2hr 45 minutes. That's > 30 minutes longer than the world record men's marathon time. I repeat - it takes longer to watch Troy than to run 25 miles. It's not a movie, it's a lifestyle.
Nothing to see here - move on.
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Joe Morgenstern (WSJ) agrees: show kids blood
Had an interesting email exchange with Joe Morgenstern of the WSJ. Turns out we were both stunned silly by the violence of Mr. and Mrs. Smith. At first Joe fretted that he was turning into a curmudgeon and losing his mind, but eventually realized that it was the studio execs who had lost theirs.
Thanks Joe - i've always enjoyed your writings, especially as a somewhat liberal voice in the moral conservatism that is the Journal.
Thanks Joe - i've always enjoyed your writings, especially as a somewhat liberal voice in the moral conservatism that is the Journal.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Husky voices and corner offices
Scariest movie of 2004? Not The Grudge. Not Dawn of the Dead. Not even emaciated Olsen twins in New York Minute. For me, and my deep professional insecurities, it was In Good Company, the story of a middle-aged sales exec who finds both his job and his daughter taken by a 26-year old executive.
While the film never quite found its stride balancing between a corporate downsizing morality play and a feel-good father and surrogate-son relationship metaphor, i spent last night grinding my teeth in a restless slumber. You see, the movie raised my Triple Crown of fears - mortgages, kids and unemployment. I've just acquired the first, figure I'm on the path to the second, and luckily have never experienced the last (which doesn't mean I'm not convinced it's on the horizon later in my life). Shivers up my spine. Give me zombies any day.
Side note: Scarlett Johansen does a good job in a thin role (Director Paul Wietz does well with a whole range of male feelings in his films - American Pie, About a Boy, now this - but doesn't really articulate women with the same depth) and is an absolutely stunning young woman but damn' her voice is distracting. Too husky. Like she smoked a pack of cigs and washed them down with a shot of fiberglass insulation.
While the film never quite found its stride balancing between a corporate downsizing morality play and a feel-good father and surrogate-son relationship metaphor, i spent last night grinding my teeth in a restless slumber. You see, the movie raised my Triple Crown of fears - mortgages, kids and unemployment. I've just acquired the first, figure I'm on the path to the second, and luckily have never experienced the last (which doesn't mean I'm not convinced it's on the horizon later in my life). Shivers up my spine. Give me zombies any day.
Side note: Scarlett Johansen does a good job in a thin role (Director Paul Wietz does well with a whole range of male feelings in his films - American Pie, About a Boy, now this - but doesn't really articulate women with the same depth) and is an absolutely stunning young woman but damn' her voice is distracting. Too husky. Like she smoked a pack of cigs and washed them down with a shot of fiberglass insulation.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Actions without consequence (or "How to earn your PG-13")
Every holiday weekend deserves at least one guilty pleasure. Okay, two guilty pleasures, since i can't let a 4th of July pass without watching the Nathan's Hot Dog eating contest.
Sunday night we went to see Mr and Mrs Smith not because we had high hopes for the films but because the stars are just so darn attractive. Unhumanly attractive. The type of attractive that makes an ordinary guy like myself wonder if we're of the same species.
But strip away the glamour and what are you left with? Just about the most violent film i've seen in a really long time. Fists, bottles, guns, knives, rocket launchers, cars, just about anything that can be throw, shot or broken, is used as a weapon. This is a PG-13 movie?
Why yes because there wasn't more than one curse word and no nudity in sexual situations. Instead you get lots of violence. But not graphic violence mind you, because the MPAA says that would be a R.
So what defines 'graphic violence?' Well, the MPAA is somewhat circumspect on putting any language around it but basically it comes down to blood and gore. Thus Mr and Mrs Smith has dozens of deaths, brawls and crashes, but barely any blood.
The result? A twisted morality play where violence without consequences in rated PG-13 (okay for kids) but violence with consequences is only for adults.
Huh? It's like a fairy tale without the moral.
Sunday night we went to see Mr and Mrs Smith not because we had high hopes for the films but because the stars are just so darn attractive. Unhumanly attractive. The type of attractive that makes an ordinary guy like myself wonder if we're of the same species.
But strip away the glamour and what are you left with? Just about the most violent film i've seen in a really long time. Fists, bottles, guns, knives, rocket launchers, cars, just about anything that can be throw, shot or broken, is used as a weapon. This is a PG-13 movie?
Why yes because there wasn't more than one curse word and no nudity in sexual situations. Instead you get lots of violence. But not graphic violence mind you, because the MPAA says that would be a R.
So what defines 'graphic violence?' Well, the MPAA is somewhat circumspect on putting any language around it but basically it comes down to blood and gore. Thus Mr and Mrs Smith has dozens of deaths, brawls and crashes, but barely any blood.
The result? A twisted morality play where violence without consequences in rated PG-13 (okay for kids) but violence with consequences is only for adults.
Huh? It's like a fairy tale without the moral.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)