NYDiscovery

"My Life in Ruins", not quite bad as expected

It is kind of a perpetual new years resolution of Elke and me to watch more movies. We wanted to start the year off with "The Hurt Locker", a top Oscar contender. But it got late, so we fell back to "My Life in Ruins", a little comedy that critics tore into pieces. But we were in for easy entertainment and above all nice Greek sceneries.

And yes it's really not good. The plot is ridiculous and all characters follow simple stereotypes (to its credit, the movie officially labels the stereotypes in the beginning). But there are, surprisingly, some good jokes (one of them almost had us rolling on floor, laughing) and in the end everybody is happy, which is kind of contagious.

It is more a Lifetime Original Movie than a feature and we watched it to the end. So if you come across it, let's say, in an airplane entertainment system, it may be one of the better alternatives.

Up in the Air - almost the best movie of 2009

Yesterday Elke and I went to the movies (the second time in two weeks!) for "Up in the Air". The reviews were mostly stellar and I really like the overall story as I like travelling, flying and hanging out in hotels. And it is a good movie, no doubt. Two thirds through it I thought I need to revise my 2009 favorite movie title.

But then came the end, which spoiled the film for a good part. Without giving too much away: Jason Reitman cheated. For the sake of the story, his characters acted in a way, which was inconsistent with how they acted for most of the movie. Apparently it didn't bother many reviewers. I did bother me.

Avatar - actually, I loved it

I'm not a big fan of action movies, but Avatar was one who I kept thinking about since I saw it on Sunday evening. And that's not because it was about a big, important topic. No, it was because James Cameron again managed to create characters I could connect to and I cared about, even though many of them are computer-generated aliens. How does he do it?

• Cameron likes women. Most of his movies include strong female characters and I believe it's hard to make a good movie without women in significant roles. Interesting that much of Hollywood ignores that fact, besides casting Angelina Jolie as super-assasin again and again.
• A strong love story helps to make the audience care about the characters. Saving the world or fighting evil may be good motivations for the hero, but the rest of us can connect far better with falling in love.
• The story was original. Yes, it was composed out of very familiar templates, but it didn't follow a comic or a novel and that eliminates lots of constraints. It is understandable that Hollywood likes to not build up excitement from scratch and rely on already familiar characters and story lines, but this also has twisted movie making in a weird way, where childish cues (e.g. a guy dressed as a bat) need to be turned into something bigger and more meaningful.
• He keeps the story simple. That is criticized in some places, but there's awful little time, to tell a complex story, even in a almost three hour movie. So it helps if the badass colonel is nothing but a badass colonel and the sleazy corporate guy doesn't suddenly sprout a conscience.
• Create the right dose of action sequences. Avatar had a lot of them, but not too many. More important, they were mostly connected to the story.

So, Avatar is a very good movie and it's one worth to go to the theatre for. And, I'm actually looking forward to the sequel.

Exchanging Buz Luhrman's "Australia" with Trueba's "Belle Epoque"

Buz Luhrman's AUSTRALIA opened the weekend I boarded the Queen Mary 2 to go on my anniversary cruise together with Oliver. Despite considering myself a huge "Huge Jackman fan", I didn't manage to watch the movie while it was still running in the theaters. Having read enough negative reviews, my desire to sit through it for 3 hours simply wasn't big enough. So I waited for the DVD release and 2 weeks ago, Netflix sent me the awaited DVD. But I still didn't watch it immediately but waited 2 more weekes to eventually sit down and play the disc.

Yesterday though seemed to be the perfect evening to see AUSTRALIA. We even bought Australian red wine to go with it which would not have been my first choice since I prefer Italian, Spanish or American wines. Not this time. The wine was an excellent choice but the movie was not!

I won't be able to say if there's a turn to the better or if there's anything of interest happening in the movie at all because it lost me, or better yet, never got me, right at its opening credits. 5 minutes in, we stopped the movie and agreed that we can't stand neither the female nor the male lead which both were introduced in an excessive matter that was very hard to believe. Everything seemed like coming straight from a rag. What has beautifully worked in MOULIN ROUGE didn't work at all in AUSTRALIA. Not even Hugh Jackman's build up body, half nacked, could save me from absolutely hating the movie. We gave up! After the "tent scene" we removed the disc, put it back in it's Netflix envelope and still couldn't believe what we were just trying to watch.

What has happened Buz Luhrman? Why?

In for a quiet evening - for a change - we then decided to watch the other DVD that Netflix has sent us. I've decided on a Spanish language movie, to support our Spanish learning experience: Belle Epoque by Fernando Trueba. What a different experience! The movie didn't want to be anything but a romantic romp and it succeeded on every level. There's a reason why in 1993 it won an Oscar as Best Foreign Film. After having seen this joyful movie, I was happy again with the evening's turnout which hasn't started promising at all.

-- Elke

Nights in Rodanthe: why can be a film so boring?

I do believe that love stories can be at least as suspenseful and riveting as when people pointing guns at each other. However, romantic comedies and dramas are much more difficult to make and often fail utterly. So was "Nights in Rodanthe", which fell through with the critics when it was released last fall. When wed watched it last Saturday on iTunes, I felt pretty empty, even though I generally liked the actors, Diane Lane and Richard Gere and the locale, the Outer Banks in Northern Carolina, was extremely beautiful. But other than that there was absolutely no reason why this film has been made. I don't know the Nicholas Sparks novel, so I cannot say if there was a reason why this book was ever written.

So why did the story of "Nights in Rodanthe" fail so miserably?

• You need interesting characters. A woman and a man from mildly dysfunctional families is not cutting it. Living separated from husband and being in a conflict with her teenage daughter? Estranged with his son over work? Just look around, really does a movie have to be made around this? And a doctor loosing a patient, not through malpractice, but just bad luck?
• Love needs to be believable. This usually requires that the audience falls in love with both characters. The fact that actors are attractive people helps, but there needs to be something else and a movie needs time to show that. But "Nights" couldn't spend a lot time on the love story, because it needed some left for it's dramatic after-play. So we just had to believe that they found soulmates in each other.
• Something needs to happen. Exposing the characters to a stream of unrelated, random events is not a story we need to watch a movie for. That happens to us every day. A story for a movie needs more - it needs to glue the audience in front of the screen, anticipating or dreading the next scene. In "Nights" drama strikes like a lightning out of blue sky (you could almost hear writer and/or screenwriter mutter: "I don't do happy ends! Never!"), at a time when I was looking forward going to bed and dreaming of a beach house.

But again, this movie was funded and filmed, failed at the box office, but probably still is profitable in the end (we paid $3.99 to see it). But it is disheartening why there are so few filmmakers out there who can get a decent romantic drama or comedy going.

Rooting for KATE - it's time to finally bring this baby home!

Okay everybody, the Oscars are on! Can't help it, but I have to watch it year for year. Although I am sorry to admit, that this year I haven't watched a single nominated movie! Me, not watching these films, has less to do with their topic - in the contrary - but with actually going to the movies. It's just no fun anymore, at least not in New York City. - The Ziegfeld theater being an exception! -  I couldn't agree more with what Oliver already said!

Now, 45 minutes into the show, I can't help but ABSOLUTELY loving it! From the moment I heard that Hugh Jackman would be hosting, I knew that regardless of having watched the nominated performances or not, I wanted to watch it and Hugh Jackman and the new designers and show architects are the BEST that has happened to this show in YEARS. It's exquisit.

During the red carpet segment, I was mourning with Mikey Rourke his departed dog, I was super moved seeing Kate Winslet in this gorgeous dress and hairdo - I hope she wins! (At least, I saw her in Revolutionary Raod, of course I did - not alone because of her to be honest). And then again I was moved by Penelope Cruz' acceptance speach. And there it goes. It's really, really cool tonight. "The Duchess" won for Costume Designe, yeah - another movie I've seen! It's one of these events you're sorta look forward to but don't have any expections and it turns out to be so much better than hoped for,

So, as it says in my subject line, I am roothing for Kate Winslet. And I am hoping that Danny Boyle wins too - two Brits, well deserved.

-- By Elke

"Confession of a Shopaholic" and the Oscar Night

Finally something like a romantic comedy that wasn't torn into pieces by the critics, so we invested $26 (including Fandango convenience charge) to visit the Regal 11 at Battery Park. The theatre experience, again, wasn't worth it, some folks next to us talking all the time and two guys (what are they doing in this movie?), who left in the first third - they probably anyway had tickets to a different movie. Not that it matters that much, but it somewhat spoils the experience of a big event worth paying that much money for.
Anyway - the movie was pretty delightful, if you like seeing Isla Fisher whirling from one frame to the other, that is. I do and that helped me over some mild suspension of disbelief moments and goofy slapstick scenes. So it is one of the better movies I've seen in the last month.

Of course this doesn't make it a contender for the Oscar's tonight. It's a comedy and the Academy rarely believes that funny stuff is great film making. Unfortunately this year, we haven't seen a single nominated movie – I would have loved to see Slumdog Millionaire, but it was just released yesterday on DVD (unfortunately not on iTunes yet). The other movies are not so much my cup of tea: For whatever reason I don't like the story of Benjamin Button, especially not with Brad Pitt in it (but that's just me). The other movies, I'll maybe watch someday, but not in a theater.

Again, the Oscar's don't follow blindly the most successful movies of the year. Many thought they should nominate The Dark Knight, but they didn't, for a good reason, in my opinion. First, I didn't like it and second, despite a lot of good film making effort and acting, it's still a superhero comic.

Also, these will be the first Oscars that I'll follow on Twitter. This was a lot of fun for the Globes and the Grammy's, because you get instant comments on what happens on the screen. To do this, go on Twitter Search and follow the action. Even more better: use twhirl.

A quick 2008 movie review

Over the holidays I watched some of the films that Elke and I missed 2008, mostly because we don't really enjoy the theater anymore. Fortunately there's iTunes and NetFlix, so it's easy to catch up. This was enjoyable a most blockbusters are on one or the other way, but for someone like me, who's intrigued mostly by a good story, it was also a kind of letdown:

• WALL-E, who some critics see as the best movie made in 2008. I saw it on the tiny screen of an airplane and maybe that was why I was almost bored. I have the feeling that animated films still blind many people by their ever increasing technical perfection and by their ability to present fantasy worlds in consistent perfection. Story-wise it was pretty inconsistent, though, featuring, for example, a plant who grows in a dark vault as well as in open space.
• The first one on a big TV was Iron Man, which received pretty good reviews. I find a story around a super-rich super-genius playboy rather annoying, because while this is maybe a good role model for little boys, for me the character gets either unbelievable or I feel like an absolute looser. Credits to director Jon Favreau and Robert Downey Jr., though, because it was pretty entertaining with its straight forward story about greed and betrayal. Thanks also, for keeping the inevitable CGI action sequences, such as the robot battle in the end (I know it's actually men in suits) to the minimum.
• Somehow it looks to me that everybody wanted to like The Dark Knight so badly that it was elevated to the vicinity of the best movies ever made. And the way Christopher Nolan designed Gotham City as a mashup of real cities and managed to give depth to characters originally designed to entertain little boys was impressive. The story, however was a mess: the Joker first wants to kill Batman, then he doesn't. Then he wants Bruce Wayne to reveal himself, but changed his mind soon after. And all the Joker's wickedness was only possible because of elaborate logistics, conveniently off screen. He must have had access to huge funds and an army of helpers, who kept devoted to their tasks, even though they were routinely killed off by their boss. And even Heath Ledger's notable performance could only partially offset that the character of the Joker looked to me, well, very much like an unbelievable clown.
• Next, The Women. Well, the critics said it all. But since I generally find women more interesting a movie with only female characters should have something for me? No, because I really dislike dogma. Especially if it's not motivated by the story: for almost two hours there are just coincidentally no men where the action takes place. The worst, however, is the way the cheating husband is inflated to a larger-than-life persona by never actually showing him (a trick very popular in thrillers to make the villain more mysterious). Which makes this a supposedly feminist movie where a cast of 136 women dances more or less around a guy. This may have worked 1939, but certainly not 2009.
• Finally, 21. Not much to say about it, except that it was bad, boring and utterly predictable. I like Jim Sturgess (Across the Universe is one of my favorite movies) and Kate Bosworth (and so is Blue Crush), but that didn't help a lot.

There some more 2008 movies on the list, but unfortunately we have to wait until they get released on iTunes or DVD.

Why do movies suck? Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2

Films are pretty expensive to make, so why does it happen so often that a movie is unsatisfactory or even just bad? This is subjective, of course, but for me a good movie needs foremost a good story. So if the end product is boring, why was the script turned into a movie in the first place? I know that there's much more to the economics of a film than its artistic value, but still, sometimes I'm just puzzled.

Exhibit A: The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2. I'm not exactly the target demographic for this movie, but in general, I do think that women make more interesting characters and I like it most when drama and suspense are achieved without crime and violence involved. In other words, I wanted to like this movie, but I couldn't. The story is about four girls who used to be best friends, but were torn apart as the went to different colleges. Most of the time the plot deals with four independent story lines about the usual issues of young people: love, rivalry, self-confidence. Unfortunately this doesn't leave much time for depth, so it made it difficult for me to care about any of them. In fact, it made me want to shout: "Why don't you just get over with it and move on?" Complex stories can work and sum up to a greater total ("Love Actually" is an example, "Crash", I think, too), but it doesn't work here.

Also, presumably to save time, all sense of location was stripped. The characters traveled within the US, as well to Turkey and Greece as easy as double-clicking in Google Earth. For example, in order to get to the island of Santorini, you have to take a plane, then another plane or a ship, then a bus (but not a donkey, since the modern ferry harbor is accessible by car) and a lot of waiting time in between. By totally stripping out traveling from A to B the girls became detached from the hardships of routine life, able to focus solely on their little personal problems. Somebody who's able to spontaneously travel to one of the most beautiful places on Earth should just be happy, with or without a boyfriend.

The movie grossed domestically almost $45 million, which is, I guess, not that bad. But with four talented actresses, two of them with much buzz in current TV shows, and enough budget to film in beautiful locations, why hasn't it made more?

The night when sideburns jumped the shark

I just love that title and had to use it! Not sure if anybody gets it. Maybe it's really just funny for me and maybe I should add that for the last couple of years, I really, really liked guys with noticeable sideburns. Sometimes, even my heart beat faster. And because of his sideburns, I think I started to like Hugh Jackman. Then again, what's NOT to like about Hugh Jackman? Can't wait to see his and Nicole Kidman's new movie AUSTRALIA, directed by Buz Luhrman.

But back to the sideburns and why they lost their effect on me. Saturday, Oliver and I went to see a gig of the Statues of Liberty at the Bowery Ballroom. It's been their biggest venue so far and the show was absolutely terrific! Before the Statues, another band was playing , "Above" is their name, and I did neither like their sound nor did I like their looks. They were trying too hard. They were trying to evoke a 60ies feel and I just didn't buy it. And one of the guys had these obnoxious sideburns. This was it! Sideburns have officially jumped the shark!

I think, I am back to dark hair and bright eyes.

Mr. James Bond fulfills at least one of these criteria. It's the first movie poster I saw.

Did YOU already see some?  And what do YOU think of the movie's premise?