I just watched A.I. I was pretty impressed, and I'm starting to worry that some day I may have to recognize sci-fi as a respectable genre--a real blow to my pride, so don't count on it happening any time soon. All I really have to say about A.I. is to ditto everything that I said about how scary immortality is in Post 83, and to quote a recent bit of chat between me and Theric in which I said, "It was very--different
I dunno
I don't know that I've ever seen a movie with an ending that let me down so gently
It was
kinda refreshing and relaxing, though also very sad
In its speculative fictitious way, it was too pretty to be terribly sad
Watching that movie was like experiencing a deep sigh
the kind that clears your head and makes you feel better
despite the fact that it's motivated by sadness
A deep, refreshing, sad sigh
That's what the movie was
Yeah...."
I've also seen Forrest Gump, The Maltese Falcon, and The Thin Man without blogging about them. Forrest Gump was--visually pleasing, but I wasn't sure how to receive it and can't say that I loved it. The Maltese Falcon was very good, but that's all I really have to say about it. The Thin Man had a very impressive dog in it--by far the best actor in the show, and none of them were very terrible.
Good night.
I've also seen Forrest Gump, The Maltese Falcon, and The Thin Man without blogging about them. Forrest Gump was--visually pleasing, but I wasn't sure how to receive it and can't say that I loved it. The Maltese Falcon was very good, but that's all I really have to say about it. The Thin Man had a very impressive dog in it--by far the best actor in the show, and none of them were very terrible.
Good night.
.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with The Thin Man, believe it or not, is that it was based on a book. The sequels are not and they are really where the series hits its stride. (My favorite is the second, with Jimmy Stewart.)
The Thin Man movies are excellent for many things, but they are probably most often sited as the most remarkable example, in Hollywood, of a married couple who genuinely love each other.
These movies are ready to be remade, and although I do believe that movies should be seen in their original form, The Thin Man movies are not like, say, Psycho, where I would reel at the idiocy of thinking to remake.
For Nick (and I may finally write a post on this someday--I've been meaning to for years) the only possible choice is Hugh Laurie. He's perfect in every way, and now that House has proved he can do an American accent, there is no way to choose anyone else.
Nora's a bit trickier--I want to Say Cate Blanchett, but having two farners in the lead roles seems wrong somehow.
The mistake Hollywood will make if they do decide to remake them however, is casting too young. EW once recommended Jake Gyllenhaal and Reese Witherspoon for the leads in an imagined remake. NO NO NO NO NO. They're both great, but no. Nick and Nora need a bit more gravitas under their comedic chops.
Oh yeah-- the others are all much funnier than the original too.
--
As for Forrest Gump, biggest nonmovie ever.
Hmph. I like Forest Gump. Most likely this is because I get a kick out of seeing all the parts where they integrated Forest into (and made him responsible for) all of the most famous events in his life time, and that all of those things happened without him trying - come on, I mean, inventing the yellow smiley face by wiping his face on a shirt - that's classic. (but then again, I think I'm the typical American movie-goer that likes happy endings even when they are almost obviously contrived... though Schmetterling is helping me remedy this.)
ReplyDeleteOn rereading my comment I notice that it's a little disjointed. The jump from Gump's blundering successes to happy endings was pretty abrupt. Let me insert a transition: I don't necessarily need a lot of depth in a movie as far as meaning. I just like stories. I like happy stories. I also like sad stories that have deep meaning... I just don't need to rate movies based on their depth. Often, mindless drivel is enough for me.
ReplyDelete