Wednesday, February 24, 2010
The Princess and the Frog
M: The other day we had cousins day, and all of the cousins, and their parents (that's me) went to see The Princess and the Frog. V didn't go, so for now, I am on my own on this one. A few things of note: this movie is old fashion hand-drawn animation, and this movie has the first black princess. Both are good things, and present a beauty all their own, where computer animation gives way to old-school drawings, and old school drawings get the honor of shaking loose from their past and emerging with a wonderful story with beautiful characters that have not been included in the past. The good thing about the age we live in is that, even though all the adults talk about what this movie represents, to my girls, it is just another movie, with just another beautiful princess. Her color didn't matter to them, which made me proud both of them and of society. But I digress, this is about the movie. The movie takes place in New Orleans and takes you from the bright carnival-filled streets to the firefly-filled swamps. One particular firefly almost steals the show. This movie is very touching and sweet, though a bit loud and bright at times, probably like New Orleans. Also has some dark and scary scenes involving voodoo, which may not be for everybody. All in all, a very good show. 3 1/2 stars.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Julie and Julia
M: To start, I am an Amy Adams fan. I liked her when I first saw her in the Office. I think she was brilliant in Enchanted. But, when placed on the same screen with Meryl Streep, you can't help but draw comparisons, and they were not favorable to our little Amy. Likewise, I found myself drawing comparisons between Julie and Julia, and I reached the same conclusion. Julia Child is practically a historical figure, the persona of cooking. Julie, as far as I can tell, wrote a blog and cooked Julia's recipes. That they ended up on the same screen is unfair to Julia Child. Julia is absolutely masterfully played by Meryl Streep. It was perfect. Amy Adams did a commendable job portraying Julie, but she is no Meryl Streep, just as Julie is no Julia. Plus, I don't know, but I am guessing that Julie, not Julia, got all the money for this movie, which makes it feel, to me, a bit exploitative. It seemed like if I wrote a report about Winston Churchhill, and how awesome he was, and they made a movie about my report. The part of me is played by Keanu Reeves, and the part of Winston is played by Sir Anthony Hopkins. Is it fair, how does it compare? Is it just me? Am I going too far? Anyway, I didn't think the storyline was all that interesting, or half of the storyline anyway, and I am always left a bit in the dark when movies start talking about how "cooking saved my life." But, Meryl Streep was brilliant, as was Stanley Tucci, who played Child's husband. For that, I give the movie 3 stars.
V: M is right that the Julia part is the best part. But I do think the Julie part is valuable, too. Julie, an average person, was trying to accomplish something with her talent, and leaned on an established heroine to do it. It is motivating on both ends, both women going for their goals. Julie was a good vehicle in telling the story of Julia. So I think the Julie half was fine. That having been said, I think they could have done this movie just about Julia and it would have been awesome. I loved all those parts. Streep and Tucci were absolutely adorable and delightful. I did find the movie to be inspirational and fun. 3 1/2
*As a side note, it was interesting to watch this movie from my perspective - (from what other perspective could I watch it?) - that of a woman, wife, and mother. Julia was pretty much free to explore what she wanted, having relative good wealth, and a supportive husband. Julie had a supportive husband, and a day job - so adding this large project ended up straining her relationship with her spouse. Neither had children. So you start to wonder how much do you do? At what point does following your dreams stop being virtuous and becomes just self-indulgence? Just because Julie discussed the problem in the movie doesn't make the issue disappear. And, apparently, the real Julie's marriage has fallen apart. Balance is one of the hardest things to achieve. And good timing. Hmmmm.
V: M is right that the Julia part is the best part. But I do think the Julie part is valuable, too. Julie, an average person, was trying to accomplish something with her talent, and leaned on an established heroine to do it. It is motivating on both ends, both women going for their goals. Julie was a good vehicle in telling the story of Julia. So I think the Julie half was fine. That having been said, I think they could have done this movie just about Julia and it would have been awesome. I loved all those parts. Streep and Tucci were absolutely adorable and delightful. I did find the movie to be inspirational and fun. 3 1/2
*As a side note, it was interesting to watch this movie from my perspective - (from what other perspective could I watch it?) - that of a woman, wife, and mother. Julia was pretty much free to explore what she wanted, having relative good wealth, and a supportive husband. Julie had a supportive husband, and a day job - so adding this large project ended up straining her relationship with her spouse. Neither had children. So you start to wonder how much do you do? At what point does following your dreams stop being virtuous and becomes just self-indulgence? Just because Julie discussed the problem in the movie doesn't make the issue disappear. And, apparently, the real Julie's marriage has fallen apart. Balance is one of the hardest things to achieve. And good timing. Hmmmm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
