The Golden Compass

M: Woody Allen said, "This food is terrible . . . and such small portions."

This movie felt like it tried to cram so many characters and scenes into its - actually not so short time allotment - that the story just bounced randomly from character to character and event to event. The movie wasn't exactly short, but I can only explain the splintered presentation by a lack of time to present an un-splintered version. I didn't feel like I knew, or liked for that matter, any of the characters. Because I didn't know or understand them, I didn't know why they did the things they did (like the little girl going into a scary tent by herself in the night). The movie was definitely made for people who have read the book and know what is going on. For the rest of us, it makes no sense. And the discussion of "dust" just doesn't matter, who cares. Give us an idea of what you are talking about and maybe we can get on board. Instead, I was just bored. The movie was very pretty and and well made, but it was very high on the "what the" factor. After pausing the movie for a brief intermission, we came back, pushed play, and discovered to our amazement that the movie was actually over. A major "what the" moment. After sitting through over 2 hours of head shaking moments, the movie presented us with a "leaves you wanting more" moment. Woody Allen's refrain fits: the movie was terrible, yet it was too short and it ended too soon. 2 stars

-

V: I was looking forward to seeing this, and it left me quite underwhelmed. When it ended, we were both asking, "Really? Really, that's it?" (We know they hope for a sequel, but still.) The positive is that it is very, very beautifully done. (Oscar for Best Visual Effects, nominated for Art Direction) It might even be worth watching just for that. Maybe just mute the sound. No, the script isn't that bad, but it does have a few of those obvious "power" lines that the characters repeat later in the film (or a couple of lines later) for dramatic effect. My biggest complaint was that it just quickly jumped from event to event with little lead-up or suspense. It was incongruous and inconsistent. For example, we asked (spoiler!) why the bear was nothing without his armor, owed his life to the girl for (very quickly and casually) helping him get the armor back - then spent so much time without it - then had it again after traveling long distances. Stuff like that bugged us. A shame as it is obvious that a lot of money and effort was spent on the rest of this film. We'd heard Tom Stoppard was hired then fired for this film - now that might have been a great movie. And the religious controversy - it's pretty harmless. (I would say more about that, but this is already getting long.) I'm adding half a star because it's so pretty. 2 1/2 stars

Sense and Sensibility (BBC, 2008)

V: Here we are again, I think this is the last S&S we'll be reviewing - partly because this one really satisfied. Like Mike mentioned about the last one, this is better than the book. The main reason? Colonel Brandon. I think this is a better told story because they flesh out Brandon, all the way through the movie. It really adds to the tension and romance. (Probably because he reminds us of Darcy - and who doesn't love Darcy?) There's a particularly great moment when he catches Marianne - I was sold. True, it's not in the book. Who cares? If it's an improvement to an already good story, I accept it. I think we all (4 of us) agreed that this is a bit better than the Emma Thompson version. But giving credit, I do think it borrowed some things from Thompson's. And I preferred Thompson's Willoughby. (As did Thompson, actually, she married him. Well, the actor, anyway.) This Willoughby wasn't as handsome, and gave you reason to dislike and distrust him from the beginning. I preferred to be taken in. Keeps things complicated. This was a little more Villain-Hero simplistic. But I still liked it a little better than the other. 3 1/2 stars

-

M: Great movie, great casting. I liked this even more that the last version we watched, which was also very good. As V said, the characters and their relationships were just a bit more fleshed out. This contained more from the book which the earlier version had cut out; it helps that it was 3 hours long. Although it was better that the prior version, and I gave that 3 1/2 stars, I just don't think this can quite jump to the 4 star mark for me. That is pretty prestigious company and this doesn't quite make it there, but it is close. See it. 3 1/2 stars

All About Eve

V: Today was a sick day for V. I usually don't like to watch movies without M, but since I had hours of lying in bed ahead of me, and it was an old show, I thought I'd go ahead. I had picked up a pack of old Best Picture winners from the library and out of four, this was the one I picked.

All About Eve (1950) garnered a record 14 Oscar nominations (not tied until Titanic in 1998). The star, Bette Davis, didn't win the best actress Oscar, (but got the Golden Globe, NY Critics, and Cannes award) though many felt it was the best performance of her career.

All About Eve is the story of a young woman who flatters and deceives her way into stardom at the expense of those who offered her help. It is also the story of an actress who is beginning to feel less valued because she has reached the ripe old age of 40, worrying about her identity as an actress and a woman. The script is great. The acting is really great. The story is interesting and engrossing as you follow the variety of characters. I'd heard of this movie and have meant to see it for a long time. I'm glad I did. It was especially fun for me to see Bette Davis in action, who is a Hollywood legend, but of whom I knew little. I would be embarrassed not to give this film 4 stars, since it is one of the classics, and who am I to say otherwise. But I also think it really deserves it. There is great tension throughout, great story, great characters. 4 stars

M: Oooh. Sounds good.

Sense and Sensibility (1995)

This is the Emma Thompson version, for which she won the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay. M&V read the novel just before watching this, and we'll be watching the 2008 version soon.

V: I'm always a fan of Emma Thompson. She's a great actress and did a good job adapting the novel into a screenplay - of which, editing, seems the biggest challenge. Lots of characters were chopped, which is good in an Austen movie. (Too many Miss This's and Mr. Thats and so-and-so's cousin...) So to cut a lot and keep it cohesive is a hard task. I thought it was really good. She gave Margaret a life, who was just a footnote in the book. I liked the casting of Edward (Hugh Grant), Lucy, Marianne (Kate Winslet) and Colonel Brandon (Alan Rickman.) And though Emma Thompson did a great job, she was, I think, a little old for the part. (She was 36 at the time. Her character is in her early twenties.) One critique of the adaptation was that Colonel Brandon says he's offering Edward a parsonage in order to enable him to marry quickly, when in the book, he offers it just for some small financial support but says it's too small to allow him to marry - which was great because it gave the reader a bit of hope, before it was dashed again . . . (I'll try not to give the plot away.) I think it's tough to always be happy with an adaptation right after you've read the book. Oh well. All in all, it was a very good movie. 3 1/2 stars

M: Sense and Sensibility is not as good as Pride and Prejudice. Can you compare two books like that? I think so. Although the book is good, the characters are fairly static and the story is not as enjoyable as Pride and Prejudice (see our movie review, also right after reading the book). Still, the book is good, and this movie is even better than the book. Partially because, as V pointed out, many unnecessary characters were left on the editor's floor. Also because the characters were so well cast and the parts so well played. Also, is it fair to single out Emma Thompson as the "old" one. All of the characters in the movie were technically too old. For crying out loud, in the book, Maryanne went from 17, in the beginning, to the ripe old age of 19 by the end. So this was the 90210 of the Austin movies, thats ok. Who wants to watch adolescents act anyway. 3 1/2 stars

Midnight

V:This is an olllldie, but goodie. It was recommended to me by VSL (Very Short List) so I thought I'd give it a try. This 1939 movie stars Claudette Colbert, Don Ameche and John Barrymore (Drew's grandpappy). A penniless singer poses as a wealthy baroness and has to decide between marriage for love or money. This is a fun little romantic comedy. I liked Claudette Colbert, she was very charming. There were some funny, silly parts in the thick of the mix-up. Like a lot of romantic comedies, there is a lot of silliness, and not enough development of the romance. But it was cute. 3 stars

M: This is an oldie . . . .

I find that sometimes when I watch an older film I rank it on a sort of scale. I say to myself "that was good . . . considering how old it is." But, I don't think that is a fair way to rank a movie, so I am trying to base my review strictly on how the movie struck me, today. I have to say, it didn't strike me all that well. I don't know exactly why the romantic couple ever fell in love. So he drove her around in a cab for a few hours, and threatened her with a little physical abuse and kidnapping. Does that love make? Maybe in the 30's. In fairness, there were a few pretty funny parts. But mostly silliness and overacting. 2 1/2 stars