Capitalism - Feudalism without the Kings
Movie Monday
A rather dry Movie Monday. I did finally hear the end of the two (yes, only two) chapter Thing in the Attic by Blish. (It's on LibriVox.) It's a sci-fi short story which I've been listening to for over three weeks. No, I'm not a slow listener; I keep falling asleep.
Now, LibriVox is great because you only get to hear a chapter at a time so, if you fall asleep, you don't miss much. However, you can miss it often and I've lost count as to how many times I've awakened to the black screen on the computer and no sound in the earpiece. I finally beat the system yesterday though; after once again sleeping through the ending the night before, I listened to it when I awakened in the morning. It worked; I heard the ending, but just barely, I noticed my eyes closing.....
Thing in the Attic is an interesting sci-fi. Not your full-bodiced damsel in distress sci-fi and not your dreary polemic about human future; but a thinking man's take on the ageless question: What lies beyond?
Unfortunately, the only movie I sat through this week (outside of my knitting companions: HP and the......, 2012, and Angels and Demons, was Flawless (2008) with Demi Moore and Michael Caine.
What a dry, flat movie, a caper movie with no panache, a "figure out why" movie where you finally shout: I DON'T CARE containing one piece of revisionist history that annoyed the hell out of me.
The movie takes place in the 1960s and Moore plays the only female lower executive in the London Diamond Corporation. She realizes she has reached the glass ceiling early on and Caine, as the old, but brilliant, janitor asks her if she wants to help him steal the diamonds. (Now, this diamond company is the place from which all the world's diamonds originate. We're talking diamonds lying around like dandruff.)
We get your typical plot points: Will she help him? Why is he doing this? Will they get caught? Unfortunately, too soon, this question forms in our mind: Who the hell cares?
Michael Caine can add panache to any role. As one commenter said: Even when he's phoning in a role, he's interesting. Moore, however, disappears behind her costume of 1960s' perfect grooming and behavior. People forget the start of the 1960s was Andy Hardyville; it was only as the decade advanced did the hipness happen.
Moore plays it pre-Woodstock and she plays it historically accurate but oh so dull. It's as if the coiffed hair, the traditional suit, the black high heels just swallowed up any spontaneity in her acting.
However, I said in the beginning that it was the revisionist history which really turned me off this movie. OK, it was sort of dropped after a big splash at the beginning but it had a souring effect.
The movie begins with protests in London against blood diamonds. Now, the movie starts in our present time so at first I thought this protest was current and accurate. But this protest was supposed to be happening in the 1960s! No way. Just google "blood diamonds" and read the time line. They are just plain wrong. And this grated on me.
Combine this with the angst Moore feels for her lack of professional opportunities (Did women really have this feminist awareness in the early 1960s?) and I felt like I was watching a one-of-a-kind PC robbery caper. And, that's not meant as a compliment. Caper movies have to be fast-paced, witty, light on their feet, not vetted by the UN Human Rights Commission and NOW.
Then, tack on the the completely out-of-left-field social conscience ending: You must do good for the world, and I was left with one loud: Huh?
So I guess you can say for this movie we have blood diamonds as the beginning bookend, a boring caper movie in the middle, and a challenge to all successful women to do good as the end bookend. Dullsville!
OK, my job for next week is to find a movie I like. Avatar has arrived from Netflix. Hated Cameron's Titanic (not the ship, the plot) but I'm going to be optimistic.
See you next week.
Now, LibriVox is great because you only get to hear a chapter at a time so, if you fall asleep, you don't miss much. However, you can miss it often and I've lost count as to how many times I've awakened to the black screen on the computer and no sound in the earpiece. I finally beat the system yesterday though; after once again sleeping through the ending the night before, I listened to it when I awakened in the morning. It worked; I heard the ending, but just barely, I noticed my eyes closing.....
Thing in the Attic is an interesting sci-fi. Not your full-bodiced damsel in distress sci-fi and not your dreary polemic about human future; but a thinking man's take on the ageless question: What lies beyond?
Unfortunately, the only movie I sat through this week (outside of my knitting companions: HP and the......, 2012, and Angels and Demons, was Flawless (2008) with Demi Moore and Michael Caine.
What a dry, flat movie, a caper movie with no panache, a "figure out why" movie where you finally shout: I DON'T CARE containing one piece of revisionist history that annoyed the hell out of me.
The movie takes place in the 1960s and Moore plays the only female lower executive in the London Diamond Corporation. She realizes she has reached the glass ceiling early on and Caine, as the old, but brilliant, janitor asks her if she wants to help him steal the diamonds. (Now, this diamond company is the place from which all the world's diamonds originate. We're talking diamonds lying around like dandruff.)
We get your typical plot points: Will she help him? Why is he doing this? Will they get caught? Unfortunately, too soon, this question forms in our mind: Who the hell cares?
Michael Caine can add panache to any role. As one commenter said: Even when he's phoning in a role, he's interesting. Moore, however, disappears behind her costume of 1960s' perfect grooming and behavior. People forget the start of the 1960s was Andy Hardyville; it was only as the decade advanced did the hipness happen.
Moore plays it pre-Woodstock and she plays it historically accurate but oh so dull. It's as if the coiffed hair, the traditional suit, the black high heels just swallowed up any spontaneity in her acting.
However, I said in the beginning that it was the revisionist history which really turned me off this movie. OK, it was sort of dropped after a big splash at the beginning but it had a souring effect.
The movie begins with protests in London against blood diamonds. Now, the movie starts in our present time so at first I thought this protest was current and accurate. But this protest was supposed to be happening in the 1960s! No way. Just google "blood diamonds" and read the time line. They are just plain wrong. And this grated on me.
Combine this with the angst Moore feels for her lack of professional opportunities (Did women really have this feminist awareness in the early 1960s?) and I felt like I was watching a one-of-a-kind PC robbery caper. And, that's not meant as a compliment. Caper movies have to be fast-paced, witty, light on their feet, not vetted by the UN Human Rights Commission and NOW.
Then, tack on the the completely out-of-left-field social conscience ending: You must do good for the world, and I was left with one loud: Huh?
So I guess you can say for this movie we have blood diamonds as the beginning bookend, a boring caper movie in the middle, and a challenge to all successful women to do good as the end bookend. Dullsville!
OK, my job for next week is to find a movie I like. Avatar has arrived from Netflix. Hated Cameron's Titanic (not the ship, the plot) but I'm going to be optimistic.
See you next week.
No comments:
Post a Comment