Pride and Prejudice (2003)

I noticed right away that there was something off about this modern retelling of Pride and Prejudice, but I should have known what it was, and I didn't. For one thing, if I had noticed the subtitle: Pride and Prejudice: A Latter-Day Comedy, that might have clued me in. Also, I could have read the synopsis which describes this Lizzie as a student at Brigham Young University. I did not notice that. I just noticed as I watched the first few scenes that the film seemed oddly clean, everyone soap-opera shiny and talking in this sort of wooden way, as if they were reading off cue cards.

When Lydia (not me, the character, in the movie, the slutty one) said "You're not going to be ready for the party" and Lizzie said "What party?" and Lydia said "You should pay attention in church" - that was my first clue. I thought, "Oh! It's Christian." Then someone mentioned that they were in Utah, and I finally understood. It's not just Christian, it's Mormon. I guess if you're making a new version of a novel which is very familiar, and which has been adapted a ton of times, the best way to go about it is to do something new and unexpected. And I really wasn't expecting LDS, despite all the clues. So I guess that's something.

Film versions of Austen's novels are thick on the ground, and I'm always a little wary of a new adaptation - what are you going to add? Clueless stands out, because it is based on Emma, but not awkwardly so - Clueless does not constantly remind you that it is Austen. It is very possible to watch Clueless and never know that it is based on Emma. This Pride and Prejudice on the other hand constantly refers to its Austeniness, with odd intertitles from the novel (e.g. "A fortnight passed..."-Pride and Prejudice), as well as lifted character names and occasional bits of dialogue. As a movie, Pride and Prejudice is pretty lame. But I'm interested in the fact there is a production company making movies "by Mormons, about Mormons, and for Mormons." I like the idea of little movie companies that make little movies for specific audiences. It should encourage diversity and innovation, in general. So I guess I approve.

Best and Worst: Stoner Movies

BEST

1. How High (starring Method Man and Redman): "How did I fail women's studies? I love bitches!"

2. Half Baked (starring Dave Chappelle): When I was 17 it was hysterical to watch Bob Saget talk about sucking dick for crack. Plus, have you ever watched Jon Stewart? Yeah, but have you ever watched Jon Stewart on weed, man?
3. Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle and/or Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay(starring Kal Penn and John Cho): 3 Words- Neil Patrick Harris.
4. 9 to 5 (starring Jane Fonda, Dolly Parton and Lily Tomlin): Remember when Violet's son gave her a "marijuana cigarette" for her birthday? Good stuff.
Honorable Mention- Pineapple Express (starring James Franco and Seth Rogen): James Franco is so cute. I just want to pinch his cheeks! But, overall, this movie is too violent to make my "Best of" list.

WORST

1. Puff, Puff, Pass (starring Danny Masterson and Mekhi Phifer): This movie contains a running joke about the movie "The Shawshank Redemption" that's kind of funny. But, at the end of the day, anal rape just isn't funny. Not one bit.


2. Bong Water (starring Luke Wilson and Brittany Murphy): the most boring, whiny stoner movie ever made.

Honorable Mention-Smiley Face (starring Anna Faris): I really like Anna Faris and this is a Gregg Araki film and I think he's OK. But the main character is flakey and irresponsible in a way that isn't cute or endearing at all and even a cameo by Jane Lynch didn't help me like this movie.

p.s. I saw Milk again

So watching Milk the second time confirmed that I disagree with what everyone is saying about it. I liked Sean Penn less the second time, and liked the movie more. And I would like to bake James Franco a cake, he's so pretty and talented. I think Sean Penn is Just Fine, not Completely Amazing.* And I think the movie itself is fascinating in ways nobody is talking about. e.g. that thing where the imagined conversations are explicitly undermined. There is a framing scene, with Harvey and Scott (Penn and Franco) in bed eating cake on Harvey's birthday. We see it very near the beginning and again right at the end, but the two versions are different, as if to remind us that while parts of the story are heavily documented, other parts are necessarily made up. I think Milk is the most honest biopic I've seen, because it's explicit about its failures. Or something. I can't stop talking about it!

* A discussion point: I wonder if playing a celebrity of recent memory is nearly impossible to do perfectly, but it is easy to do well. That is, anyone could play Bob Dylan and get a "wow, she really sounded like a dude" reaction. But almost no one can play Katherine Hepburn in a way that is both like KH and interestingly textured on its own.

* Another discussion point: Rated R for language, some sexual content and brief violence. Milk has a brief but traumatic scene of violence (no blood), a fair amount of foul language, and a teeny tiny bit of sex, aka "some sexual content." Does the sexual content get mentioned by the MPAA only because it's boy-on-boy?

The Women (2008)

How terrible is Diane English's remake of George Cukor's classic 1939 comedy The Women? It's pretty terrible. About ten minutes into The Women, I wanted to pause the movie and take a few minutes to list stereotypes about femininity and female life, so we could check them off as they occurred in this movie.

Here are a few of the most revolting, puzzling, and offensive moments. Those of you who have seen it (why?), please feel free to disagree or add to my list.

1. Jada Pinkett Smith plays The Black Lesbian (doubling up on your tokenism is so economical!) and early in the movie she has a conversation with Debra Messing in which Messing asks why there are so many lesbians now, the implication being that JPS is gay because it's trendy. JPS agrees, pointing out that women are better lovers than men because they don't leave the toilet seat up. Huh?
2. When Meg Ryan's character is having an emotional crisis, she eats a stick of butter. It's probably the most striking image in the movie, evoking my strongest emotional response (revulsion).
3. A remarkable fact about The Women (1939) is that it has a cast of all women. Set in places inhabited in the 1930s largely or only by women - a salon, the dressing room of a high-end department store, a divorce ranch in Reno - the story sets out to examine relationships among women. In the remake, the cast is still (with one glaring exception, which is in the final irritating scene..but no spoilers) all female, but senselessly so. In this movie, scenes take places in public streets and for no apparent reason there are no men walking down those streets. It is a strange distortion of the relatively interesting gimmick on which the original story was built.
4. Another weird change from the original that bothered me: Silvia Fowler (Roslalind Russell/Annette Benning) is weirdly softened in the remake. In both cases, she's extremely shallow, but in the 1939 version she's catty and heartless and shallow, while in the remake she's just unbelievably thoughtless. Norma Shearer's Mary really has no reliable friends but her mother and her daughter. Meg Ryan's Mary forgives and forgets a lot. Too much.
5. This is in no way unique to The Women but when we rewatched the 1939 version after watching the new version, I was again struck by how unpleasantly thin leading ladies are these days. Perhaps it was to disguise her painful gauntness that Meg Ryan (a fashion designer) is dressed in horizontal black and white stripes in almost every single scene.
6. I do not have enough time to list the cliches. Like when Messing had to leave a reception because ohmygod her water just broke. Or when JPS is so grossed out by childbirth (she's a lesbian, see?). Or when Meg Ryan EATS A STICK OF BUTTER.

(Photos: Meg Ryan looks completely scary. Norma Shearer decorates a garden for some reason.)

why we needed our own blog

3:13 PM me: why do people like movies I don't like????

Kristin: which movie?

me: doubt

Kristin: hm. who?

3:14 PM me: these guys I usually like, from filmspotting

they're talking about how brilliant and complicated this movie is

and I thought just the opposite: why???

Kristin: well, remember when it was cool that michael reviewed cloverfield and didn't slam it?

3:15 PM me: yes

Kristin: maybe it's like that.

me: but

Kristin: except

ha!

he didn't call it brilliant.

he liked it for what it was.

me: right

and not only did he not call it brilliant, he didn't call it brilliant for all the exact same reasons I thought it was lame

3:16 PM Kristin: right

me: he didn't talk about how brilliant and innovative it was to use hand held camera

how he was astonished because no one has ever done that before

he didn't talk about how subtle and clever it was to cut back and forth between the two stories

Kristin: well, i can't answer your question, but i will say this is the reason we needed our own blog.

Doubt it.

What do you do with the writer of Taco Bell advertising tour de force, Congo? Let him write and direct a movie about what might have happened at a Catholic parish.

While this movie did lack the killer laser apes indicative of John Patrick Shanley's earlier work, it did have Amy Adams dressed as a nun.

I'm ashamed to say I needed Lydia to point out that the movie was called Doubt and the last word of the movie was "Doubts". According to her, that was to reinforce the idea that this movie had a theme of doubt. I think she was reading too much into it. To say that would be the same as saying that because there were thunderstorms during every conflict between characters means there was a relation. Nothing but coincidence.

Next thing you know, she's going to be telling me that Meryl Streep isn't actually and Nun and Philip Seymore Hoffman isn't actually Truman Capote dressed up as a priest. I doubt it.

Movie Marathon Recap and Kwik-Revus

I spent Christmas week avoiding family and catching up on the end-of-year video releases, as an eremite under a vow of crap-watching.  I posted brief blips about them elsewhere, but Kristin said they belonged here, so here you go: fifteen movies, fifteen ill-informed opinions.