Change Your Image
battlecrycreek
Reviews
Treading Water (2001)
Excellent Movie about Love and Relationships
This movie just felt very true to life. I liked the ending which seemed to resolve naturally without any big moments but with a lot of little moments coming together. You could tell it is an honest love story. It doesn't matter what the 'sexual orientation' of the main characters are, it still a story about love and understanding.
There were a lot of scenes that involved the family. The setting is during what for some people is a very stressful time. Namely "the holidays." Christmas to be precise.
Like most good films, this one addresses issues of love, fitting in, expectations, and can't-be-overcome biases. In the end Alexandra and Casey make a choice for each other, knowing that love is difficult, and about giving. Well done.
Corpse Bride (2005)
Wonderful! except for the songs and story
It's too bad that movies depend on plot at all because if they didn't this would be a really great movie. It was visually great and the characters even seemed to be 'acting' with their mannerisms and facial expressions. With the exception of the piano pieces, which were quite nice, the music (specifically the songs) were terrible. Also, the story doesn't really seem to make sense.
Tim Burton and Danny Elfman fans will love it though, and claim it's great, but they won't be able to tell you why the story and songs are great, so be wary! There is a reason. They aren't great. It's too bad really, because a lot was done that was right. The visuals were good, and the Victorian England setting seemed spot on. I did love that Town Crier, and I hope that they make a comeback.
Kids (1995)
Honest attempt!
This film works to expose the secret life of a certain culture group (unsupervised inner city white kids) as an innocent lost affair. This is fairly true, and although the dialog and action can be described as 'realistic' there are probably many examples of behavior and language that's a lot worse than what goes on in this film. The most striking is that there is a 'comeuppance' at the end whereas most of this kind of behavior exists and thrives without any immediate and apparent consequences. But the point is that this is bad behavior and will have a bad ending. Whether all that is true or not is one for the social philosophers, but it's a great movie to bring up that subject and execute it fairly well.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)
Good for fans of the book/radio and newbies alike!
Unfortunately anyone who sees this movie will probably know that there are books that have some sort of highly regarded status. See Roger Ebert's review on how that can definitely color one's view of the film. He doesn't "get it" and doesn't wish to either. But after several viewings, I don't think that it's necessary to be familiar with the books to enjoy the movie. There is a lot in the movie, however that may take repeated viewings to completely appreciate though, since the movie does have a rather brisk pace, and the narration, which I think works well, occurs amidst some action (thinking about the scene that explains how the invention of the aerosol can predated the invention of the wheel on a particular planet). It's quite hilarious (love the square wheeled bicycle!), but the main characters are rushing along, and if you are encountering it for the first time you might miss all there is to the narration.
This points to the fact that the film direction seems a little fast paced with seems consistent with the story, although if you are used to the book it might seem too fast. For example, the scene in the beginning where Ford convinces the man in charge of the bulldozers to take Arthur's place is done rather quickly with Ford engaging the bulldozer drivers in a way that isn't in the book. One comment suggests that this was a mistake since it would take just as long to film what actually occurs in the book (with maybe a 5 second difference). I don't believe that is the case at all. It would have take 3 times as long to film the scene as it was in the book, so they needed to speed that a long somewhat. It is unfortunate that the pacing of the movie does seem to be at odds with the book, but I think it's just a matter of what one is used to.
The one misstep which has been mentioned a few times already is the relationship between Arthur and Trillion. Did the studio insist on this? Kind of felt like that.