Movie Ratings and My Own Opinion

I would like to say I am a movie conosour. I have been watching them for decades, forming opinions as I go along, and deciding which ones I want to see again and again. I've found through the years that my opinions can change quickly about a movie. For example, when I was very religious and made my stand about certain films, I didn't give "my" opinion, but based an opinion on what I was "supposed" to watch or enjoy. This was based on what someone else said I was "allowed" to watch or enjoy. Thus, I didn't like Terms of Endearment, even though the entire world found it incredibly funny and gut wrenchingly awesome enough to vote it an Academy Award winner in 1983, with eleven nominations and five Oscars. Why didn't I like it? Looking back, I have no clue. I watched it again after I decided to go back to my roots and take back the option of having my own opinion. I loved it, scratched my head about what I didn't like to begin with. It was probably because it had swearing in it, along with an old woman trying to make it with a retired astronaut or the fact that the parents would kick the kids out onto the porch so they could have sex and make yet another baby. All those "bad" things were probably why I chose to kick it out.

I didn't like the movie 300 the first time I saw it even though my eldest child fell in love with it. She loved the brawny and scantilly clad muscle men in it (this was what she told me she liked about it). Why didn't I like it? Because it was so violent (but I love Pulp Fiction). Because it showed killing in slow motion, blood spewing out so slow you could see where each drop landed. Because the wife, son and the wheat fields scenes came too close to copying one of my most loved movies The Gladiator. Because it seemed nuts that 300 men would stand to fight an incredibly huge army such as Persia's King Xerxes had, and believe they had a chance of winning. But I was camping last year and everyone went out to the lake to fish. I stayed behind and watched this movie again and found I really liked it. What changed my mind? Was it that so many others liked it? No, though I will admit others opinions do help form mine. It was because I saw the beauty of the way the movie was made. The choreography of the fight scenes done in slo-mo was now more amazing than threatening. The lighting was dim and almost bluish red so it gave the movie a "Roman" feel (even though it was Greek). And I have to admit seeing all those muscles was a nice change from what we normally get to see (scantilly clad women).

So I'm reading The Rolling Stone magazine and find in the January issue a film critics letter with a scathing memo printed to look like a letter inset sideways on the page addressed to the Academy. It is written and signed by a Peter Travers. I googled his name cuz I don't know who would dare have guts enough to use the "f" word when speaking to the Academy and find out he is the Rolling Stones film critic. I look up what movies he has critiqued and find that most of the movies he likes have some type of violence in them. For instance. He liked Kill Bill. I like Quentin Tarentino but the "Bill" movies hardly kept my interest. He liked Super Bad and Knocked Up. I loved Knocked up, but it seemed to me that they just thought the fat curly headed dude was so funny in Knocked Up for his blatent and cutting sense of humor that they went overboard and just let him fly off at the mouth in Super Bad. It was too much. I like frosting but too much of it makes me scrape it off the cake.

So what makes one opinion better than another? Like I said, Travers movie pics tend to be hard core with violence. He seems to "like" those type movies. I looked up Pride and Prejudice under Rotten Tomatoes, the web site Travers and a bunch of other critics display their wares and was amazed at the positive reviews most of the critics gave for this most beloved movie. Travers gave it 3/4 tomatoes. Not bad for one who runs with the violent. He also gave Pans Labyrinth 4/4 tomatoes and I have to agree with him (again some pretty violent parts in that movie....... so bad I have to turn my head in one scene). What an amazing movie. I followed it completely and don't speak Spanish. But he also gave the Pursuit of Happyness 3/4 tomatoes and I don't agree here. The movie is 94% sad and the last ten minutes has some happy. I bought it and wish I hadn't. I won't watch it again. It has been from such movies that we have adopted the watch it first then buy it if you like it motto. I also purchased Happy Feet, Blood Diamond and 23 basing those purchases on what others said about the movies as being "grrrrrrrrrrrreat". I feel I wasted my money and gave Blood Diamond away. New motto still stands...... watch then buy if you like it.

So why such a long blog on movies? I can't help it, I love movies. I would go out more if it didn't cost $9.00 a ticket. I would love to be on the cutting edge, watching before everyone else does so I could give my opinion first. I would also love to watch more foreign films, and films that no one knows about. Maybe when all I can do is lay in bed I will become the movie critic I want to be.

Future plans for movies........... The Atonement is next. It is the right stuff for Kiera Knightly (she creamed Domino). Just saw American Gangster. I liked it. Won't watch it again. I like Denzel Washington. He's cute and all but he plays his parts the same each time. He hits someone in the head without breaking a sweat or producing a wrinkle on that dreamy black face. Russell Crowe, however, can play it violent or sweet, he uses hair changes or accent changes to pull off his characters with something new each time. He is an amazing actor.

I also just saw Elizabeth: The Golden Age. Aub asked if Cate was Oscar worthy. Nah. But I love period films and will have both Elizabeths in my collection. The backdrops, sets and costumes are wonderful. Cate Blanchett is another amazing actress, and she was excellent in this movie. It isn't that she needed to play the part any better, but that the part itself didn't really demand an Oscar performance.

In my opinion, Reese Witherspoon shouldn't have won best actress last year. Amazing work to be able to pull off the character of June Carter Cash and do all the singing herself. Props to her. But, as far as acting goes, Felicity Huffman should have taken the Oscar in TransAmerica. I can't imagine how difficult it would be, being a woman, to play the part of a man readying to become a woman. Her vocal inflections and awkwardness, the way she carried herself, the costuming, even her body shape was so convincing. I can't imagine how difficult it was to think through the part, play it like a guy/girl/guy. Who can do such a thing and pull it off? Felicity did. Her "Acting" should have won her the Oscar. Why didn't she? Good question. Everyone has their own opinion. Travers opinion isn't going to make the Academy be anything other than what it has been. There will be more winners that shouldn't win. Disappointments like Felicity must have had. Movies getting ignored. It's all good. When it comes right down to it, you take what someone else says about a movie, put it on the back burner, watch for yourself and then form your own opinion. Then you share it on your blogspot.

Across the Universe

I have only a couple of minutes to say a couple of things about this movie.

EXCELLENT!!!!!! That's one thing. The other: Now I must purchase both the soundtrack and the movie. I want to write a novel about this film but I have only ten minutes to get out of here and go to work so I will write my novel later.

WOW! What a rush! I have waited for so long to see this film. I first saw the previews in the movie theatre and wrote down the title in the dark. I missed it on big screen and was really bumbed. I had plans to take my sis to see it when I was in Utah last and it wasn't playing anymore. It has been months since I saw the first preview and at last I my wait is over. I'll write my review later.