Oscar nods

I generally don't care much for the Oscars because I don't watch a lot of movies in the theaters anymore, but I was really happy to see "Falling Slowly" from Once nominated for Best Original Song. I never reviewed that movie here, but it was just a really great little film, and interestingly I'd heard that song on Internet radio and really liked it just a week or two before seeing the movie without knowing the connection. It's up again a whole slew of songs from Enchanted, which I also kind of loved, but really, go Once!

Other than that, the only movies up for major nominations that I've seen are Juno and Atonement. I really enjoyed Juno, and I think Ellen Page was awesome in it, but Best Picture of the Year? As for Atonement, I thought it was sort of overrated...it's a really beautiful film and there was some great acting in it, but I didn't really think the story was all that amazing. I tried to read the book a couple of years ago, and then again this year, but I just couldn't get into it at all...

enchanted

So cute.
So good.
A very, very happy movie.

I wanna buy it when it comes out on DVD. :)

golden compass

The first mistake I made was re-reading the book *right* before the movie came out. I should've known better than to do that -- it didn't work with Harry Potter, it definitely wasn't going to work with this. But oh well, it's too late now.

The second mistake was expecting it to be good. Seriously, I was NOT a fan of this movie at all. Maybe I'm in the minority, (Rotten Tomatoes has it at 45%, so apparently reviews are split) but I really did not enjoy The Golden Compass AT ALL.

But here's the good: The actors/actresses were excellent and well-represented the characters as I imagined them. The daemons were created extremely well and I loved how they put to screen something I could barely grasp in my imagination. The world created was beautifully and fantastically created.

But the bad: The storyline strayed far from the book too often for my liking. And, in my opinion, the plot development was poorly done. Okay, I understand there's a lot in this book, too much for a 118 minute film, but seriously -- there were a lot of things that could've been left out and a lot of things that simply could've been included instead. PLUS, the movie wasn't even complete! It just ends of in the MIDDLE of the story! (Okay, not really, but I was still angry.) I know that this is an issue with trilogies in general -- that the story will inevitably be halted almost abruptly, but at the very least finish the journey of the golden compass! ::sigh::

Seriously, not a fan. (I asked my friends who I went with and the ones who hadn't read the book(s) felt the story was choppy, but the one who had read it a long time ago enjoyed it as is.)

Side note on the religious aspects of this film: Seriously, not all that present. The religious themes are a lot stronger in Books 2 and 3 of the series anyway, and I really think that the little in Book 1 was toned down A LOT in this movie.

Harry Potter and the "3D IMAX Experience"

I wasn't quite looking forward to this movie all that much because Order of the Phoenix was probably my least favorite of the books so far. I mean, yeah, there were a lot of good things in it, as with all the books, but I wasn't too big a fan of angry, yelling-in-capital-letters Harry who was making dumb choices. Yeah, yeah, growing pains I guess.

That said, I thought the movie was actually pretty good. Somehow they took the longest book of the series and turned it in the shortest movie so far, and I have to say that they didn't leave out that many important things. I wish that they would have left in the part at St. Mungos where the kids see Professor Lockhart and Neville's parents, and also the bit with Rita Skeeter and the Quibbler, but I can understand why they didn't. The trial was really well done, all the Dumbledore's Army bits were fantastic, and I definitely loved the Weasley twins' exit from Hogwarts. The flying scenes over London were quite spectacular too.

Other good things: Imelda Staunton as Umbridge and Evanna Lynch as Luna Lovegood. Just perfect casting. Umbridge really made your skin crawl and Luna was just the right amount of spacey and dreamy. I noticed that most of Luna's lines were lifted verbatim from the book, which was smart because, really, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Also liked the casting for Tonks, though we didn't get to see her much. In fact, I feel like we didn't really get to see much of the adults at all. McGonagall and Snape and Moody and Sirius and Lupin and Hagrid were very much offscreen for most of the movie, which can't be helped, I suppose, but kind of disappointing nonetheless.

Our main trio did a commendable job. Seeing the snippets of the first movie throughout really underlines how much they've grown up and it's kind of nice to see. It's not often that we get such a long franchise with all the same actors. Ron was too much in the background for my taste though, and Emma Watson really needs to stop saying all her lines so forcefully. I know that's pretty much Hermione's personality but I was kind of annoyed by all her heavy breathing.

So...other things I didn't like? I saw the movie in 3D IMAX, and it was kind of less than impressive. I've seen one other 3D IMAX movie (Tom Hank's From the Earth to the Moon) but that was entirely made for that format and was really excellent. This one had a 20-minute sequence near the end in 3D and since it was filmed for both regular and 3D, I feel it wasn't really that successful. Seeing it on the huge screen was nice though.

I thought the beginning was odd. We didn't see the Dursleys at all in the last movie and I still remember them with their funny 50s(?) era clothes from the earlier movies. So seeing Dudley in his sports jersey and big chain was strange. And Mrs. Figg wasn't at all like I pictured her.

Bellatrix Lestrange...I know she's a Death Eater and she attacked Neville's parents and she was in Azkaban and all that but somehow I just didn't picture her as being THAT crazy. Helena Bonham Carter obviously had a blast playing her but I don't know, I thought she was kind of over the top.

And Dumbledore. Sigh. I think this is really the biggest problem in the movie franchise right now, and one that can't easily be fixed. Dumbledore is probably one of the most beloved characters from the books but in the movies he's just ALL WRONG. I know Michael Gambon's a fantastic actor, but he's playing the role as all authority and is totally missing the whimsical bent that the Dumbledore of the books (and that Richard Harris had in the first two movies) has. It wasn't really as noticeably bad as in the last movie and in a way I guess I've become resigned to it, but yeah. Not a fan.

And finally I'm not sure what to think about the ending. Maybe because I knew what was going to happen but Sirius' death didn't have quite the emotional impact I was expecting. The fight between Voldemort and Dumbledore was exciting but I was bit confused by the aftermath with Harry's mind being invaded by Voldemort. I don't remember that from the book at all. And I was also kind of confused by the fact that Harry actually heard the prophecy and actually handed it over to Lucius. Not at all like it happened in the book and I don't see how it really helped move the story along or shorten it or anything.

Hm, I know that sounds like a lot of things I didn't like. But honestly there's no point in going into these movies and expecting everything to be how you want it. Prisoner of Azkaban is still my favorite film by far, because I felt like it actually had some style, but I'd probably rank this film third, after the first one, followed by Goblet of Fire, and then Chamber of Secrets in last. (In case you're curious, my book rankings are 1. PoA, 2. SS, 3. HBP, 4. GoF and then OotP and CoS are tied for last for different reasons...OotP was the only book I actively disliked but CoS was was really forgettable.)

The final book comes out this Saturday, although there are already copies of it floating out there (silly online retailers). I'll probably be done reading it this weekend but to respect those who won't read it that fast or right away I will wait until probably next weekend to post a review and even then I'll try to lay off the spoilers.

The Namesake

I read this book (by Jhumpa Lahiri) a couple of years ago and I absolutely loved it. For me, the true sign of a book that I really really love is when I wish I could write something like it, and that was exactly the case with this book. So when I heard that they were making a movie of it, and that Mira Nair (of Monsoon Wedding) was directing, I was super excited. Then I heard that Kal Penn was starring in it, and strangely enough, that made me even more excited. I know, I know, Kumar in a serious movie? But truthfully this could be a brilliant move for his career. He is probably the most recognizable South Asian actor in America today, and playing a role that's close to his heart...it's like Vince Chase doing Queens Boulevard! (Entourage reference for those who have no idea what I'm talking about.)

Anyway, Kal Penn is actually really good here. The film spans about 30 years, so he still gets to exercise his comic chops while playing Gogol as a disaffected teenager while showing us a little-seen dramatic side as an adult and in scenes with his family. But two Bollywood actors play Gogol's parents and they're the real stars of this movie. I'm not sure why ads are toting this as an "epic love story" because for me, both the book and the film are about the immigrant experience, and ultimately, family. There were quite a few Indian/South Asian families in the theater when I went to see it, and it was obvious that they were really feeling it, and really appreciating that there's a mainstream American movie about their experience. I heard one man in the row behind me say "That's what I went through!" during the scene where the newly married Gangulis settle into their apartment in the US. It made me think about my own parents and how it must have been for them, moving to a new and unfamiliar country thousands of miles from home, and raising children that are in some ways, strangers. It made me want to call my parents and tell them that I loved them. And of course, as a first generation American, I saw a lot of myself in Gogol and Sonia as well.

The movie followed the book very closely, so obviously I knew what was going to happen but the ending made me cry anyway, and I was still sniffling for a good 15 minutes after it was over. (And then I went home and re-read the book.) This isn't really a plot-driven movie, but I thought that things really did come full circle by the end. It takes place in both New York and India, and both are shot beautifully. (It also kind of made me want to go see the Taj Mahal.)

Go see this movie!

On a related note: It was recently announced that Kal Penn will be teaching two courses at the University of Pennsylvania next spring: "Images of Asian Americans in the Media" and "Contemporary American Teen Films." This is just...weird. I'm going to Penn for my master's degree and I don't really get what this means. Are these going to be regular, weekly courses? Or seminars? I was at Cornell for undergrad and we had a few actors as "professors-at-large" who gave lectures now and again but none of them taught actual courses. Although it would be funny if I like, saw Kal Penn around campus or something. And if I were an undergrad, a course about teen movies?? I would SO be there.

Children of Men

I'll start off by saying that by far, this is one of the best movies I've seen in a very long time. Admittedly I haven't watched very many movies in theaters this year but that's partly due to the fact that nothing really attracted my attention, either because of the buzz or the movie itself. And don't even get me started on last year's Oscar movies. I still think that Crash pretty much sucked. But this was the first movie since probably Serenity that I was excited to see and was still excited about afterward.

Loosely based on a novel by P.D. James, Children of Men is a dystopian view of the near future where the human race is dying out, not because of nuclear bombs or alien invasions but simply because women have become infertile. The film doesn't make any attempts to explain why, presumably because no one in this world knows either. The movie opens with a news report that the youngest person in the world has died. There have been no children born on Earth in nearly 20 years.

Britain, where the film is set, is apparently the only nation left standing in the world, with all other major governments and cities demolished by war or terrorist attacks. "Still standing" is a relative term, Britain is essentially a police state, with street bombs, armored passenger trains, and a Nazi-reminiscent rounding up of refugees from other countries, but people are still working, still getting coffee, still trying to lead normal lives.

The plot follows Theo, played by Clive Owen, as he shepherds a young woman who, amazingly, is pregnant, through the English countryside and through a war-torn refugee camp to the coast where she can be delivered to the mysterious Human Project, which is presumably a group of scientists working on the fertility problem. There's actually a lot of action and violence, all of which is filmed extraordinarily well. There's a good dose of humor too, mostly provided by Michael Caine, who plays a hippie friend of Theo's. The effect is just riveting. And despite the bleak and depressing nature of nearly everything in the movie, the ending is a hopeful one.

I'm a big fan of Alfonso Cuarón. I loved the little-watched A Little Princess, and even his odd modern-day Great Expections, and I personally thought that his Harry Potter movie was the best of the bunch so far. He's definitely a huge talent. One of his upcoming projects is a movie adaptation of The History of Love by Nicole Krauss (which I reviewed here). Ordinarily I think I would be worried about this book becoming a movie, but with Cuarón at the helm I believe it'll be fantastic. I can't wait!