Greetings,
Hey, remember in Jaws 3-D when a shark snuck into Sea World and created havoc amongst the visitors and employees? Well, what kind of movie would we have if said employees let the dangerous animals into the park to be really close to the people? Jurassic World, everyone.
Okay, I know I'm a little late to the party in reviewing this, but I had to wait before seeing it because of reasons. So, since that happened, I got the opportunity to hear about what some other reviewers were saying. Quite a mixed bag of opinions, but pretty much everyone agrees that, of all for Jurassic movies, this is the second best. The best, of course, being the first. And I have to say, I certainly agree.
Jurassic World basically answered that lingering question that I, and probably a lot of people, had after seeing Jurassic Park. That question is "Wow, what would have happened if this intended park had actually been able to open?" It seems that, for better or worse, we got our answer. It also seems that this is more of a straight sequel to the first movie, not really acknowledging The Lost World or Jurassic Park 3. That's fine with me. I mean, this movie really does pay a lot of homage to Jurassic Park. There are several callbacks to it in some subtle and not so subtle ways. The thing is, they did that kind of thing in the other two sequels as well, but I think it works better here. Maybe because of the 22 year gap we have, which makes all those things more nostalgic. I liked that aspect.
Okay, basic plot. In the midst of some family turmoil, two young boys Zach and Gray, played by Nick Robinson and Ty Simpkins, are sent off by their parents, played by Judy Greer and Andy Buckley, to visit their Aunt Claire, played by Bryce Dallas Howard, who is the operation's manager at Jurassic World. And breathe. That would be one story line. The other revolves around Owen Grady, played by Chris Pratt, who is a Velociraptor trainer. Oh, yeah, you heard me right on that one. I really liked this character. In fact, despite what I'm going to tell you later about the reason I went to see this movie, I'd say that Owen Grady ended up being my most favorite person in this thing. That's a feat, because he would have been easy to screw up as a character. You'd think he would be nothing but the token tough guy, but he was more than that. And he was also more than the "raptor whisperer". In fact, he didn't seem to be trying to CONTROL them at all. The reason why he has a rapport with the dinosaurs is because he respects their power and does not see them merely as a commodity. He will have much to do with expressing the "message" of this movie, but with less "uh"s as it was in our Goldblum-y past.
Besides those guys, we've got some more characters. Yay. There's a guy who also works with the raptors names Barry, played by Omar Sy. I don't think I've ever seen him in anything, but I like him. Irrfan Khan plays Simon Masrani, the CEO of Jurassic World, who I think is kind of like the John Hammond of the cast, struggling with what exactly is the right thing to do in some treacherous situations. We've got Jake Johnson and Lauren Lapkus as Lowery and Vivian, two workers in the control room who serve as some pretty decent comic relief. B.D. Wong shows up again as Dr. Wu, in a substantially bigger role, because...first movie? But let's get the reason why I really wanted to see this - Vincent D'Onofrio! He plays Vic Hoskins, a security guy who I didn't figure out was that until a while in. But is he only a security guy? Hmmm... Look, no spoilers here, but his role becomes obvious, in some capacity, after about two minutes. The good news is that it does build each time he's there, and he will make you think about some things.
So, all in all, pretty strong cast, I'd say. But I'd like to address some other things.
First, when the trailer came out and we started to get some more info about the film, one of my favorite internet reviewers, Confused Matthew, did a video about it, and it turned out we had a lot of the same hopes and concerns. So, I'll talk about that a bit. One thing that could have been a pro or a con was this huge bunch of people that were obviously going to be in this. It could have been a downside because when I think "cast of thousands" I think Roland Emerich and...yeah. But it worked here. Mostly because they wisely split up the time where we mostly were with smaller groups of main characters. So, we could keep track and get invested in fewer people, but we were, every so often, reminded that there were thousands of people in danger. Good job. Another great thing was the "down time" of everyone just enjoying the wonder of these long thought extinct creatures. Just like Movie #1. A not so great thing was the ethical questions raised by said Movie #1 being changed to a question where the answer is probably going to be a collective "No. That's a bad idea". I speak of the questions about us bringing back dinosaurs period versus making hybrids of animals we can barely understand. However, as things progressed, I could see that they were trying to raise a different ethical question concerning what those dinosaurs can be used for, which was a good replacement for what came before. And finally, CGI. Less is more, people. LESS IS MORE!
Also, whoever was trying to say this movie is sexist is an idiot. Oh, no! Claire is an organized Type-A person and Owen is a bit more carefree. Clearly, that means whoever made this film hates women. WHAT! It's called having different characters with different personalities who work off each other so we won't be bored. Remember THAT thing that used to happen in movies? If you ask me, having her start out this way made it so she had a better arc and more development than any other character. And sorry that she's wearing heels, another thing that a certain group was apparently up in arms about, but what did you expect? Claire basically had a job that was akin to working in an office, and she did not know she would be trudging through the jungle, running for her life. If she had known, I'm sure she would have dressed appropriately. Just relax and be concerned about things that actually matter in the world. Alright, I'm done with this nonsense. Let's go back to happy thoughts.
Okay, that was a lot writing from me. I will finish by highly recommending that you see this. In the theater if you can. If you're like me who got to see Jurassic Park on the big screen, it will bring back some great memories. If not, see it anyway, because this is the sequel that we have been waiting for and the one that I think Jurassic Park really deserved.
Love and full moons,
Becky the Writer
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Sunday, June 21, 2015
The Wrecking Crew - Documentary Review
Greetings,
Okay, I don't know what has been going on the last few years, but someone decided that a boat load of under-appreciated people need to get some recognition. We got Muscle Shoals, 20 Feet From Stardom and now a tribute to the people who played on just about every record many, MANY years, The Wrecking Crew. And since I live in such a crappy place that refuses to show that apparently brilliant film about Brian Wilson, someone who regularly used said people, I'll have to talk about this.
The Wrecking Crew is a 2008 documentary that was not released in the U.S. until 2015. What makes you think I know why? Anyway, it is the project of a man named Denny Tedesco. His father was Tommy Tedesco, one of the greatest session guitarists of all time and a member of the titular Wrecking Crew. Okay, for those of you who don't know about that, shame on you, but I will tell you about it.
As I hinted at earlier, the Wrecking Crew was a group of musicians who played on albums for pretty much every artist in the sixties and into the seventies. Maybe even the fifties, I don't know. You see, because before The Beatles, bands usually didn't play their own music on their albums. They called in what are known as session musicians, because they played during a recording session. Get it! And they were used mostly by Phil Spector as his "Wall of Sound". Point is, if you've heard any music from that era, then you have heard the musical stylings of those amazing players.
And who exactly are those players? Well, there are too many to even name, but some notable ones are the aforementioned Tommy Tedesco, Hal Blaine, Leon Russell, Carol Kane, and even Glen Campbell was a member for awhile, before he hit it big on his own. Just to name a few. If you're wondering why it is you've never heard of these people, even if you or your parents or possibly grandparents may have owned the records, it's because they were pretty much never listed on the credits. Like EVER! Because we couldn't have the public at large knowing that they were playing on every hit song that was on the radio. Which they were. Um...ignorance is bliss and all that? Frankly, even I didn't know about them in detail until I saw that Beach Boys miniseries that John Stamos produced back in 2000, which prompted me to do some research of my own. Basically, a lot of these players got the shaft in so many areas. Keeping it classy as always, music industry. Say what you will about Beyonce using 397 (approx.) people are her album. At least, she probably had the decency to name them all in the liner notes. Or whatever the digital download equivalent to liner notes is. Moving on.
So, what exactly prompted Denny Tedesco to start making this documentary? Well, after his dad was diagnosed with cancer, he decided that he needed to get a record of the story of all these unsung heroes in music. About time, I'd say. And he does a great job of doing so. We get some telling interviews from a ton of Wrecking Crew members and a lot of the artists who worked with them. Honestly, all those artists that have been getting the acclaim and respect throughout the years are the ones who are holding all of those unknown musicians with the highest regard. As well they should, because the fact that all of THEIR names aren't just as familiar to the masses is kind of a crime. Thankfully, we have this documentary to fill us in.
If you are a music lover, and if you like to know the stories that are rarely told, I suggest that you see The Wrecking Crew. It gives a well-informed account of the goings on of those days, and of course, we get some timeless and stunning music. What can be better than that?
Love and full moons,
Becky the Writer
Okay, I don't know what has been going on the last few years, but someone decided that a boat load of under-appreciated people need to get some recognition. We got Muscle Shoals, 20 Feet From Stardom and now a tribute to the people who played on just about every record many, MANY years, The Wrecking Crew. And since I live in such a crappy place that refuses to show that apparently brilliant film about Brian Wilson, someone who regularly used said people, I'll have to talk about this.
The Wrecking Crew is a 2008 documentary that was not released in the U.S. until 2015. What makes you think I know why? Anyway, it is the project of a man named Denny Tedesco. His father was Tommy Tedesco, one of the greatest session guitarists of all time and a member of the titular Wrecking Crew. Okay, for those of you who don't know about that, shame on you, but I will tell you about it.
As I hinted at earlier, the Wrecking Crew was a group of musicians who played on albums for pretty much every artist in the sixties and into the seventies. Maybe even the fifties, I don't know. You see, because before The Beatles, bands usually didn't play their own music on their albums. They called in what are known as session musicians, because they played during a recording session. Get it! And they were used mostly by Phil Spector as his "Wall of Sound". Point is, if you've heard any music from that era, then you have heard the musical stylings of those amazing players.
And who exactly are those players? Well, there are too many to even name, but some notable ones are the aforementioned Tommy Tedesco, Hal Blaine, Leon Russell, Carol Kane, and even Glen Campbell was a member for awhile, before he hit it big on his own. Just to name a few. If you're wondering why it is you've never heard of these people, even if you or your parents or possibly grandparents may have owned the records, it's because they were pretty much never listed on the credits. Like EVER! Because we couldn't have the public at large knowing that they were playing on every hit song that was on the radio. Which they were. Um...ignorance is bliss and all that? Frankly, even I didn't know about them in detail until I saw that Beach Boys miniseries that John Stamos produced back in 2000, which prompted me to do some research of my own. Basically, a lot of these players got the shaft in so many areas. Keeping it classy as always, music industry. Say what you will about Beyonce using 397 (approx.) people are her album. At least, she probably had the decency to name them all in the liner notes. Or whatever the digital download equivalent to liner notes is. Moving on.
So, what exactly prompted Denny Tedesco to start making this documentary? Well, after his dad was diagnosed with cancer, he decided that he needed to get a record of the story of all these unsung heroes in music. About time, I'd say. And he does a great job of doing so. We get some telling interviews from a ton of Wrecking Crew members and a lot of the artists who worked with them. Honestly, all those artists that have been getting the acclaim and respect throughout the years are the ones who are holding all of those unknown musicians with the highest regard. As well they should, because the fact that all of THEIR names aren't just as familiar to the masses is kind of a crime. Thankfully, we have this documentary to fill us in.
If you are a music lover, and if you like to know the stories that are rarely told, I suggest that you see The Wrecking Crew. It gives a well-informed account of the goings on of those days, and of course, we get some timeless and stunning music. What can be better than that?
Love and full moons,
Becky the Writer
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Wild - Movie Review
Greetings,
I've always been on the fence about the movie Into the Wild. I've never been sure if I liked it or not. I mean, it has its moments, mostly thanks to Vince Vaughn and Hal Holbrook, but then, it has some problems for me. There's the Sean Penn factor for one thing, which always knocks off points in my book. Sorry. Not a fan. And I'm also not a fan of some of the cast. Again, even the lead, I'm not sure about all the time. Worst of all, I hate the way that the guy who was the subject of this film has become a folk hero of sorts, to the point where people have emulated him, nearly to a fault. Look, you wanna live off the land, go for it. But doing it exactly as he did is evidently not the best idea. So, where can I get a movie similar to that with a lead character who I can get behind a bit more? Oh, hello, Wild.
That's right. The 2014 film Wild is basically a looking-glass land reflection of Into the Wild, in my opinion anyway. And I really like this better than that. Maybe it's because I'm a girl.
Anyway, Wild is based on the 2012 memoir of Cheryl Strayed, played by Reese Witherspoon, and her life-changing journey. That journey, by the way, is both metaphorical and quite literal since it is about her quest to hike the Pacific Crest Trail, which is, I kid you not, nearly 2700 miles long. Whaaaa...? I mean, I've walked to the store. I've walked around the mall. I've even walked around Disney World and New York City. But...WOW! Okay, yeah, she didn't walk it all in one day. In fact, it took her over three months, but still. And this is apparently a thing that many people have done. They even have these little stops along the trail where people can write things down, which is an ongoing part of the film. One of my favorites actually.
So, is that it? Just a woman walking around outside? Of course not! On her journey, she meets many interesting people who help her or maybe harm her, and much of the story is told in flashback. I know, I know. But it's done well here. We get scenes of Cheryl's life with her ex-husband, as well as her struggles with drug addiction. But some of the most powerful stuff has to do with her mother, played by Laura Dern, who is dealing with her own harsh experience in those times. And, before you ask, no, they did not get a younger actress to play teenage Cheryl. Why would they when Reese still looks like she's about ready to get her learner's permit? That's a compliment, by the way. But, as much as I admittedly do not trust the Oscars, these scenes will make you realize why those two ladies got nominations. They were fantastic together.
Like I said, the structure of this story, with the "present day" scenes and the flashbacks, is done masterfully. They did it in a way so that, as soon as you needed a break from whatever intense thing was happening, you got a change of pace. All the juxtaposition work was great, and it really let it sink in what this woman had been through, how this journey was affecting here, where she had been and where she was going.
Okay, spoiler time...a little. I have to talk about the end, I mean and how it differs from the aforementioned Into the Wild. Oh, I guess spoilers for that movie, too. Everyone gone who wants to be gone? Okay. So, the end of Into the Wild, to me, was a total downer. I mean, for crying out loud, this guy who you've spent two hours with is just gone. It's kind of depressing. Again, just my opinion, but I personally didn't feel very uplifted or inspired by that ending. I'm not saying you always have to be, but it seems like they wanted me to be. Wild, on the hand, ended on such a note of hope, which is what I love. Cheryl had gone through the lowest of lows, but came out on top, again, metaphorically and literally. You just feel so good when this film draws to a close. Like I said, not all movies have to do that, but when it's being sold as something of an inspirational story, it's probably a good idea to do that.
So, to wrap up, I am definitely recommending Wild to everyone. It's just a great story with some fantastic people telling it. It's tough to watch at times, especially if you can relate to some of the things that Cheryl Strayed went through, but overall, it's a wonderful experience. And that's what a movie should be - an experience. So thanks, people who made this. You get a thumbs up from me. Aren't you thrilled?
Love and full moons,
Becky the Writer
I've always been on the fence about the movie Into the Wild. I've never been sure if I liked it or not. I mean, it has its moments, mostly thanks to Vince Vaughn and Hal Holbrook, but then, it has some problems for me. There's the Sean Penn factor for one thing, which always knocks off points in my book. Sorry. Not a fan. And I'm also not a fan of some of the cast. Again, even the lead, I'm not sure about all the time. Worst of all, I hate the way that the guy who was the subject of this film has become a folk hero of sorts, to the point where people have emulated him, nearly to a fault. Look, you wanna live off the land, go for it. But doing it exactly as he did is evidently not the best idea. So, where can I get a movie similar to that with a lead character who I can get behind a bit more? Oh, hello, Wild.
That's right. The 2014 film Wild is basically a looking-glass land reflection of Into the Wild, in my opinion anyway. And I really like this better than that. Maybe it's because I'm a girl.
Anyway, Wild is based on the 2012 memoir of Cheryl Strayed, played by Reese Witherspoon, and her life-changing journey. That journey, by the way, is both metaphorical and quite literal since it is about her quest to hike the Pacific Crest Trail, which is, I kid you not, nearly 2700 miles long. Whaaaa...? I mean, I've walked to the store. I've walked around the mall. I've even walked around Disney World and New York City. But...WOW! Okay, yeah, she didn't walk it all in one day. In fact, it took her over three months, but still. And this is apparently a thing that many people have done. They even have these little stops along the trail where people can write things down, which is an ongoing part of the film. One of my favorites actually.
So, is that it? Just a woman walking around outside? Of course not! On her journey, she meets many interesting people who help her or maybe harm her, and much of the story is told in flashback. I know, I know. But it's done well here. We get scenes of Cheryl's life with her ex-husband, as well as her struggles with drug addiction. But some of the most powerful stuff has to do with her mother, played by Laura Dern, who is dealing with her own harsh experience in those times. And, before you ask, no, they did not get a younger actress to play teenage Cheryl. Why would they when Reese still looks like she's about ready to get her learner's permit? That's a compliment, by the way. But, as much as I admittedly do not trust the Oscars, these scenes will make you realize why those two ladies got nominations. They were fantastic together.
Like I said, the structure of this story, with the "present day" scenes and the flashbacks, is done masterfully. They did it in a way so that, as soon as you needed a break from whatever intense thing was happening, you got a change of pace. All the juxtaposition work was great, and it really let it sink in what this woman had been through, how this journey was affecting here, where she had been and where she was going.
Okay, spoiler time...a little. I have to talk about the end, I mean and how it differs from the aforementioned Into the Wild. Oh, I guess spoilers for that movie, too. Everyone gone who wants to be gone? Okay. So, the end of Into the Wild, to me, was a total downer. I mean, for crying out loud, this guy who you've spent two hours with is just gone. It's kind of depressing. Again, just my opinion, but I personally didn't feel very uplifted or inspired by that ending. I'm not saying you always have to be, but it seems like they wanted me to be. Wild, on the hand, ended on such a note of hope, which is what I love. Cheryl had gone through the lowest of lows, but came out on top, again, metaphorically and literally. You just feel so good when this film draws to a close. Like I said, not all movies have to do that, but when it's being sold as something of an inspirational story, it's probably a good idea to do that.
So, to wrap up, I am definitely recommending Wild to everyone. It's just a great story with some fantastic people telling it. It's tough to watch at times, especially if you can relate to some of the things that Cheryl Strayed went through, but overall, it's a wonderful experience. And that's what a movie should be - an experience. So thanks, people who made this. You get a thumbs up from me. Aren't you thrilled?
Love and full moons,
Becky the Writer
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
The Last Five Years - Movie Musical Review
Greetings,
You could call me a big fan of musicals. Good ones, mostly, but I'm really open to anything that has music involved. So, when I saw a trailer for this movie, I was quite interested. I had never heard of it, and despite my being a big fan of musicals, I didn't know it was a stage musical before. I actually thought it was something made to be a movie. But what with the unique setup and all, I should have known that this was not born in Hollywood. Still, when it comes to stage to screen adaptations, it tends to be hit or miss with me. So, where does this one fall? Let's find out.
The Last Five Years is a movie based on a 2002 Off-Broadway show that was filmed over only 21 days on a budget of a mere $2 million. That sounds good. I like me some low-budget action. The bad news? It was filmed in 2013, but did not find its way to theaters until February of 2015. THREE theaters, from what I've heard. Is that even possible? Actually, I'm kind of surprised at this. Unless "Anna Kendrick Singing" as a plot point isn't working in cinema anymore. Okay, moving on. Let's get to the plot.
It's about a relationship from beginning to end. Sound too overdone? Well, it is. That's why it's also about a relationship from end to beginning. Let me explain. It tells, in song, the story of Jamie and Cathy. Cathy tells her perspective of their life together starting at the end and working her way backwards, while Jamie tells the same story from his perspective starting at the beginning and working forward. And they meet in the middle when they get engaged. Does this sound confusing? Well, that's what I thought. And the first time I watched it, I still thought that. Even now, I think there were things they could have done to help us follow along more easily. But after I watched it again, I got it and it wasn't that tricky. Honestly, if you don't look at the big picture, and take each seen as its own entity, it's done quite well and entertaining. All the musical numbers are well written and the performances are pretty good. Oh, yeah, the performers.
This movie basically has two actors in it, along with a bunch of extras. As I mentioned, it stars Anna Kendrick as Cathy, an aspiring actress who seems to be remaining aspiring despite all her efforts, and Jeremy Jordan as Jamie, a writer who reaches great success at the expense of his personal life. Of course, everyone knows Anna, but Jeremy is best known for being in Newsies on Broadway and, where I know him from, as Jimmy in Smash, season 2. I hated - HATED!! - his character on that show. He was like male Rachel Berry from Glee. Okay, wow, that was a bit much. No one is that bad. But he was very obnoxious, at the same time being portrayed as someone we should root for, occasionally. At least, people called him out on his crap more than one time. But I digress. That character may have been awful, but I actually think Jeremy is abundantly talented and he also seems like a nice guy in real life. Honestly, these two, who had to carry the movie themselves for the most part, did a fantastic job. I felt something for these characters and, even though you know that end from the beginning, there still something that makes you want things to work out for them. That is not easy to do.
So, good music, good acting. Anything wrong besides the initially, slightly confusing premise? Yeah, but they're mostly technical issues. Like the lighting and the way a lot of the scenes are shot. It's hard to explain. Okay, the lighting thing is self-explanatory when you see it, but I feel like whoever did the blocking was a prankster. I'm not kidding. But I guess those are small things. Important, but you can try to block it out. Also, this thing allegedly takes place, mostly, in New York City. If they say so, but wherever they are, it looks awfully clean. Too clean. Very Nora Ephron-y if you will. I'm not saying New York isn't a great and exciting city, but I haven't seen it look this adorable since You've Got Mail. Again, though, look passed it.
Overall, I'd say that, if you are a fan of the musical, you should give it a watch. I mean, the music is good, particularly the lyrics and the way they tell the story, and the acting is powerful, and even though it has problems, those really are the important things in a movie like this. I just hope that through word of mouth and the true fans The Last Five Years will get some of the recognition it deserves.
Love and full moons,
Becky the Writer
You could call me a big fan of musicals. Good ones, mostly, but I'm really open to anything that has music involved. So, when I saw a trailer for this movie, I was quite interested. I had never heard of it, and despite my being a big fan of musicals, I didn't know it was a stage musical before. I actually thought it was something made to be a movie. But what with the unique setup and all, I should have known that this was not born in Hollywood. Still, when it comes to stage to screen adaptations, it tends to be hit or miss with me. So, where does this one fall? Let's find out.
The Last Five Years is a movie based on a 2002 Off-Broadway show that was filmed over only 21 days on a budget of a mere $2 million. That sounds good. I like me some low-budget action. The bad news? It was filmed in 2013, but did not find its way to theaters until February of 2015. THREE theaters, from what I've heard. Is that even possible? Actually, I'm kind of surprised at this. Unless "Anna Kendrick Singing" as a plot point isn't working in cinema anymore. Okay, moving on. Let's get to the plot.
It's about a relationship from beginning to end. Sound too overdone? Well, it is. That's why it's also about a relationship from end to beginning. Let me explain. It tells, in song, the story of Jamie and Cathy. Cathy tells her perspective of their life together starting at the end and working her way backwards, while Jamie tells the same story from his perspective starting at the beginning and working forward. And they meet in the middle when they get engaged. Does this sound confusing? Well, that's what I thought. And the first time I watched it, I still thought that. Even now, I think there were things they could have done to help us follow along more easily. But after I watched it again, I got it and it wasn't that tricky. Honestly, if you don't look at the big picture, and take each seen as its own entity, it's done quite well and entertaining. All the musical numbers are well written and the performances are pretty good. Oh, yeah, the performers.
This movie basically has two actors in it, along with a bunch of extras. As I mentioned, it stars Anna Kendrick as Cathy, an aspiring actress who seems to be remaining aspiring despite all her efforts, and Jeremy Jordan as Jamie, a writer who reaches great success at the expense of his personal life. Of course, everyone knows Anna, but Jeremy is best known for being in Newsies on Broadway and, where I know him from, as Jimmy in Smash, season 2. I hated - HATED!! - his character on that show. He was like male Rachel Berry from Glee. Okay, wow, that was a bit much. No one is that bad. But he was very obnoxious, at the same time being portrayed as someone we should root for, occasionally. At least, people called him out on his crap more than one time. But I digress. That character may have been awful, but I actually think Jeremy is abundantly talented and he also seems like a nice guy in real life. Honestly, these two, who had to carry the movie themselves for the most part, did a fantastic job. I felt something for these characters and, even though you know that end from the beginning, there still something that makes you want things to work out for them. That is not easy to do.
So, good music, good acting. Anything wrong besides the initially, slightly confusing premise? Yeah, but they're mostly technical issues. Like the lighting and the way a lot of the scenes are shot. It's hard to explain. Okay, the lighting thing is self-explanatory when you see it, but I feel like whoever did the blocking was a prankster. I'm not kidding. But I guess those are small things. Important, but you can try to block it out. Also, this thing allegedly takes place, mostly, in New York City. If they say so, but wherever they are, it looks awfully clean. Too clean. Very Nora Ephron-y if you will. I'm not saying New York isn't a great and exciting city, but I haven't seen it look this adorable since You've Got Mail. Again, though, look passed it.
Overall, I'd say that, if you are a fan of the musical, you should give it a watch. I mean, the music is good, particularly the lyrics and the way they tell the story, and the acting is powerful, and even though it has problems, those really are the important things in a movie like this. I just hope that through word of mouth and the true fans The Last Five Years will get some of the recognition it deserves.
Love and full moons,
Becky the Writer
Sunday, May 31, 2015
Every Which Way But Loose - Movie Review
Greetings,
So, I'm posting this on the 85th birthday of one Mr. Clint Eastwood. Yay! I had intended to do a week's worth of reviews of his movies, but...life happens. So I picked just one. This one. Because what better way to celebrate than to talk about one of the worst movies he has ever made. Oh, yeah, spoilers. This thing is pretty awful. But what's a better gift for someone than perspective about the actual quantity of their awesomeness. I kid, a little. I mean, I think his cup of awesomeness runneth over. Still, Clint never seemed like a guy who thought he was all that, and he certainly doesn't seem that way now. But I, personally, have never heard him say how he felt either way about this film. I should probably try harder with my research. All I know, for sure, is that most people look back on this thing with little fondness. But is there actually anything redeeming about it? Guess we'll have to go looking. So, let's talk about this, shall we?
Every Which Way But Loose is a 1978 film wherein Clint Eastwood stars as Philo Beddoe (wait, what?), a truck driver who makes money on the side as a fighter. Not like a boxer. No, we're talking bare knuckles, street fighting style. He lives in the San Fernando Valley in a small house that lies behind the actual house of his buddy Orville Boggs, played by the recently deceased and greatly missed, Geoffrey Lewis, and Orville's mother, played by Ruth Gordon, who has quite a potty-mouth in this. In other words, if they ever remade this (Please NO!) Betty White would most likely be first on the casting wish list. Oh, and did I mention that Philo has a pet orangutan named Clyde which he won in one of those fights and who sometimes helps with the laundry? Yep, that's the selling point on this movie - Clint Eastwood and a monkey. Take a look at the poster if you can. It's just Clint looking like his usual tough guy self, except he's being cuddled by an orangutan. So be it, 70's.
Now I must say, this has quite an...interesting opening sequence. "Interesting" meaning you watch it and sort of go, "O-Kay?" There's actually quite a few moments like that. Basically, we see Philo, driving along in his truck to the titular movie tune by Eddie Rabbitt. That was a thing back in the day, kids, for movies to have theme songs. Movies other than the James Bond franchise, I mean. Good thing? Uh...occasionally. Anyway, the music stops and he stops into a bar...in the middle of the day...where pretty much everyone is smoking. I can't remember if that was still healthy for you like it was back in the 50's. He gets into a fight, of course, which he wins, of course, then at the drop of a hat, it's back to the truck and back to the song. O-Kay? Welcome to our movie?
So, the plot. That begins when he meets a woman. Doesn't it always? This time it's Lynn Halsey-Taylor played by Sondra Locke. Uh...yeah. You know, Charles Sonnenburg of SF Debris fame said something in his Star Trek V: The Final Frontier review pertaining to the woman who played the Romulan ambassador and how she might have gotten the part. Go watch that. Look, I could go on and on about this Sondra Locke person, but you'd do best to look up that little controversy on your own. I just can't right now. Anyway, Lynn is an aspiring country singer. Aspiring, like maybe making the Top 30 on a weak season of American Idol. Naturally, Philo falls for her, and he thinks things are going well until she runs off and causes him a whole lot of trouble. Art imitating life much. Again, Google it. You guys, I'm not really judging. All of this is in the public record. And when you're in like six movies during the time you are intimately involved with the guy who's in charge of said movies, you have to expect that people will be suspicious. Moving on.
After that, the whole film suddenly turns into some kind of road trip movie, because Philo drags Orville and Clyde to go all the way to Colorado to look for Lynn. Seriously? Well, at least, Orville gets himself a girl in the form of Beverly D'Angelo playing Echo. Not her real name, I assume? Even Clyde gets a little action when they take him to a zoo in the middle of the night to visit the lady monkeys. No, I'm not kidding. I'm kinda grossed out, but I'm not kidding.
Oh, and we can't forget the part of the plot where Philo is getting chased by a motorcycle gang called The Black Widows, a name which implies that they're either dumb or really secure in their masculinity. Also, an LAPD cop is after him. Why? Probably because he's tougher than all of them put together. Even without his .44 Magnum. Oh, right. Different, better movie. He only has the guns that the good Lord gave him in this production.
Anyway, as the story unfolds, I suppose there are a few twist moments, if you aren't really paying attention. Not enough to make it any kind of "on the edge of your seat" entertainment. Even the ending was like, "Yeah. Figures."
Alright, is there anything good about this movie? Anything entertaining? Well, if I'm going to be honest, yes. Yes, there is. Clyde. More specifically, the friendship between Clyde and Philo. I actually did laugh out loud at a lot of the scenes that featured Clint and the monkey, especially the "Hands up. Bang!" exchange. If you've seen this, you'll know what I mean. Those were legit entertaining. Actually, if you just cut together those scenes into a movie, it might end up being one of my favorites from Clint. But, alas, we had to add all of that other stuff.
So, because of those highly amusing scenes, I say you can check this out. Just keep your fast forward button handy, because most of this is not really going to interest you much. But, apparently, it interested someone. Because, Number One: it made $85 million on a $5 million budget, which I assume was the reason for Number Two: it got a sequel two years later, which also, despite dismal reviews, made back nearly five times its budget. SERIOUSLY?! Yeesh! I wonder if citizens of 1980 knew how much worse things like that were going to get. Ahem, ahem, Iron Man 2!
Okay, I think I'm done with this, so let's wrap things up already.
In conclusion, Happy 85th Birthday, Clint Eastwood (in case, he's reading this. You never know)! I know I messed with you a bit in this review, but that's because I am not a fan. I am an admirer of you great work. If I was a fan, I would blindly say that I love everything you do. No. I love the great things you do, while acknowledging that you've also done some crap. I think even you admit that. And that is to be expected, especially considering that this year also marks your 60th in the movie business. I just...wow!
So, I love you for all the amazing things you've done, on screen and off, and I forgive you for all the...oopsies. Again, on screen and off. Please don't be mad at me. Let's do lunch.
Love and full moons,
Becky the Writer
So, I'm posting this on the 85th birthday of one Mr. Clint Eastwood. Yay! I had intended to do a week's worth of reviews of his movies, but...life happens. So I picked just one. This one. Because what better way to celebrate than to talk about one of the worst movies he has ever made. Oh, yeah, spoilers. This thing is pretty awful. But what's a better gift for someone than perspective about the actual quantity of their awesomeness. I kid, a little. I mean, I think his cup of awesomeness runneth over. Still, Clint never seemed like a guy who thought he was all that, and he certainly doesn't seem that way now. But I, personally, have never heard him say how he felt either way about this film. I should probably try harder with my research. All I know, for sure, is that most people look back on this thing with little fondness. But is there actually anything redeeming about it? Guess we'll have to go looking. So, let's talk about this, shall we?
Every Which Way But Loose is a 1978 film wherein Clint Eastwood stars as Philo Beddoe (wait, what?), a truck driver who makes money on the side as a fighter. Not like a boxer. No, we're talking bare knuckles, street fighting style. He lives in the San Fernando Valley in a small house that lies behind the actual house of his buddy Orville Boggs, played by the recently deceased and greatly missed, Geoffrey Lewis, and Orville's mother, played by Ruth Gordon, who has quite a potty-mouth in this. In other words, if they ever remade this (Please NO!) Betty White would most likely be first on the casting wish list. Oh, and did I mention that Philo has a pet orangutan named Clyde which he won in one of those fights and who sometimes helps with the laundry? Yep, that's the selling point on this movie - Clint Eastwood and a monkey. Take a look at the poster if you can. It's just Clint looking like his usual tough guy self, except he's being cuddled by an orangutan. So be it, 70's.
Now I must say, this has quite an...interesting opening sequence. "Interesting" meaning you watch it and sort of go, "O-Kay?" There's actually quite a few moments like that. Basically, we see Philo, driving along in his truck to the titular movie tune by Eddie Rabbitt. That was a thing back in the day, kids, for movies to have theme songs. Movies other than the James Bond franchise, I mean. Good thing? Uh...occasionally. Anyway, the music stops and he stops into a bar...in the middle of the day...where pretty much everyone is smoking. I can't remember if that was still healthy for you like it was back in the 50's. He gets into a fight, of course, which he wins, of course, then at the drop of a hat, it's back to the truck and back to the song. O-Kay? Welcome to our movie?
So, the plot. That begins when he meets a woman. Doesn't it always? This time it's Lynn Halsey-Taylor played by Sondra Locke. Uh...yeah. You know, Charles Sonnenburg of SF Debris fame said something in his Star Trek V: The Final Frontier review pertaining to the woman who played the Romulan ambassador and how she might have gotten the part. Go watch that. Look, I could go on and on about this Sondra Locke person, but you'd do best to look up that little controversy on your own. I just can't right now. Anyway, Lynn is an aspiring country singer. Aspiring, like maybe making the Top 30 on a weak season of American Idol. Naturally, Philo falls for her, and he thinks things are going well until she runs off and causes him a whole lot of trouble. Art imitating life much. Again, Google it. You guys, I'm not really judging. All of this is in the public record. And when you're in like six movies during the time you are intimately involved with the guy who's in charge of said movies, you have to expect that people will be suspicious. Moving on.
After that, the whole film suddenly turns into some kind of road trip movie, because Philo drags Orville and Clyde to go all the way to Colorado to look for Lynn. Seriously? Well, at least, Orville gets himself a girl in the form of Beverly D'Angelo playing Echo. Not her real name, I assume? Even Clyde gets a little action when they take him to a zoo in the middle of the night to visit the lady monkeys. No, I'm not kidding. I'm kinda grossed out, but I'm not kidding.
Oh, and we can't forget the part of the plot where Philo is getting chased by a motorcycle gang called The Black Widows, a name which implies that they're either dumb or really secure in their masculinity. Also, an LAPD cop is after him. Why? Probably because he's tougher than all of them put together. Even without his .44 Magnum. Oh, right. Different, better movie. He only has the guns that the good Lord gave him in this production.
Anyway, as the story unfolds, I suppose there are a few twist moments, if you aren't really paying attention. Not enough to make it any kind of "on the edge of your seat" entertainment. Even the ending was like, "Yeah. Figures."
Alright, is there anything good about this movie? Anything entertaining? Well, if I'm going to be honest, yes. Yes, there is. Clyde. More specifically, the friendship between Clyde and Philo. I actually did laugh out loud at a lot of the scenes that featured Clint and the monkey, especially the "Hands up. Bang!" exchange. If you've seen this, you'll know what I mean. Those were legit entertaining. Actually, if you just cut together those scenes into a movie, it might end up being one of my favorites from Clint. But, alas, we had to add all of that other stuff.
So, because of those highly amusing scenes, I say you can check this out. Just keep your fast forward button handy, because most of this is not really going to interest you much. But, apparently, it interested someone. Because, Number One: it made $85 million on a $5 million budget, which I assume was the reason for Number Two: it got a sequel two years later, which also, despite dismal reviews, made back nearly five times its budget. SERIOUSLY?! Yeesh! I wonder if citizens of 1980 knew how much worse things like that were going to get. Ahem, ahem, Iron Man 2!
Okay, I think I'm done with this, so let's wrap things up already.
In conclusion, Happy 85th Birthday, Clint Eastwood (in case, he's reading this. You never know)! I know I messed with you a bit in this review, but that's because I am not a fan. I am an admirer of you great work. If I was a fan, I would blindly say that I love everything you do. No. I love the great things you do, while acknowledging that you've also done some crap. I think even you admit that. And that is to be expected, especially considering that this year also marks your 60th in the movie business. I just...wow!
So, I love you for all the amazing things you've done, on screen and off, and I forgive you for all the...oopsies. Again, on screen and off. Please don't be mad at me. Let's do lunch.
Love and full moons,
Becky the Writer
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
So, When Is It Going To Be Jimmy Shaker Day?
Greetings,
You know what I was thinking about the other day? The awesome movie that is Ransom. Probably because I was thinking about Gary Sinise. Probably because it was Memorial Day. And if you know anything about Gary, you'll know why that is. Anyway, there is something about that film that made me realize how messed up Hollywood is these day, creatively, I mean, and it has a good lesson on how they can correct things. I know I just talked about the problems with that town's creative health a couple of weeks ago, but, hey, they need a lot of help out there.
Before I go on, I should warn you guys. If you have not seen the movie Ransom, don't read this. Also, shame on you, because it's amazing. In order to do what I have to do today, there will be spoilers galore. Although, I think even people who haven't seen this already know what I'm talking about. Irregardless (which is totally a word!) go see it, then come back. Is everybody who wants to be gone, gone? Okay, good. Let's get started.
It has been nearly twenty years since we were graced with the presence of this fantastic movie, and I have never met anyone who doesn't like it. It's exciting and well-written and has good twists in all the right places done correctly not just...well, not just because. But I'm not here to review this thing. I am here to discuss but one character - Jimmy Shaker. He's the villain. And he is an actual villain. Remember those?
Let me explain myself. For many decades of movies, we had a lot of villains who were just bad guys. Why? Well, because they were bad, of course. In other words, one dimensional baddies. We still have those, but the trend of the last several years has been the idea that, in order to make a villain more complex, he or she must have a backstory that makes them sympathetic. Or, even worse, not bad at all but a hero. Not even an anti-hero, but just a straight up hero. What?! Okay, that last one does not happen as much, but I think we can all agree that the "sympathetic villain" is kind of a thing now. And it's all Marvel's fault! Well...
Okay, it's no secret that, generally speaking, I am no fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Maybe I'll give some extended info on that some time later. And nowhere will you find a more "sympathetic villain" than Loki. Don't get me wrong. I certainly like Tom Hiddleston and how he portrays Loki, and, honestly, I can deal with Loki as a character. Kind of. But as a villain? Yeah, no. I mean, talk about a weak motivation. I have said this before, but think about his backstory. Abandoned by biological family, taken home by an old, rich guy of a different race who raises him as his own son in a big fancy house. Hey, Loki! Your life is the plot of Different Strokes! So, yeah, stop whining and throwing world destroying tantrums.
And don't even get me started on what went down in movies like Oz, the Great and Powerful and Maleficent. So, is the color green like a bad thing or something? Whatever. Moving on.
I guess I just don't understand it. Is it really that hard to make a bad guy bad AND complex at the same time? Apparently not, because the people who wrote Ransom knew how to do it. And now that I'm done rambling about others, here is my analysis on the How and the Why...and probably other things concerning Jimmy Shaker.
So, unless you've got problems or something, there is no point in this film where you feel sympathy for Jimmy Shaker. He has, at present time, no redeeming qualities, not one. However, due to some clever exposition and great examples of the "show don't tell" rule, we do learn about how and why Shaker is what he is. At least, that's how I see it. And am I ever wrong? Yeah...anyway...
First of all, the exposition. We have that fantastic scene where Gary Sinise as Shaker and Mel Gibson as Tom Mullen are driving around and talking on the phone to each other. Hey, shame! Anyway, Gary goes on and on about the rich and the poor of the world by way of a Cliff's Notes version of The Time Machine. By the way...THERE! That scene is a better remake of The Time Machine than that 2002 mess. Anyway, in what he said, we could see why he was doing what he did. He was a cop who risked his life on a daily basis for very little pay to put the bad guys away, and some of those bad guys who had money were flat out buying their way out of a jail sentence. And he's not wrong. That is exactly what Tom Mullen did. You understand his plight and yet, are not willing to excuse his crime. I think because we know that all of that would make a genuinely good cop try that much harder to get ALL the bad guys put away. Even if they fail, they try, instead of turning to the dark side and pretty much giving up.
Next, the "show don't tell". Even though it's quite clear that he is a bad guy now, we get the impression that Shaker was a good guy at some point. Not because of what we're told. No one ever says "Hey, didn't you used to be on the right side of things?" No, we see things. We see his commendations. We see how he interacts with other cops and the way they respect him. Clearly, he did good things to earn all of this. And, going back to that scene of exposition, we even see it in Gary Sinise's performance. The look in his eyes, his expression as he speaks those words, the unsaid attitude to Mel Gibson's character of "Screw you, rich man. How do you like it?". No matter what he was saying, we could see it all.
So, in other words: great writing, great acting, great directing (I didn't forget you, Ron Howard!) equals great villain. Not to mention one with some serious staying power with the public at large. And I'm not the only one who thinks so. I mean, "Jimmy Shaker Day" is in the Urban Dictionary, for crying out loud. Granted, their definition fits in better when it comes to what was actually said in the movie, as it should be. My definition is more like "Hey, when are we gonna get more villains like Jimmy Shaker! Won't that be a wonderful day?" But I think we can all live in the world together despite those differences.
And I think I'm done with this. Man, I should have taken a class in this kind of stuff. I feel like I just did a thesis on the subject. Okay, maybe those things are a bit longer. A bit. But I digress. Bottom line, just try harder, all of you writers in Hollywood. Remember, a villain is pretty much always the antagonist, but an antagonist does not have to be a villain. If you want your bad guy to be sympathetic, make them an antagonist. If you want your bad guy to be bad, make them a villain.
Love and full moons,
Becky the Writer
You know what I was thinking about the other day? The awesome movie that is Ransom. Probably because I was thinking about Gary Sinise. Probably because it was Memorial Day. And if you know anything about Gary, you'll know why that is. Anyway, there is something about that film that made me realize how messed up Hollywood is these day, creatively, I mean, and it has a good lesson on how they can correct things. I know I just talked about the problems with that town's creative health a couple of weeks ago, but, hey, they need a lot of help out there.
Before I go on, I should warn you guys. If you have not seen the movie Ransom, don't read this. Also, shame on you, because it's amazing. In order to do what I have to do today, there will be spoilers galore. Although, I think even people who haven't seen this already know what I'm talking about. Irregardless (which is totally a word!) go see it, then come back. Is everybody who wants to be gone, gone? Okay, good. Let's get started.
It has been nearly twenty years since we were graced with the presence of this fantastic movie, and I have never met anyone who doesn't like it. It's exciting and well-written and has good twists in all the right places done correctly not just...well, not just because. But I'm not here to review this thing. I am here to discuss but one character - Jimmy Shaker. He's the villain. And he is an actual villain. Remember those?
Let me explain myself. For many decades of movies, we had a lot of villains who were just bad guys. Why? Well, because they were bad, of course. In other words, one dimensional baddies. We still have those, but the trend of the last several years has been the idea that, in order to make a villain more complex, he or she must have a backstory that makes them sympathetic. Or, even worse, not bad at all but a hero. Not even an anti-hero, but just a straight up hero. What?! Okay, that last one does not happen as much, but I think we can all agree that the "sympathetic villain" is kind of a thing now. And it's all Marvel's fault! Well...
Okay, it's no secret that, generally speaking, I am no fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Maybe I'll give some extended info on that some time later. And nowhere will you find a more "sympathetic villain" than Loki. Don't get me wrong. I certainly like Tom Hiddleston and how he portrays Loki, and, honestly, I can deal with Loki as a character. Kind of. But as a villain? Yeah, no. I mean, talk about a weak motivation. I have said this before, but think about his backstory. Abandoned by biological family, taken home by an old, rich guy of a different race who raises him as his own son in a big fancy house. Hey, Loki! Your life is the plot of Different Strokes! So, yeah, stop whining and throwing world destroying tantrums.
And don't even get me started on what went down in movies like Oz, the Great and Powerful and Maleficent. So, is the color green like a bad thing or something? Whatever. Moving on.
I guess I just don't understand it. Is it really that hard to make a bad guy bad AND complex at the same time? Apparently not, because the people who wrote Ransom knew how to do it. And now that I'm done rambling about others, here is my analysis on the How and the Why...and probably other things concerning Jimmy Shaker.
So, unless you've got problems or something, there is no point in this film where you feel sympathy for Jimmy Shaker. He has, at present time, no redeeming qualities, not one. However, due to some clever exposition and great examples of the "show don't tell" rule, we do learn about how and why Shaker is what he is. At least, that's how I see it. And am I ever wrong? Yeah...anyway...
First of all, the exposition. We have that fantastic scene where Gary Sinise as Shaker and Mel Gibson as Tom Mullen are driving around and talking on the phone to each other. Hey, shame! Anyway, Gary goes on and on about the rich and the poor of the world by way of a Cliff's Notes version of The Time Machine. By the way...THERE! That scene is a better remake of The Time Machine than that 2002 mess. Anyway, in what he said, we could see why he was doing what he did. He was a cop who risked his life on a daily basis for very little pay to put the bad guys away, and some of those bad guys who had money were flat out buying their way out of a jail sentence. And he's not wrong. That is exactly what Tom Mullen did. You understand his plight and yet, are not willing to excuse his crime. I think because we know that all of that would make a genuinely good cop try that much harder to get ALL the bad guys put away. Even if they fail, they try, instead of turning to the dark side and pretty much giving up.
Next, the "show don't tell". Even though it's quite clear that he is a bad guy now, we get the impression that Shaker was a good guy at some point. Not because of what we're told. No one ever says "Hey, didn't you used to be on the right side of things?" No, we see things. We see his commendations. We see how he interacts with other cops and the way they respect him. Clearly, he did good things to earn all of this. And, going back to that scene of exposition, we even see it in Gary Sinise's performance. The look in his eyes, his expression as he speaks those words, the unsaid attitude to Mel Gibson's character of "Screw you, rich man. How do you like it?". No matter what he was saying, we could see it all.
So, in other words: great writing, great acting, great directing (I didn't forget you, Ron Howard!) equals great villain. Not to mention one with some serious staying power with the public at large. And I'm not the only one who thinks so. I mean, "Jimmy Shaker Day" is in the Urban Dictionary, for crying out loud. Granted, their definition fits in better when it comes to what was actually said in the movie, as it should be. My definition is more like "Hey, when are we gonna get more villains like Jimmy Shaker! Won't that be a wonderful day?" But I think we can all live in the world together despite those differences.
And I think I'm done with this. Man, I should have taken a class in this kind of stuff. I feel like I just did a thesis on the subject. Okay, maybe those things are a bit longer. A bit. But I digress. Bottom line, just try harder, all of you writers in Hollywood. Remember, a villain is pretty much always the antagonist, but an antagonist does not have to be a villain. If you want your bad guy to be sympathetic, make them an antagonist. If you want your bad guy to be bad, make them a villain.
Love and full moons,
Becky the Writer
Saturday, May 23, 2015
Read It and Weep - TV Movie Review
Greetings,
A lot of interesting things get recommended for me on the Netflix for reasons at which I can only guess. A while back a little Disney TV movie called Read It and Weep popped up. Maybe because I watch me a lot of Disney cartoons. What? Many adults do it. Anyway, I hadn't planned to watch it, but I read the synopsis and thought, 'Oh, now I get it'. So, I put it in my queue for a while until I finally decided to watch it. And here are the results of that event.
Read It and Weep is a 2006 Disney Channel original movie about a young girl named Jamie played by Kay Panabaker. She's nowhere close to being the most popular girl in school, of course, and she is reminded of that constantly. She also has a crush on a guy named Marco who just happens to be involved with actually popular, "mean girl" Sawyer, played wonderfully as expected by Allison Scagliotti of Drake and Josh fame. However, Jamie does have a few very good, close friends that keep her going. Not to mention a loving family, which includes her guitar playing brother Lenny, a supportive mother and a father who is slightly delusional about the recipes he serves at the family's pizza parlor. Seriously, I don't know what his problem is.
The plot gets going when Jamie's personal journal is mistakenly turned in as an English assignment. And I should point out that it's not just some journal with writing in it about her daily life. It's in the form of a story, complete with some visual art, about a girl names Isabella or Is as she is called, who is super popular and has some super powers. She is the alter ego of Jamie, who uses her to tell the tale of everyone in her life. In fact, Is actually comes to life, for Jamie anyway, as someone she actually talks to, and she is played by Danielle Panabaker, Kay's real life older sister. More thoughts on that later. Anyway, the teacher praises the writing and before you know it, the journal gets published as an actual book. Because that's how it happens in real life. Yeah, look, Disney, I appreciate the way you teach the children to believe in their dreams and whatnot, but let's try to keep at least a little reality on the plate here.
After the books comes out, Jamie's life is expectedly turned upside down, for better or worse. Now, it's at this point where certain aspects of the plot may become slightly predictable. Many things, I saw coming. But then again, I'm a grown up. Maybe it can keep its target audience, which is kids, guessing. And I'm not saying this in a disparaging way. I think this is perfect storytelling for the age bracket they were aiming towards, which seems to be the 10 to 12 area. That, as I recall, is a very transitional time in life. Not so much a child anymore, but certainly not an adult, so making entertainment things for that age can be tricky. I think they did a good job here, though. Nothing too heavy, but also not talking down to the youngsters. And I find the core idea is kind of unique. In fact, due to the creativity that this movie has when it comes to the journal and Jamie's imagination, I can forgive a lot of these tropes.
Although, going back to Netflix, it seems that some of the people who reviewed it were appalled at this story, accusing this young girl of having multiple personalities and a mental disorder. Uh...calm the heck down, people. She's fine. She just has a very active imagination, something that may seem odd, I understand, as she seems to be going to public school, those places that often think creativity is not something to be bothered with. Or spent money on. But I digress. I love the fact that this girl has a vivid imagination. Come to think of it, she reminds me of myself as a young writer. Oh, who am I kidding? My characters ARE still real to me.
Also, I have to say, I did love the idea of casting sisters in these roles. Kay and Danielle Panabaker do look alike, and, whilst I don't know if this was intentional, Jamie and Is act like sisters a bit in the movie, though Jamie considers Is another part of herself. Jamie looks up to Is, wants to be just like her and takes her advice whether that's a good idea or not. But I love the way these two act together. They should do it more often.
So, what about the movie as a whole? Well, I think this may have been recommended for me because I tend to watch movies about writers. And, like I said, Jamie reminds me of myself at that age, so, if you're an adult writer who started young, this might spark a bit of nostalgia, in a way. And if you have a kid that's the target age for this, I say it's a pretty good thing for them to watch. It teaches a few lessons, which may seem passe to adults, but to a kid this age, it might give them some insight. And as far as these Disney Channel Originals go? Well, I thought it was better than High School Musical.
Love and full moons,
Becky the Writer
A lot of interesting things get recommended for me on the Netflix for reasons at which I can only guess. A while back a little Disney TV movie called Read It and Weep popped up. Maybe because I watch me a lot of Disney cartoons. What? Many adults do it. Anyway, I hadn't planned to watch it, but I read the synopsis and thought, 'Oh, now I get it'. So, I put it in my queue for a while until I finally decided to watch it. And here are the results of that event.
Read It and Weep is a 2006 Disney Channel original movie about a young girl named Jamie played by Kay Panabaker. She's nowhere close to being the most popular girl in school, of course, and she is reminded of that constantly. She also has a crush on a guy named Marco who just happens to be involved with actually popular, "mean girl" Sawyer, played wonderfully as expected by Allison Scagliotti of Drake and Josh fame. However, Jamie does have a few very good, close friends that keep her going. Not to mention a loving family, which includes her guitar playing brother Lenny, a supportive mother and a father who is slightly delusional about the recipes he serves at the family's pizza parlor. Seriously, I don't know what his problem is.
The plot gets going when Jamie's personal journal is mistakenly turned in as an English assignment. And I should point out that it's not just some journal with writing in it about her daily life. It's in the form of a story, complete with some visual art, about a girl names Isabella or Is as she is called, who is super popular and has some super powers. She is the alter ego of Jamie, who uses her to tell the tale of everyone in her life. In fact, Is actually comes to life, for Jamie anyway, as someone she actually talks to, and she is played by Danielle Panabaker, Kay's real life older sister. More thoughts on that later. Anyway, the teacher praises the writing and before you know it, the journal gets published as an actual book. Because that's how it happens in real life. Yeah, look, Disney, I appreciate the way you teach the children to believe in their dreams and whatnot, but let's try to keep at least a little reality on the plate here.
After the books comes out, Jamie's life is expectedly turned upside down, for better or worse. Now, it's at this point where certain aspects of the plot may become slightly predictable. Many things, I saw coming. But then again, I'm a grown up. Maybe it can keep its target audience, which is kids, guessing. And I'm not saying this in a disparaging way. I think this is perfect storytelling for the age bracket they were aiming towards, which seems to be the 10 to 12 area. That, as I recall, is a very transitional time in life. Not so much a child anymore, but certainly not an adult, so making entertainment things for that age can be tricky. I think they did a good job here, though. Nothing too heavy, but also not talking down to the youngsters. And I find the core idea is kind of unique. In fact, due to the creativity that this movie has when it comes to the journal and Jamie's imagination, I can forgive a lot of these tropes.
Although, going back to Netflix, it seems that some of the people who reviewed it were appalled at this story, accusing this young girl of having multiple personalities and a mental disorder. Uh...calm the heck down, people. She's fine. She just has a very active imagination, something that may seem odd, I understand, as she seems to be going to public school, those places that often think creativity is not something to be bothered with. Or spent money on. But I digress. I love the fact that this girl has a vivid imagination. Come to think of it, she reminds me of myself as a young writer. Oh, who am I kidding? My characters ARE still real to me.
Also, I have to say, I did love the idea of casting sisters in these roles. Kay and Danielle Panabaker do look alike, and, whilst I don't know if this was intentional, Jamie and Is act like sisters a bit in the movie, though Jamie considers Is another part of herself. Jamie looks up to Is, wants to be just like her and takes her advice whether that's a good idea or not. But I love the way these two act together. They should do it more often.
So, what about the movie as a whole? Well, I think this may have been recommended for me because I tend to watch movies about writers. And, like I said, Jamie reminds me of myself at that age, so, if you're an adult writer who started young, this might spark a bit of nostalgia, in a way. And if you have a kid that's the target age for this, I say it's a pretty good thing for them to watch. It teaches a few lessons, which may seem passe to adults, but to a kid this age, it might give them some insight. And as far as these Disney Channel Originals go? Well, I thought it was better than High School Musical.
Love and full moons,
Becky the Writer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)