Mu Ji Mama Productions

Well.

That was not worth the effort I took to watch it, now was it? Even with Ed Norton ass.

( Running Commentary. Trying something new. )

Rating: 4 out of 5 bullet wounds.

So, I am one of the legions of converted to Iron Man.

( Spoilers ahoy. )

There's a lot more that will probably be over at neenie instead, because it has to do with RP characters. Make comments, not war.

Unless you're Tony.

It's been a long time, I know, I know. But I have an adorable little review about the latest Jackie Chan/Jet Li opus, Forbidden Kingdom.

My brother went to go see this movie with his girlfriend the day before it was inflicted on me, and I asked him what he thought of it.

Brother: "If you go into the movie expecting it to be bad, you might actually enjoy it."

He was right, more or less. I found some of the images and technical aspects very intriguing -- the Witch and her crazy whip-hair, Sparrow and her ... crazy whip-hair. Etc. Hair. Women. Thing. I believe I am getting predictable, but whatever.

I'm a dumbass, actually, and this is how I could tell the movie didn't entirely suck -- I was watching it way too superficially to get that Jet Li was playing the Monkey King, and what that insinuated.

And the double character Jackie Chan was playing. Completely missed that too. I'm slow like that.

So, conclusion -- Prettily done, but don't go in hoping for too much. Definitely the 2-dollar theater if you can get away with it.

OK, OK, so I was alive during the 60's and remember many of the jokes that are referenced in this movie but OMG I don't remember anyone quite as offbeat as Austin. I have to admit that I did reasonably enjoy the movie. The takeoffs of James Bond, The Man from U.N.C.L.E. and even Get Smart! are absolutely hysterical and the sight gags were cute. I often wondered though if I were really as naive as Austin seems to be in relation to the world around him. Great movie for costumes and such and you have to love the flag "knickers" as I do remember those being a fad for a time. Thank goodness I no longer have to wear that much polyester! I have definitely seen worse and the movie was certainly entertaining. Have trouble believing it spawned sequels though.

Frank Capra struck semi-gold with this one. One can hardly imagine a better Mortimer than Cary Grant. This movie was an almost straight adaptation from the stage play and the characters were familiar to most of the moviegoers. The campy humor, the crazy relatives, and the unlikely coincidences add to the film's appeal. Peter Lorre as an inept plastic surgeon is a riot and his being able to escape from the police is justified. I was in this play as Martha and remember it well. I will never be able to look at a bottle of elderberry wine without laughing and anyone who sees this movie should remember the "flounder" look that Grant is able to make when he is confused or frustrated. At the end of WWII, this movie fit in with the times--kooky and diverting.

So I was an adult in the 80's and I never knew anyone who was that self-absorbed and meaningless. I am sure that they were out there--just not in my universe. At any rate, the movie basically was too long, too wordy and too graphic. And, I suppose it is just me, but at the end of the movie, I felt cheated. Patrick Bateman should have been shot or committed. The ending reminded me of the end of ST. ELSEWHERE--a fool's dream and a nightmare blended together. Did he or didn't he? I am sure that he had bad dreams and thought about all of the violence but one can't be sure if he did all those murders or not. The one--basically the only--interesting part of the movie was Christian Bale's very buff physique. Other than that, at the end of the movie, I didn't care what happened to any of them.

Again with me never having read the book. Welcome to the joys of movie blogging, folks.

I like talking about the thing in or about a movie that I'm still thinking about days later. I think the thing that struck me (like an axe? XD I'm so not funny) the most was Bateman's last lines:

There are no more barriers to cross. All I have in common with the uncontrollable and the insane, the vicious and the evil, all the mayhem I have caused and my utter indifference toward it I have now surpassed. My pain is constant and sharp and I do not hope for a better world for anyone, in fact I want my pain to be inflicted on others. I want no one to escape, but even after admitting this there is no catharsis, my punishment continues to elude me and I gain no deeper knowledge of myself; no new knowledge can be extracted from my telling. This confession has meant nothing.

How goddamn scary is that? More so than the murder and the sex and the 'Feed me a stray cat' and the whatever else is "This confession has meant nothing." As human beings we generally want to help and do whatever will make us feel sated or comfortable or 'whole'. The concept that this urge could be a fallacy, that Patrick Batemen came to terms with what he had done and had wanted to do and will continue to do and that in and of itself was not enough of a driving force to get him to stop makes him more or less anti-human in the general way of the world. Everyone's favorite pastime of a maxim, 'Face your fears and your problems and solve them head-on', no longer applies and because of that, Bateman is just...Bateman. Nothing will change, because he has no control over himself (thereby stating that the only person that can change you is you, etc).

Oddly enough, I find that my frustrations at the end of Atonement and my reactions to this movie are very similar. Take that as you will.

( Cut for fairness, seeing as how it was made sometime in the past year. )

Everyone has several movies that he/she can watch over and over and still enjoy--this is one of mine. I really, really, really like this movie. I suppose that it has to do with a combination of factors. 1. I used to watch the TV series all the time when I was young. 2. I like Dan Ackroyd especially when he plays uptight characters. 3. There are so many nuances and puns that one never tires of them. Of course, I am an English person and enjoy the verbal banter. Watching this movie last night for the who-knows-how-manieth time, I was once again reminded that a movie does not have to be great cinema to be entertaining. Sgt. Friday, Grandma Monday, Connie Swahl, Pep Strebeck and the others are all true to type and play off of the other types to perfection. The villains--Christopher Plummer, Dabney Coleman, Jack O'Halloran--all play to type also. Swarmy, slightly seedy and criminally dumb. From the beginning of the movie, you know that in the end right will triumph and that is really all that matters. The best line in the movie is not a spoken word but a raised eyebrow at the end by Sgt. Friday. What more needs to be said?

Certainly no one expects to go to the sequel of a highly popular movie and get something radically different from the first and this movie is no exception. However, this movie was just as entertaining and, in some ways, more so than the first. Of course, Nicholas Cage is. . .well enough about him. He is still the driving force and central character of the movie although he is not quite the kook that he was in the first. The other characters--Mom, Dad, love interest, best bud, villain, police, etc.--are much more human and we can understand the family dynamics of the group better. Once again, they are off on a quest for something that most people believe is only myth. Ben doesn't have all the answers this time, however, and must call on his mother for help. Of course, most of us thought his mother was dead but we now discover that she and Dad were divorced and that she is a pre-Columbian language expert. Fits in, right? The search takes the group all over the world and fits in a presidential kidnapping and a trek into the Badlands of the Dakotas. The bad guy turns out to be not so bad even though he would kill to get what he wants. Don't go to see this movie wanting anything that requires thinking--pure entertainment and a good way to spend a couple of hours being amused. By the way, you really don't notice the passing of time which, for me, is always a good sign. And did I forget to mention--page 47.

...Re: below.

I PROTEST.

...Later. *goes to sleep*

So, OK, I am NOT--repeat NOT--a big Michael Keaton fan. I think that the reason is this movie. Beetlejuice is one of those movies that makes me wonder why it is considered a classic. Once you get past the "suspension of disbelief" idea of ghosts and people living together, not much else makes this movie worth the time alloted to see it. Sure, there are portions that are funny--Winona Ryder dancing suspended in mid-air; Alec Baldwin and Geena Davis reinhabiting their nuptial clothing; Robert Goulet as a swarmy capitalist with an eye for the bizarre--all of these are entertaining. The movie as a whole is blah. I somehow wish that Michael Keaton had had a breakout role in something that was more serious. How can you possibly look at him ever again without that bizarre makeup and not think of the head-spinning, weird-talking "bio-exorcist?" The movie is mostly entertaining for its use of well-known people (and new people) in roles that run counter to type. I suppose that there are worse ways to spend an hour or so but I so wish that this film had been AFTER Batman not before.

The Little Princess (1939) starring Shirley Temple was exactly what the public expected when they went to the movies—a starring role for the darling child star of the era complete with songs, dance and overly sentimental plotline.  Based upon the book of the same name, the movie was a perfect vehicle for the child star.  She plays the persistently chipper young girl, beloved by her father and put upon by the vicissitudes of life in late Victorian Britain.  His supposed death and her continuous search for him in spite of all odds struck a chord with the audiences of the period who were just coming to the realization that child labor was not a good thing and that poverty should not be a punishable offense.  To today’s audiences, the dances and dream sequence ballet number seem to be off-line but, in context, they represent the same elements of cinema that also show up in such films as Carousel and Oklahoma. [Mu Ji: Yeah, those movies are weird too.]  Remember that the special effects of the time had to be much more concrete than they do now; so dances and dream sequences were often the only way directors had to convey the emotions that we now give vent to with voiceovers and computer generated effects.  Temple’s character is the one invariably cheery character in an otherwise gloomy setting of a boarding school for girls.  [Mu Ji: COME ON, Lavinia the bitch was awesome.] The British concept of class distinction holds up in the movie as those with money were allowed to treat the underclasses with contempt without fear of reprisal.  One of the best scenes for American audiences was toward the end of the movie when Sara dumps coal dust on Lavinia.  While such a scene would have been rare in real life, for audiences of the day, it was a “yeah” moment.  The whole boarding school/orphanage concept was such a part of the British society that it has been a part of their literature for many years.  Of course, the audience wants Sara to find her father (they knew she would from the beginning) and they want to see the “evildoers” punished.  Unfortunately, this particular version does not do the later.  Modern audiences would leave feeling incomplete because the bad guys don’t get their comeuppance.  In 1939, audiences left the theaters happy that, once again, Shirley Temple had survived with her chipperness intact. [Mu Ji: *eyerolls* Praise be.]

Mu Ji’s only other comment? “Holy crap, Shirley Temple was an emotive little person.  I get why she was so popular now. This was my first movie I ever saw with her, and good gorram she’s so expressive and powerful and so tiny.  Good flick, even though Queen Victoria was creepy.”

Steph here, with ‘A Perfect World’. Any commentary by other people, and therefore incorrect, will be to follow.

Synopsis from the back of my Netflix envelope:

‘Film icons from two generations meet when fugitive Butch Haynes (Kevin Costner) takes a young boy hostage and goes on the lam across the Lone Star state, hotly pursued by police chief Red Garnett (Clint Eastwood, who also directed) and criminologist Sally Gerber (Laura Dern). Robbery, murder and a haunting final confrontation are the lynchpins of a remarkable movie that takes a close look at the true nature of violence. [Rated PG-13 – 2 hrs. 18 mins. – 1993.]’

Selected running commentary (cut for length and spoilers):



This movie was one of a very small category of films for me -- that category being a film that I had a lot of difficulty enjoying while watching it, but a day/a week/several weeks later I look back at it and go "...Hunh" and appreciate what the storytellers were trying to do. While there is a lot to say about the plot, it's not the most interesting part -- it's the generational development in the three age groups represented (Red, Butch and Phillip). All three characters are as good as they're ever going to get - Red is an ace at his job, even though he has 'a lot of sleepless nights' thinking about his responsibility in his profession and as a figure of authority to others. Butch has escaped from prison to attempt what he's been dreaming about for so long, even if he has no sure-fire way of getting there. Phillip, as a child, is as good as he's going to get as well -- through his experiences with Butch, he steps outside the world of his strict upbringing and spends time with (so far as we know) the only adult male that's cared about him directly. The comparison between Red and Butch in this respect is astonishing; Red directly cared for Butch but could only act upon it while Butch was growing up in an indirect way. Butch's direct influence on Phillip's life could then arguably be seen as the better route to travel in a child's life, however screwed up the actual course of events was that led both adult and child in that direction.

It's slow-paced, sure. Phillip runs around in underoos for the vast majority of the film, sure. In between screaming 'GET THE KID SOME PANTS' and wondering when you're going to get a chance to look at something that isn't Texas brushland, though, you get a picture you weren't expecting. That's why this, even though it was the first movie we reviewed, took me until now to write.

I liked it. A lot.

Just don't tell Mom. See below.

SCENE: Bedroom, laptop on desk, nighttime.

STEPH MU JI, in pajamas, sits trying to think of something terribly clever to start off her new movie journal with. MOM, downstairs, is most likely making faces at an NCIS repeat.

STEPH: I give up. Hi, everyone - welcome to Sous-titres, a joint film-review project I started with my mother a month or so ago. First came an actual job, then came Netflix. This journal is the probably-inevitable result.

If it was indeed evitable, I apologize in advance.

As far as format goes, most reviews will be tagged by title, who reviewed it (Mom, Mu Ji or both), and once we actually agree on a cogent rating system, we'll tag those as such as well. Until then, sit back and stare at Rex Harrison. Isn't he nice? Mmm.

---

Notes: There will be no extensive lj-cuts for spoilers. If you're reading this, you realize at least some of the lesser details of a plot will be discussed. We're not going to go all RIVER IS MADE OF CHOCOLATE* at you of course, but please no "ZOMG WHY DID YOU SAY THAT?!?!?"

Also? Most of these movies have been out for decades. Get with the times, people.

*If you're reading this and have never seen Serenity, you are not my friend. Just sayin'.