tomhr

This movie is hilarious, every second. The more you know about the Hunger Games book trilogy, and the 2012 Hunger Games movie, the more you will laugh. The actors whom they got to impersonate Effie Trinket and Seneca Crane look like the originals.

Suzanne Collins set out to write a trilogy about what war was like to live through. She accomplished this. She has written a trilogy that is almost always entertaining, but is always thought-provoking. I admire _Mockingjay_ (the novel), but I hated reading it. Basically, in _Mockingjay_, all the characters whom we love wind up as either head cases or corpses. There is nothing remotely resembling a "happily ever after."

"Mockingjay Part 2" (the movie) simplifies the novel's story (as it must), but it also gets rid of the sadness, gloom, and PTSD from the book. Collins's message is still there; but the movie is entertaining, not grim.

Special applause to Jen. There are several scenes in the movie where another character talks and Katniss silently reacts, and JLaw is able to make Katniss's feelings clear, without saying a word. She should get an Oscar nomination for this movie. (She won't, because of AMPAS biases.)

Between Nazi occupation and decades of Soviet occupation, the Estonians had no weapons with which to resist the Soviet Army. Yet they didn't quit.

Two incidents from the movie got me very emotional-- The first was when a crowd from the Russian ethnic minority (who acted like aristocrats within Soviet Estonia and the Estonians should kiss their necks) stormed a government building. This Russian mob was intent on going in and grabbing the leaders of the Estonia-Independence movement. Then an Estonian man got on the radio, throngs of Estonians came, and suddenly the Russians found themselves completely surrounded. Both sides were expecting fighting to break out, and both sides knew that the Soviet Army would use this as an excuse to attack Estonians. But then the Estonian crowd pulled apart, forming a road, and the Russians were able to leave unmolested.

The second incident that moved me deeply was when Soviet troops moved into Estonia, and they were trying to attack a TV tower. Estonians showed up, linking arms, and faced the Russian tanks. The Estonians knew that if the tanks rolled, or the Russians' machine guns fired, that they would die painfully -- and yet they filled up the road to the TV tower, and stared into the faces of the Russian tankmen. That is BRAVE.

This is a feel-good movie, and it's all 100 percent true. See it, and tell your friends to rent it.

Full disclosure: I am not an alcoholic (I drink less than a six-pack a year), but someone I'm close to, has been sober in AA for many years. It has frustrated me intensely that I have not been able to understand this part of her life.

Now I have a much better idea.

I found the movie to be honest. Sometimes Bill Wilson is a hero, sometimes he's a jerk, and sometimes he's a disgusting, drunken bum. In one AA scene, one of the men at the meeting acts sober, but he has the shabby clothes of a wino (which told me that he was very new into the program), and I remember being surprised that nobody making the movie tried to "glamorize" his wardrobe. And the first time that Bill Wilson meets "Dr. Bob," it's pretty obvious that the good doctor is suffering from a hangover! Also, Bill's friend Ebby, who actually leads Bill to sobriety, falls off the wagon and lies about it, in a heartbreaking scene. Like I said, this movie is honest.

An article about Anne Hathaway mentioned this movie, and so I Netflixed it. The dialog was witty and eloquent, and every word chosen was perfect. I had no trouble believing that this independent, articulate woman would behave this way and speak this way. And I like that the guy who won her, seduced her (mentally) with a book! (Tom Jones). This is a much better movie than I expected, and Anne Hathaway (whom I've only seen in comedies ere now) did much better acting than I expected. I'm told that a lot of the script is based on speculation (because there isn't that much known fact about Jane Austen's life), but as an engrossing story, the script works superbly.

I expected this movie to show the American (Todd) as a jerk. Well, he certainly had his jerkish moments, but he was portrayed as a decent guy underneath. I expected this movie to show an American stereotype of India, and the American has to ride in and save the day. But instead of this movie's "India" being full of American clichés, the screenplay was filled with all sorts of little things that only a native or a long-time visitor would know about. I know nothing about India, and so I can't judge the screenplay's accuracy, but I spotted no bias or hidden agenda.

When I was a teenager, my family was stationed in Japan, and this movie brought back memories. When I was a teen, there was a moment when I "got it" that the Japanese people and their culture were worthy of respect, even though the Japanese "think weird." I'm glad that they showed a similar moment for Todd (the hamburger-brander scene).

And the movie was hilarious, on many different levels. The Holi scenes were _inspired_.

Plan Nine From Outer Space -- awful writing; Reefer Madness -- ditto; Brown Bunny -- ditto

Plan Nine From Outer Space -- awful directing; Reefer Madness -- ditto; Brown Bunny -- ditto

Plan Nine From Outer Space -- awful acting; Reefer Madness -- ditto; Brown Bunny -- ditto

Plan Nine From Outer Space -- unintentionally funny; Reefer Madness -- unintentionally funny; Brown Bunny -- sad and pathetic; even the you-know-what scene was pathetic to watch

Conclusion: Invite friends over, and all of you watch Plan Nine From Outer Space, or Reefer Madness. Invite friends to see Brown Bunny only if you want them never to speak to you again.

I'm an atheist. I favor evolution and secular humanism being taught in parochial schools, big-breasted cheerleaders being forced into homosexual marriages, convicted pedophiles teaching elementary-school sex-ed classes, and televangelists' wives (and girlfriends) being subjected to mandatory abortion when they get pregnant.

(Just kidding.)

My girlfriend (Christian) and I (see above) caught this movie on TBS today. I was expecting writing and acting that was heartfelt but amateurish. I found a story that gripped me quickly and moved me more than I would like to admit.

It's a movie I enjoyed, and could even recommend, regardless of the fact that it's Christian. "Six" is better than the two "Left Behind" movies, and loads better than the NBC travesty "Revelations."

My only objection to the story is that all the Christians in it are goody-two-shoes: they pray, they read Scripture (or even write it on walls), they witness, they listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit, they are not in the slightest tempted to take the Mark, and they walk jubilant to their guillotines. I've met maybe five people like that in my whole life; whereas churches are filled with phonies who, given the choice of The Mark Or The Axe, would sell out in a heartbeat.

The basic idea of the story: Sometime in the future (calendar years are never mentioned), the Antichrist (aka the Leader) has come to power. There is no mention that the Rapture happened, or else that it will happen later.

Anyway, those who take the Mark become brainwashed drones of the Community. (How do we know that they're brainwashed by the Antichrist? Nobody in the Community mentions that he's Republican. :-) ) Those who refuse to take the Mark are thrown into prison for 21 days. If during that time they choose to receive the Mark, they are tagged, "indoctrinated," and released -- but otherwise, at the end of 21 days they are beheaded on a platform with six side-by-side guillotines.

Tom Newton is a godless man who has not taken the Mark, who is still in love with his wife Jessica (now an evil drone). Tom Newton is also a former cop. He is tortured (in a scene that is guaranteed to creep out any hetero male) into agreeing to whack a Christian prophet, Elijah Cohen. To do that, Newton has to be thrown into the Markless prison, then to engineer an escape along with one of Elijah Cohen's followers, who presumably will take Newton to Cohen.

The prison is bursting with Christians, and every inch of every cell has Bible verses written on them. Newton is scornful of the Christians.

(Now, at this point, let me address those Bible verses. Other commentators here have found it unbelievable that the anti-Christian prison guards would allow such writings in the cells. I had no problem with that -- the guards are programmed by their "holy implants," and anyone who knows computers will tell you that programmers don't think of everything.)

Besides Newton, also thrown in the prison are two young men who were caught driving a stolen Porsche.

These three men must make a hard choice: take the Mark, which means Assimilation plus burning in hell for all eternity; refuse the Mark, and be beheaded in a state of sin; or accept Jesus and become a Tribulation Martyr.

Don't think that all three men accept Jesus. The screenwriter surprised me at the end.

On the "making of" bonus feature for this movie, Mr. Spielberg says that this is the only movie he committed to making because he "had the time to make it," not because it was a movie that spoke to his heart; Spielberg also admitted that he never had a personal vision for this film.

Well, it shows.

Spielberg had his newbie writers, Bob Gale and Bob Zemeckis ("the two Bobs") shoehorn gag after gag into the screenplay. The two Bobs obeyed of course, probably being awestruck by Spielberg as well as being keenly aware of their lack of clout in Hollywood. When Spielberg nabbed John Belushi, immensely popular at the time, the two Bobs were ordered to give JB scenes, give him scenes!

Steven Spielberg's first indication that the movie was a disaster, according to "The Making Of," was at the film premiere in Dallas. Sitting in the back, he noticed audience members covering their ears halfway through the movie. He also noticed studio executives huddled together with the "hangdog" look they get when they know they're going to have to write off a loser.

Now in Millennium Three, people no longer swoon at the fact that John Belushi is in the movie. For me, Belushi brings the movie to a complete halt and so I fast-forward through all his scenes, an option not available to that poor Dallas preview audience.

My biggest complaint with the movie is that I lost the narrative thread -- who is the movie supposed to be about? Is it about the kid who wants to win the dance contest? Is it about General Stillwell and his horny aide? Is the movie about John Belushi's psycho pilot (as the movie posters would have you believe)?

What Spielberg should have done is make one movie about the dancer boy and a same-time, different-place sequel with General Stillwell, and cut Belushi out of the movie entirely.

Mr. Spielberg, instead of cutting into your free time to make _1941_, you should've taken a nice long beach vacation. And since _Jaws_ had come out recently, you would've had the whole beach to yourself.

He's pushed around by his dotty mother, by his alleged girlfriend Gretchen, by the screenwriter Stanley, the director Bo, and by the leading man played by Michael Caine. There isn't one time Alda's character stands up for himself and sticks to it. His scenes with Gretchen are 100 percent blab and 0 percent chemistry. At the end of the movie, after he has just learned that Gretchen had been sleeping with Michael Caine, she tells him that she's willing to marry him for eight months, "with an option for four more." Rather than telling her to get lost, he is overjoyed and hugs her.

The movie has sharp things to say about the Hollywood movie-making process. But that for me was overshadowed by my annoyance at Alda's character. Only twice in the movie does he grow a pair, but at the end of the story he is back to being a wimp again.

My girlfriend Carolyn has an opinion even harsher than I -- she rates "Sweet Liberty" even lower than _Mummy's Kiss_, a soft-porn film with Ed Woods-quality bad writing.

Score: 3 out of 10 from me; 1/10 from Carolyn.

If you're looking for porn, just pop this tape OUT of your VCR right now! However, if you can look at a nude in an art museum without wondering how many times the model shagged the artist, you'll enjoy this film.

The video is a series of short pieces of very buff nude people. The models don't speak, and the backgrounds are solid colors, with no decorations to let you know where the models are. So these nudes are, if not truly in limbo, certainly no place you can describe.

In each short piece, the model is/models are performing some G-rated activity that shows off their body: a gymnast man works out on the hanging rings, two women hold in front of them a gauzy cloth that is being blown by an off-camera fan, a blonde runs a fluorescent tube down the length of her body, etc.

It's one of my favorite tapes; I find it relaxing.

I don't live in Hollywood, never have -- and God willing, never will. I usually don't like Hollywood films about Hollywood (such as "The Player"), finding them too "insider." But I saw this film and loved it.

First of all, Niccol wrote a brilliant screenplay. The two movies within the movie, "Sunrise, Sunset" and "Eternity Forever" would actually work as art films. But mainly this is a screwball comedy about a man trying to keep a very big secret, and who has to go do more and more outlandish things to keep that secret. Meanwhile, there is the romantic subplot about his relationship with his ex-wife (who also is his boss).

We folks out in Popcornland really get peeved at Hollywood types sometimes. I'm thinking of Jennifer Lopez at a London hotel, allegedly demanding that the staff move all her luggage out of a certain room into a different one because her ex-boyfriend Puff Daddy supposedly had once stayed in the room. I'm thinking of Catherine Zeta-Jones allegedly telling the court that one million GB pounds wasn't a lot of money for her bridal pictures. The over-the-top, diva antics of Winona Ryder's character at the start of this movie thus are both barbed exaggerations and also sadly believable.

Speaking of Winona Ryder's character, she has a later scene where she reads for a part in "Eternity Forever." Winona's whole scene is understated and rings true. Bravo, Winona!

I found Al Pacino believable as Viktor Taransky the arty director; he made me forget all the gangster/cop roles he used to play.

Rachel Roberts (Simone) should also be commended for rising to the acting challenges of this movie, both in the art-movie sequences and in the green-screen (black-screen) VFX work.

Any comedy has plot holes -- get over it. The only p.h. that bothered me in this picture was the 5.25-inch floppy in the disk drive.

Two good, ironic lines from this movie: 1) Someone slamming Taransky, "He's not that good an actor," when we know that Simone's acting is Taransky's acting, in drag. 2) Simone to a television interviewer: "Why I like working with Viktor Taransky is that his films aren't all about special effects." Simone herself is the mother of all special effects.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS

This overstuffed made-for-TV movie wanted everybody in the show to be nicey-nice. The a-hole English teacher in the Brian DePalma movie is replaced by a sympathetic biology teacher. The a-hole principal in the 1976 version now still gets Carrie's name wrong, but he intercedes on Carrie's behalf in a confrontation with Chris Hartigen's father. Even Chris Hartigen, Carrie's enemy, has an attack of conscience when she's about to dump the pig blood -- what's up with that? Only the supporting characters (Chris's father, her boy friend Billy, her best friend, and the best friend's boyfriend) are truly evil. When Carrie got the pig blood dumped on her, only Chris's snobby friends laughed. Even Carrie is supposed to be entirely sympathetic -- she killed 234 promgoers, plus numberless people in the town as she blew it up, but this all happened during a stress-induced seizure.

The scenes between Margaret and Carrie White didn't convince me at all. It's as if the actresses filmed their scenes separately, and a film editor tried to magick them into the same scene.

There is rampant sexism in the ending. Had Carietta White been nerd Mortimer White, who had responded to the pig-blood humiliation by whipping out an Uzi, such a character would have been seen as evil as Hannibal Lecter. But this movie makes Carrie a heroine, and lets her live to escape the consequences of her rampage. King's novel was essentially a classical tragedy in modern setting; he understood that Carrie overreacted to the pig blood and so she deserved to die. Brian DePalma got that, but NBC is clueless.

The only way in which the 2002 version improves over the 1976 movie is in the special effects.

This is a movie that entertains both children and their parents. But news flash: It also makes them think afterward. And using all the "sugar" that Disney can manufacture, it helps children in the audience to swallow some hard truths about adult life.

**SPOILERS BELOW**

I'm not proud to say it, but I will: I have been fired before. And whether I deserved it or not, I felt awful. And so I was captivated by what happened to Mr. Banks.

At the beginning of the film, George W. Banks is a pompous buffoon, who doesn't listen to his wife and who ignores his children. Almost always such buffoons get a pie in the face in the last ten minutes of a movie. But this movie does the unexpected: it redeems George W.

When he was told to report to the bank at 9 p.m., he knew what that meant. But he didn't make excuses, or try to shift the blame, either during that tense phone call or in person in the board room. And he walked to the bank, without wife or children or even strangers to comfort him (the streets were empty), and yet Banks didn't run away. Did anyone but me notice, he even climbed the cathedral steps to give Michael's tuppence to the Bird Lady, but she too was gone? Buffoon he might have been earlier, but while walking to that 9 p.m. meeting, Banks was a powerhouse of a man.

Meanwhile, Mary Poppins was planting ideas: in George's head that he should spend time with his children, before their childhoods ended; and Mary taught the children that their father might have problems he doesn't feel free to talk about. Amid all the dancing penguins, these are ideas that real families can take out of the theater and use.

I loved "Mary Poppins" when I was ten, the year it came out. I saw it for the second time yesterday, at forty-eight. It's still an exceptional film, perfect but for DVD's awful "Cockney" accent. Fact is, I enjoyed it more this second time, because I found much more to appreciate.

Two other comments about the movie itself: 1) DVD when playing Old Dawes did some great things with physical comedy, as good as anything Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton, or Charlie Chaplin could have invented.

2) Julie Andrews in this movie was, I heartily agree, a stone fox.

If you want to get nitpicky, you can find logical flaws in "Alien." But even the most fervent picker of nits would still get frightened and shocked in Alien's cafeteria scene. Hitchcock's "The Birds" has a ridiculous premise, if you stop to think about it -- but when you saw the blackbirds gathering on the jungle gym, I'm sure you felt fear and foreboding. Well, I won't give you the laundry list, but "The Sixth Sense" has its story faults as well.

But that doesn't change the fact that this is a brilliant film. Night invents a new language of film, using the color red. The trick ending caught me by surprise, I didn't see it coming. But even if that part of the movie had never been written in, the movie still bats 1.000. The scary parts are even scarier because they're underplayed. I also loved the very human stories of the boy Cole, his mother Lynn, and his counselor Malcolm.

Megan is your movie-cliche sweet, innocent girl. Except she's so innocent she doesn't know that other girls don't dislike kissing football players, or that other cheerleaders don't enjoy watching -- other cheerleaders. Megan is an original character, folks.

And she's real. She goes from naive woman-child at the beginning to maturity and self-awareness at the end, and every moment of the film rang true with her. Always I felt, "She's expressing just what she should be expressing at this moment, and doing just what she should be doing." Jamie Babbit wrote Megan right, and Natasha Lyonne played Megan right.

Clea DuVall played Graham in a likewise believable character arc: in-your-face at the beginning, vulnerable at the end. More kudos for Jamie Babbit, for Graham.

Biggest surprise: RuPaul playing a straight man. He was convincing!

Part of the comedy was in the set/costume design. The boys wore electric-blue clothes, slept in electric-blue rooms, worked on a blue car with blue tools and played football with an electric-blue pigskin. Likewise, everything girlish was Pepto Bismal pink.

A few months ago I rented another lesbian-coming-of-age comedy, "It's In the Water." "Cheerleader" is five times better: a sweet, funny, and original story.

"I learned a lot about myself that day. I learned that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely..." -- line from LP#9

Some of the movie plot is by-the-numbers. But the best moments come when the screenwriter asks, "What would you do when you knew that, no matter what you said and no matter what you did, you couldn't miss?"

The answer is "go wild," in the case of Tate Donovan's character. Donovan gets the funniest scenes in the movie.

In the case of Sandra Bullock's character, there's a moment where she's talking to a man in his cubicle and he looks so confused as he falls in love with her. (Could have something to do with the fact that he's listening to The Village People's "YMCA" during the scene.)

Mary Mara's character puts her own spin on what to do with a love potion, and her actions complicate the plot and create some hilarious moments.