Movie diatribes

Yet another batch of toffee is cooling hopefully in the refrigerator, and I take a moment to document my thoughts on recent movies watched. The background is the receipt of another free trial offer from Netflix, which we gamely accepted on the premise that it would allow us to watch a few of those movies that we sort of wanted to see but certainly wouldn't have gone out and paid money to watch.

*************************

Total Recall

Michael saw this movie many, many times when it first came out, the summer he spent in Alaska. He watched it so much because 1) he was desperate for movies to watch in Alaska; and 2) he was thrilled to be able to go to a movie theatre at all, movies having been off-limits for the past two years at Moody. So this film has sentimental value for him, and it was important that I understand where he was going with random quotes like 'Two weeks.'

By an amazing coincidence, I actually saw a preview for it when it first came out, just about the first time I ever went to a movie theatre, too: when my parents took me to see Driving Miss Daisy. Don't ask me how such a preview ever got in front of such a movie. Several key scenes from the preview made a strong impression on me and gave me nightmares for weeks, to wit: 1) People walking behind a screen and their bones showing! They were skeletons! 2) Someone's head landing in someone's hands, saying, 'Get ready for a surprise!' and then exploding.

I was relieved to discover that the movie is by no means as scary as my ten-year-old memories led me to believe. With Michael there to warn me when to close my eyes, I completely missed out on any gory scenes (Me: Is it worse than the Nazis' face-melting in Indiana Jones? Michael: Hmm, maybe about the same. Me: Okay, I'm closing my eyes. Warn me whenever it happens.) and was pleasantly surprised to find that: 1) the skeletons were just people walking through an x-ray machine, scanning for weapons; and 2) the exploding head was that of a robot.

The plot was interesting, in that it really kept you wondering; it reminded me a bit of a simplified Matrix, without the high-tech special effects. It was a fascinating premise, and made me question a little bit the boundaries of reality, perception, and how we can be sure at any given time that we are awake, aware, and in full possession of our memories.

*************************

Pride and Prejudice (the new one)

I saw this with a girlfriend when it came out last year, and enjoyed it for what it was: it by no means did justice to the book, and certainly didn't seem to measure up to the spectacular A&E version, but felt like a good enough movie in its own right. I remember having a distinct impression of reading an abridged novel where the pace continues breathlessly and minor details are never sufficiently fleshed out, but I was so familiar with the story myself that my mind gamely filled in all the blanks, leaving me with a pleasant overall impression.

Well. Watching it again (and with Michael) was certainly a come-down. Second time through, it shone forth as a cheesy romantic comedy/period-piece-costume-drama-wannabe. Michael kept groaning, issuing eye rolls and such commentary as 'Oh puleeeeeze!' 'Yeah, right!' and 'You have got to be kidding me.' And I was much inclined to agree with him.

I can forgive the director leaving out so many characters in the interests of brevity. But the characters that were left were sadly undeveloped. Wickham never really makes that much of an impression on us as a good and wronged soul (nor do his initial attentions to Lizzie really show up much), so that his unveiling is surprisingly un-startling and unmoving. Bingley is an idiotic nincompoop. ('Yes. I mean, I'm glad....that is, I'm sorry you're ill...') Charlotte's pragmatism and calm philosophy are overshadowed by her desperation and fright. Lydia and Kitty never seem to register as that shocking of flirts.

The good things: the girls really looked like teenagers. Lydia actually looked her age. Jane was really beautiful. The impoverished gentility of the Bennets was well portrayed in the shabby everyday clothes they wore. Judi Dench as Lady Catherine was imperious and superb.

The bad things: the almost-kiss at the rain-drenched rotunda. The lack of explanations for the customs of that time. The incessant listening-at-the-door trick, which got real old real fast. The overdone melodrama (Lady Catherine's midnight visit? Darcy letting himself in the room, in the dark, to deliver his letter?) for the sake of inciting indignation or sympathy in the breasts of the audience. You know what it made me think of, through and through? One of those badly-done faux historical romances, with the rippling muscles and low-cut bodices on the cover, absolutely riveting questions on the back, and 20th-century characters capering about inside. It's as if the director thought, 'Let's dress them all up in old-fashioned clothes, give them English accents, and the audience will think it's about people in Jane Austen's day!'

Still, it was a pleasure to watch. It wasn't scandalous, it was clean and wholesome, the music was lovely, the scenery was English, and Keira Knightly is a delight to watch.

*************************

Prime

I actually just saw the preview for this, in front of P&P. The plot, from what I could gather, involves a woman who meets and falls in love with a guy who turns out to be the son of her therapist, which apparently none of them figure out until far enough along in the movie so as to be embarrassing for all. Common enough fodder for your average romantic comedy, right? Right, so I forthwith had no intention of seeing it. But yesterday as I walked through Target I happened to see it on the shelf, so I picked it up and read the cover, from which I gleaned the following information: 1) The movie stars Uma Thurman and Meryl Streep. 2) The female character is a 37-year-old divorcee; the male character is 23. 3) The movie's title comes from the premise that both characters are in their respective sexual prime, hence well-matched for each other.

Ugh. I can't even work up enough ire to rant about the tragedy of boiling down the merits of a relationship to the purely physical, but it did make me wonder whether the movie-makers considered the characters to be remotely near, say, their emotional prime, their financial prime, their intellectual prime, their maturity prime? Probably not. Naturally we all know those factors have far less to do, generally speaking, with how we relate to other people and how well we get along in life, than does the physical aspect. That, of course, is the pivotal point upon which most good relationships are built.