks like until a half hour into the movie. By that point, you're so much a part of him, it's as jarring for us as it is for him when he sees his reflection.

The book is so much about communication and how we do or do not succeed at it that I wondered how a film would capture that quality. It does so in a myriad of ways. Through Bauby's internal monologue. In flashback scenes where we see the pieces of his life before the stroke. In the occasional dream sequence where he tries to recapture some of the sensations that are now denied him. Every single element works.

I can't recommend the book and movie highly enough. Both are beautiful, gut-wrenching pieces of work. They resonate on universal levels without becoming maudlin. Get the book. Watch the movie. You won't be disappointed.

May Movies

My kids and husband have been looking forward to this weekend for months. Why? Because the new Avengers movie is coming out.

Me, I'm just excited because there will finally be movies in the theater I want to see again after a couple very lackluster months.

First up: obviously Avengers: Age of Ultron. That one goes without saying.

But the movie I'm actually most excited about seeing this month is Mad Max: Fury Road. Dystopian future. Tom Hardy. Charlize being badass. The newest trailer for it has me practically giddy.


Also coming out on that day is the other May release my daughter has been excited about: Pitch Perfect 2. She knows the first one backward and forward, she adores Anna Kendrick and Rebel Wilson, and she has made me promise we'll go see it as soon as I get back from RT. I don't have a problem with that. I liked the first movie, too.

What movies are you looking forward to this month?

Theo James

Let's get one thing out of the way. I'm not a fan of the Divergent books. I read them for my daughter, who asked me to before we saw the first movie. Though I do occasionally fall for one, YA books in general aren't really my thing, so I have a bit of a distance when it comes to this series. The first movie was okay, but I'll be 100% honest. I'm totally committed to seeing Insurgent next week. For only one reason.

Theo James.

Seriously. This guy makes it all worth it for me.

And on that note...have a great weekend, everyone!

The Reader

Do you ever watch a movie and then ask yourself, "Why did I wait so long to see this?" That was me and The Reader. I didn't know much about the story other that it had an crossgeneration love affair in it, and that it was historical of some sort. Other than that, the details eluded me.

I finished the movie in tears. In fact, I watched the last forty-five minutes with tears streaming down my face.

On the surface, it's about Hanna, a 36 y/o tram worker, who begins an affair with 15 y/o Michael. They stumble across each other's lives - she helps him get home on the eve of his falling ill with scarlet fever - and the affair only lasts for a single summer before she disappears from his life. She makes a request that he read to her before they have sex, which he does so gladly. He's pretty broken when he discovers she's gone, but like any resilient youth, gets on with his life.

It jumps to years later when he's a law student and discovers Hanna is on trial for crimes committed during the war (before they had their affair). I won't spoil the story for anyone who hasn't seen it. What's important is that this is the point where the many, many layers to it become apparent.

These are not perfect people. They are deeply flawed human beings struggling to survive in the ways they know best. One of the books that Michael reads to Hanna that becomes pivotal to the plot is the Chekhov short story, "The Lady with the Little Dog." It wasn't chosen willy-nilly, just like the fact that the very first book he ever reads to her is Homer's The Odyssey (it's more than just the fact that it's a journey, it's the return home after a city's destruction). There's a line in Chekov's story that completely sums up what The Reader is about.

"Every personal existence was upheld by a secret."

Secrets and how people respond to them, live with them, is what defines The Reader. Both leads make choices that lead to how they act later on in life, and it's those journeys that are so utterly compelling to watch. Winslet is stunning to behold. She doesn't actually have a lot of lines for being the lead. What makes her so mesmerizing is what she does physically. The way she holds herself. The minute expressions that slip through the mask she struggles to keep in place. Playing opposite that are the more mercurial young Michael (portrayed by a superb David Kross) and the equally enigmatic older Michael (portrayed by the inimitable Ralph Fiennes). It's impossible to look away, even when you can see the pain that is coming for everybody.

It's not an easy movie, by any means. The ending is ambiguous. The characters are far from black or white. But it's one that's going to linger with me for a very long time.

Jason Momoa as Aquaman

I wonder if there's going to be an insurgence of aquatic shapeshifters in romance. Considering how good Jason Momoa makes this look, it wouldn't surprise me. Because, oh my god, YUM.

Have a great weekend, everyone!

Oscar reactions

Who watched the Oscars last night? I had a small get-together - way too much food - to watch everything. It was my best friend's first time watching it, believe it or not. She likes movies, but had never bothered with the Oscars before, and had done as poorly on watching the movies this year as I did.

This was not my best year picking the winners by a long shot.

Honestly, I'm boggled Richard Linklater didn't get best director. Boggled. He had such a difficult task, creating Boyhood over a dozen years when so many things could've gone wrong, that I just don't get how he could've been looked over. I didn't see Birdman winning, either, though in hindsight, it's the kind of movie the Academy loves. Redmayne was always a contender, but I'd gambled on them giving it to Michael Keaton for sentimentality and as a token nod to Birdman. Oops.

Also? I was a little bit down by Neil Patrick Harris. The opening was fantastic, but I found a lot of the punny bits in between not very funny. The magic prediction didn't work for me, either, because let's face it, it relied on the tidbits being terribly clever (which most of them weren't).

Things I did enjoy?  Meryl Streep fist-pumping at the end of Patricia Arquette's speech was fantastic. "Glory" wasn't my pick for best song, but I did enjoy the performance of it. And I liked the message of Graham Moore's speech about staying weird.

But I had more fun hanging with my friends this year than I did actually watching the ceremony. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Somehow, I even managed to still win our Oscar pool, but that's only because nobody else saw any of it coming, either.

Gimme Firth

Even before the movie/casting was announced, I was never, ever going to see Fifty Shades of Grey. I didn't like the book, I didn't like the message it conveyed, and the media coverage labeling it "mommy porn" like sexuality in any form is something to be mocked or didn't actually exist prior to the book's release infuriated me. So I had enough baggage about this to know I wouldn't be able to watch the movie with any sense of objectivity.

But this was Valentine's Day weekend. I wanted to see something at the movies with my husband. In the end, it wasn't a difficult choice. 

We went and saw Kingsman: The Secret Service. 

I like Jamie Dornan (I have ever since he showed up on season one of Once Upon a Time), but there is nobody like Colin Firth. I adore him. He's talented, he's sexy, he's charming. Plus, he's the kind of actor who appeals to both men and women. My husband loves him, too. It was really a no-brainer.

If you haven't heard anything about it, Kingsman looks like a spy movie on the surface. Colin Firth plays "Galahad," a member of a super secret organization headed by "Arthur" played by Michael Caine. It's a throwback to the over-the-top silliness and style of early Bond movies combined with modern fun ala Kickass (which the makers of this also did) and Hot Fuzz. Alongside Firth is newcomer Taron Egerton, playing Eggsy, the son of the man who sacrificed himself to save Firth. Eggsy is a lower-class London young man who lands himself in trouble and calls the number Firth left him as a boy to help get him out of it. Firth sponsors him to become the newest member of their team, and then we get to watch Eggsy slowly discover himself as he undergoes the testing. During all this, megalomaniac/technological entrepreneur Samuel L. Jackson is kidnapping important people around the world who don't want to fall in line with whatever nefarious plan he's concocting.

That doesn't do it justice.

It's over the top. It's violent. It's slick. It's FUN. Firth plays the role straight, and yet, it's that sincerity that grounds the comic-book roots and presentation (it's based on a comic of the same name) and makes it so entertaining. Watching Firth take out a group of bullies in a pub without wrinkling his suit or breaking a sweat was something I didn't even know I needed, and yet it gave it to me in spades. It has a great supporting cast, from Mark Strong as Merlin (and he's not playing a bad guy, yay!) to Mark Hamill as the scientist that triggers interest in what Jackson is doing. 

It won't be to everybody's taste, but it was everything I could've asked for in a Valentine's date movie.

Learning from The Duchess

I always thought history wasn't my bag. It was the only class in junior high I ever got a C in, because the teacher bored me so much. I went from an A to a C+ in six weeks, and struggled to finish with a B. High school was better, thank god. What a difference a good teacher can make! But still, I always dreaded history, and found the vast majority of it dry as toast. As a result, I didn't study it unless:

• The era interested me to some degree. 19th century western America falls into that category.
• I needed to for a story.
• I saw something in a movie or book that intrigued me.

That means, I know next to nothing about most English history. As a general observation, most historical romances set in England, whether it's Regency, Victorian, Elizabethan, or something else, have to either be written by an author I really, really, really trust, or be so much fun that I don't care about the setting.

All of this is my way of explaining that I had no idea what I was setting myself up for when I sat down to watch The Duchess last night.

For those who don't know what it is, it was a 2008 film starring Keira Knightley and Ralph Fiennes, about Georgiana Cavendish, the Duchess of Devonshire, and her rather dramatic life. It won Best Costume Design at the Oscars, as well as garnering an Art Direction nomination, and since I'm in an Oscar mood lately - and was on my own so couldn't sit and watch one of this year's nominees because I'd promised my husband we'd see them together - it seemed to fit the bill.

And it did, for the first two-thirds of the movie. The Duchess is an exuberant personality, married very young to a much older, colder man in desperate need of a male heir. She bears two daughters, is forced to raise another of his illegitimate daughters as her own, and puts up with his many affairs, until he starts an affair with her best friend (played by Hayley Atwell, who isn't nearly as interesting here as she is in Agent Carter). That's when the tides turn. She's furious and hurt and devastated at losing the one thing that was hers, as well as being humiliated by the move.

It only goes downhill from there.

I finished the film pissed. It's based on a true story, so considering the time period, you can figure out why. But I'll admit, I wanted the escapism. I wanted emotional retribution for Fiennes' condescending attitude and tight-fisted manipulation of his marriage and wife. I wanted what I perceived to be a happy ending. I didn't get it. It's not a tragic ending, thank god, but it certainly wasn't emotionally fulfilling. A good part of that is likely due to the fact that beyond my utter loathing for the kind of man she was married to, it felt like Fiennes phoned the performance in. Atwell didn't convince me, either. Maybe I should've guessed something would be up when Knightley, who I usually find tolerable but hardly great, gave the best performance of the bunch.

I would hardly deem it a waste of time, though. The costumes are sumptuous, and until that awful moment when I realized it wasn't going to end the way I wanted it, I was really enjoying myself. Plus, the movie interested me enough to pursue more information on the period and the players, which doesn't happen all that often for British history. But most importantly, it made me grateful for the time I live in. While there are a whole host of rights issues that still have to be sorted out, I have choices the Duchess could only dream about. 

In a world where I'm often frustrated by the ignorance and small-mindedness too many display, a history lesson like this one is well worth it.

Oscar Nominations

Oscar nominations for 2015 are out, and I have a lot of movies I need to see, including some I'd been hoping to avoid like American Sniper. I'm not a big fan of military movies, to be honest. I end up only watching them when they get nominated for something.

In fact, I haven't seen many at all of the major nominated films. One will get remedied soon - The Imitation Game - but others I missed when they were here because of being too busy - Birdman and The Theory of Everything. I didn't even see Gone Girl because I didn't want to watch the movie before I read the book (because I'm probably the last person in the country who hasn't and I'm not spoiled on the ending). The only movie I've seen of any of the acting categories is Into the Woods.

Thank goodness I can watch at least a couple online very soon. I'll have to be spoiled for the book when I watch Gone Girl, and Boyhood is also available. I'll have to hope that our local theater gets some of the nominees back for a second viewing as they've done in recent years. That might be the only way I get more than a few crossed off before the winners are announced.

Anything you're sorry you missed? I didn't see enough this past year to really merit being annoyed by a snub right now, though one thing is for sure, I'm going to do everything I can to see more movies in 2015.

Christmas and musicals

This past weekend, we got our Christmas decorations up, which generated a lot of talk about what our holiday is going to entail this year. See, my family is scattered throughout the US. Getting together at holidays doesn't happen. My husband's family is in the UK. His parents came to spend Christmas with us every year after we moved to CA in 2004, but when my mother-in-law passed away in 2012, things changed a bit. This year, my father-in-law is staying home, which means it's just the four of us to celebrate the day. For the first time ever, we're considering going to see a movie on Christmas Day. What could compel us to do that? Into the Woods.

It's not just me. My kids know the music back to front. I've taken them to see it live. I'm proud of the fact that I've passed along my love of musical theater to them.

Of course, it helps that I have a ton of soundtracks, some from more than one production. The one nearest to my heart is Les Miserables. It was the very first professional musical I saw live. It was spring break of 1988. I was a freshman in college, and I spent ten days in New York City. In that time period, I saw John Malkovich and Joan Allen in Burn This, Kiri Te Kenawa in Cosi Fan Tutte at the Met, and Les Miserables on Broadway. All three were once in a lifetime experiences, but it was Les Miz that tore me apart. We had cheap student seats. For less than $20, we had a seat in the last two rows in the very top and back of the theater, but from that vantage, I got to see the full effect of the choreography. The voices carried all the way to us without fail, and as someone who didn't know the story (I read the book afterward), it was heart wrenching. What young girl hasn't felt like Eponine at some point in her lives? I was ready to join in the revolution myself. It was just the first time for me. I've seen it in four major American cities, in London, and it is the one show I own in the most incarnations. I have the original London cast, the original Broadway cast, the complete symphonic, and the 10th anniversary all on CD. I also own the 25th anniversary on DVD. So...yeah. That one's my favorite.

There is no way I can list all the individual shows I own. I probably own most of Stephen Sondheim's work. As much as I love Les Miz, the original Broadway cast performing the first act of Sunday in the Park of George might be as close to perfect theater as I have ever seen/heard. I mean, come on. Mandy Patinkin in one of his greatest roles. A heartbreaking Bernadette Peters. An incredible supporting cast that includes Charles Kimbrough, Dana Ivey, Brent Spiner, and Robert Westenberg. Its commentary on the creative process as well as how brilliantly it mirrored pointillism in the score is masterful to say the least.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed about Into the Woods. I ended up being disappointed by the screen adaptation of Les Miz, so I was holding out on getting excited. Then the trailers started popping up, and it looks and sounds great.

I just have to work out my issue with spending Christmas afternoon sitting in a theater.

Mockingjay, Part 1

I went and saw the premiere of Mockingjay, Part 1 last night. If you want to remain unspoiled, don't read on.

*
*
*

Ready?

When it comes to the books, Mockingjay is my least favorite of the trilogy. It's got nothing to do with the fact that it's bleakest - I love that it's not afraid to go to dark places - but that it's structurally the weakest of the three. It always felt like two different stories, and don't even get me started on how rushed the ending was (I love the author to death for her characterizations, but man, does she suck at endings).

So when they announced the book was getting split into two movies, I was thrilled. I didn't care that it was likely happening because of greed - Twilight and Harry Potter started the whole thing by making money this way - because it meant that if they were smart, they'd split the book up the way I thought it should've been in the first place.

Thank god I was right.

This movie is all about the construction of the mockingjay. Katniss is ever the reluctant hero, never more so than in the first half of Mockingjay. She's been broken by the second games, betrayed by the people she trusted the most, and thrust into the center of attention she loathes. That's where Jennifer Lawrence shines. This was probably the most emotionally resonant her character has been since the series started. It's only the prospect of saving Peeta that gets her to even consider agreeing to their plans for her, and thus the driving thrust of this movie is begun.

It's all about saving Peeta for her. Sure, there's the getting roused to anger by the reality of what Snow is doing to the districts, but ultimately, she is driven by her need to save Peeta. She failed to do that in the games and it haunts her, because she has always believed he deserved it more than anyone.

So while it's got its actiony moments, this is a much more somber, dramatic film than its predecessors. It succeeds in inciting the audience during the bombing of District 8 scenes - and the line I always felt was clunky in the book about if they burn, Snow burns, too is delivered with such conviction and pain by Lawrence that I was ready to follow her, too - but it also proves to resonate during the quiet moments, like the haunting Hanging Tree montage when she goes back to film in District 12.

One of the biggest changes from the book lies in Effie. She doesn't appear in the third book at all, but here, she's a political refugee brought in to be Katniss's stylist/escort while filming her propos. She provides confirmation of what happened to Cinna that we have to infer in the book, but more appropriately, she's a little bit of humorous light amidst the darkness (not to lose fact that she's also wonderful at the tragic bits).

Is it perfect? Definitely not. I always felt District 13 was a lot more claustrophobic than how it's portrayed in the film, and the tragedy of a broken Finnick is almost completely erased by keeping him in only a few scenes and jumping ahead past his problems. (He's still doing all his knots, though, which only served to remind me constantly of the missed opportunity there.) 

But it worked for me, and I think it's going to work for a lot of fans of the books (the audience erupted in applause when it was over). Just don't expect closure. The games aren't over yet.

This is me today

Mockingjay, Part 1 opens tonight, so this is me today:

The New Into the Woods Trailer

Because the film version of Les Miserables disappointed me, I've been pretty jaded about the same thing happening to Into the Woods. I knew Meryl sings, but I kind of hated her in Mamma Mia, and I wasn't completely sold on some of the casting. And then this extended trailer came out yesterday. And now we're all pretty sure we're going to go see it on Christmas Day.

First peek at Mad Max

As a Tom Hardy fangirl, I was geeked beyond belief when I saw the trailer of Mad Max that premiered at ComicCon. Plus Charlize being badass? How will I not love this?

Snowpiercer

On Friday night, my husband and I went to see Snowpiercer. My choice because he didn't mind. We had very different reactions to it.

For those who haven't heard of it, don't be surprised. When it came out two weeks ago, it only released on eight screens. It's expanded slightly in the time since, and somehow ended up in our local theater. It's a sci-fi set in the future where man has attempted to fix global warming and instead frozen the world, killing off most of the population. The few survivors exist on a perpetually moving train that circles the world. Chris Evans plays a man who's lived half his life on the train in the tail end, who is trying to plan a revolution to take over the train. The cast includes Jamie Bell, Octavia Spencer, and John Hurt. I liked it. My husband really didn't.

His issue related mostly to the continuity errors and absurdity of the situation. His scientific brain thought it was too over the top and couldn't get past it to get immersed in the world-building or characters. We spent almost an hour talking about it afterward, which actually hasn't happened with a movie for a long time. Honestly, I take that as a good thing, because it started a dialogue which I really can't say about a lot of movies.

The film is slow-paced at first, establishing the world and circumstances in which they live. The internal design is excellent and immersive. You get sucked into the cramped world of the train right away, gritty, claustrophobic, and desperate. Soon enough, however, the revolution begins, led by a surprisingly strong Chris Evans with Jamie Bell as the young Edgar who adores him at his side. The action sequences are well-choreographed and utterly brutal, but as each gate opens to reveal the next train, the sense of "What the hell is going to happen next?" gets stronger. This was the absurd my husband couldn't get past, and yet for me, it lent an air of unpredictability that helped keep me engaged when my logical brain caught continuity errors.

Performances are memorable, to say the least. Tilda Swinton plays the liaison Mason who moves between the cattle and first classes. She is bizarre and over the top, but Swinton keeps her palatable when I think a lesser actress would have us gritting our teeth in anticipation of her getting off screen faster. Bell is appropriately earnest, Hurt brings gravitas, Spencer is the earthy maternal figure to give a face of humanity to the fight, but oddly enough, it's Chris Evans who anchors it all together. His performance, while not perfect (his big speech near the end had me unfortunately giggling throughout because he just couldn't sell the truly awful dialogue to me), is realistic and sympathetic, without being simple. He is as flawed and unpredictable as the train upon which they live, and it's because of him that I was willing to go along with the story to the places it went.

The movie doesn't want to be pigeon-holed into a single category. It's sci-fi dystopia, but also political parable, and the ending totally plays into that. I won't spoil it, but it was another major talking point with us. 

Do I recommend it? Yes, for not being your completely Hollywood sci-fi dystopian movie. It's visually stunning for the most part and will get you thinking. Plus, Chris Evans. And I say that as someone who has never been overly impressed with him before. As an extra, there are a TON of film and literary references in the movie. For people who like finding that kind of thing, it's a smorgasbord.

I don't think it's the best film of the year as so many reviewers are espousing, but definitely worth it.

The Fault in Our Stars

My daughter left for her summer course yesterday. Before she left, she wanted us to see The Fault in Our Stars together, but that required me to read it first. So that's what I did last week.

I was unspoiled for it, but I suspected in the first chapter what would happen, so when I was proved right, I was prepared for it. My daughter expected me to bawl my eyes out, but that just didn't happen as I was reading. It did, however, happen on the last page with the bit about the eulogy. It wasn't the gut-wrenching experience she kept telling me was going to happen, but it was still a good book.

I didn't expect any of that to happen for the movie, and it didn't. Not that the movie wasn't good, but in all honesty, I just don't think Ansel Elgort is that good of an actor. I didn't particularly care for him in Divergent, either, and when his character is so pivotal, it meant I was emotionally disconnected from most of the movie. I don't find him very cute, either, so I can't even be superficial in appreciating him. Shailene Woodley was pretty good, and I was all right that they Hollywood-ized the ending. It still had tremendous impact and made Van Houten more palatable.

The scenes that did get to me? Laura Dern's. She played the mom, so it makes perfect sense that her anguish over her daughter's illness, when I have my own daughter sitting next to me, would resonate the strongest. The dad's pretty throwaway, which is a shame because I loved that he was portrayed as a man who could cry in the book, but Dern more than made up for it.

So I would still recommend the movie. It's pretty well done. My problems with Ansel are just my bugaboos, and not one person I've talked to about him or this movie has the same issue. The book is still better, though.

And reading it let me cross off the "book with a blue cover" space on my reading bingo challenge, which was proving to be a bear. :)

Any Day Now

Do you ever use that "let me pick a movie for you" feature on Netflix? Get the Max from Netflix, that's what it is. I can never get that damn jingle out of my head after I hear it once.

Last night, I was tired and my husband was working, so I used Max. I didn't want to have to choose. The problem with Max is that most choices are nothing I'd be interested in. I've spent fifteen minutes going through it before and then just turned the TV off because everything it suggested was awful. It's had a couple winners, though, so I never give up. It's how I got introduced to Continuum, for instance. How can I hate it after that?

Well, last night, it didn't want me to go through the whole rating/selection process. It wanted me to trust its pick and go for it. My daughter was sitting on the couch with me and kept egging me on to go for it, so I finally caved.

What came up was a movie called Any Day Now.

It's a small indie that came out in 2012, starring Alan Cumming as a drag performer/aspiring singer in late 70s West Hollywood. Rudy's life is on the dismal side - he can't make rent, and his neighbor is a druggie who has no interest in her son Marco, a teenaged boy with Down Syndrome. Rudy hooks up with Paul, a shy attorney he meets at the club played by Garret Dillahunt. When his neighbor gets arrested, Rudy steps in to help Marco, going to Paul first, then having to yield to Family Services. Marco runs away from his foster home and when Rudy finds him on the street, he takes him home with him. Paul helps him circumvent Family Services again by going straight to the mother in jail to get temporary custody, then even more by offering his home to them to make Rudy look more stable in front of the judge.

The movie turns into Rudy and Paul's quest to build a family, then to adopt Marco when their lives are threatened by prejudice. This takes place in 1979. You can imagine how well that goes. By two-thirds of the way through the movie, I was sobbing. I was a real mess when the end credits rolled.

It's not a perfect film by any means. The wigs are truly awful and distracting, and the beginning where Rudy and Paul are supposedly falling in love is rushed and underwritten. But the drama focusing on Marco is painfully real, and it was impossible for me not to get wrapped up in it all. Cumming is over the top and vulnerable, and Dillahunt is understated but just as vulnerable. It's the boy who plays Marco who is the most heartbreaking, though. His scenes are minimal but expertly played and timed.

Make no mistake. This movie is nowhere near feel good. Consider the times and the subject matter. But it was worth it for me, even though I was a wreck when it was over.

Maleficent

I'm going to be in a minority, but I didn't love Maleficent. I enjoyed myself for the most part, and I'd still recommend it, but...yeah, no, didn't love it.

If you don't want to be spoiled, click away now. Otherwise...

. 

. 

.

First, the pluses.

1. Visuals. It is absolutely STUNNING. Everything about the way it looks takes your breath away. There will be tech nominations come Oscar time, for sure.
2. Angelina Jolie. Easily the strongest performance in the whole movie. By miles and miles. She nailed the regal, eerie stillness to the role that was in the cartoon. Because of that, all of her emoting is done in her eyes, and it's fantastic.

The reasons I didn't love it.

1. Sharlto Copley. He plays Stefan, for those haven't seen the movie yet. HATED his performance. From almost the moment he was introduced. And it's not that I hated his character. I never believed his character, so hating it was impossible. But I never bought for a second that this weasely twerp could be either the young lover or the formidable king. Every time he came onscreen, I would find myself wondering why they cast him, who they could've cast differently, internally whining about how awful he was. And don't get me started on how Maleficent could ever fall for him in the first place (yes, yes, I've already had to listen to my family's arguments about how sheltered she was, how much she needed his attention, etc. I still don't buy it.)
2. All the logic holes. I know it's a Disney movie. I know it's a fairy tale. But because I wasn't emotionally engaged half the time (every time Stefan was onscreen), my mind would go straight to holes in the plot. Like how in hell Stefan remained king for so long when it was clear he hadn't neutralized Maleficent at all and in fact made her stronger because of her anger. Or the back and forth nature of Maleficent's powers.
3. Imelda Staunton. I love the actress, but honestly, you really can't put her in pink anymore. Or have her character defined by the color pink. Everybody hates Umbridge, and with her playing such an important role in such a popular series, it's next to impossible to avoid comparisons.
4. The lack of power in the ending. It's far too obvious, and I couldn't help rolling my eyes when I realized what they were going for. Yes, it's nice to redefine true love, but so close on the heels of Frozen, it lost its impact for me.

Still, for the visuals and Jolie alone, people should see it. It's important that movies that female leads have strong box offices, too, so that we can continue to break down some of the walls in Hollywood. And odds are, you'll like it more than I did. Literally every person I've talked to since seeing it has liked it more. Some of these bugaboos could be completely on me.

Into the Wild

I've been watching movies off my Oscar list in recent weeks. Last night's offering was Into the Wild (2007, nominations for best supporting actor for Hal Holbrook and film editing). I will admit, I watched it mostly because yesterday was the last day it would be available for streaming on Netflix. I'd never read the book and knew almost nothing about it except the movie's blurb.

I was stunned by how much I loved it.

For those not in the know, it's based on Jon Krakauer's book of the same name, about a college graduate who gives up everything to live off the grid for the most part. He travels around for two years, on the search for his own personal truth and happiness, and while there are arguments about whether he's suicidal, stupid, or a modern day Thoreau, the movie portrays him as infinitely more complex than that.

For reasons really only known to him, he throws away a promising future, gets rid of most of his worldly possessions, and disappears from his life to wander around the country. Along the way, he runs into a wide variety of characters who all help contribute to molding the boy into a man as he works toward his ultimate goal to go to Alaska. There's a gentle joy to these encounters, some working better than others like the pair of aging hippies who have been there/done that and try to respect his choice while still imparting their own wisdom from having walked some of the same roads. There's the lonely old man who takes him in as a surrogate grandson, who can see exactly how doomed the young man is and is helpless to do anything to stop him. (The scene where Hal Holbrook agrees to wait on something they've talked about until after the young man has returned from Alaska made me sob, it was that powerful.)

The movie is about the value of finding happiness, but that it's not always in the ways you expect. The cinematography is stunning, the performances stellar. Watching it left me with my own questions and the overwhelming desire to find them for myself, while still recognizing that it's never as easy as it seems. It's not a fast watch (2 1/2 hours that relies on moments and vistas rather than action or humor), nor is it an easy one (his decisions are often frustrating and narrow), but it was well worth it in the end.