Current Movies (2010)

Posted by: Barbara

Current Movies (2010) - 01/02/10 02:47 PM

Chris said:
What about Up in the Air? Hasn't anyone seen that?
I saw it yesterday and loved it. I understand the ending is somewhat controversial, but it seemed absolutely right to me. Anyone else planning to see it?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 01/03/10 12:27 PM

We went last night, and yep, that ending is the right one.
Posted by: Rita

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 01/04/10 09:59 AM

Going this week.
Posted by: LizP

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 01/04/10 03:12 PM

Bringing the discussion of Avatar here. I'm not a sci fi movie person, and while the 3D visuals were nice, it was just a bit much of glowing footprints, drooling animals, and floating jellyfish flowers. It could have been about an hour shorter, imho.

But my main issue is that Cameron felt the need to hit moviegoers over the head again, and again, and again. "Unobtainium?" Seriously?

3 stars out of five, at best, for Dances with brightly colored winged things.
Posted by: Pete

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 01/09/10 09:36 PM

I saw Nine this afternoon. My spouse said sh had liked Chicago much more, but I thought this movie was well done and well played. Hell, any movie with Sophia Loren and Penelope Cruz in the cast ought to be superb.
Posted by: Rita

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 01/10/10 04:40 PM

I finally got to Up in the Air and I loved it. It has all the trappings of a slick modern comedy but in fact it's a pretty serious movie. Traditional comedy would have ended with Ryan and Alex abandoning their mobile way of life in favor of a committed stability. But when that turned out to be not possible, things were left dangling. Up in the air. Good movie.
Posted by: Jon

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 01/10/10 10:21 PM

I hope to get to Up in the Air soon.

I did see Nine last week. I had seen the original Broadway production (starring Raul Julia) and the excellent 2003 revival (starring Antonio Banderas, who I persist in thinking would have been the ideal choice for the movie). I love Maury Yeston's music for this (though his lyrics are not on the same level), and am regretful but unsurprised that about half the score was dropped.

I'm even more regretful that Rob Marshall adopted exactly the same stylistic device for the songs ("they're the protagonist's fantasies") that he had in Chicago. It fit the earlier film very well, this one not so much. But some of the performances were excellent. Best, to my surprise (because she's a performer for whom I have no awareness, and her song is the only one I don't like), was Fergie as the Saraghina. Marion Cotillard was also lovely and touching as Luisa. Judi Dench is such a pro she puts her song over by sheer talent, but the reconception of her character as a British costume designer rather than a French producer pretty much removed any justification for the "Folies Bergere" song (and especially for it being done with a French accent). I didn't see any point to inventing a role just so Kate Hudson could prance around for 5 minutes and then vanish.

So... a very mixed experience, disappointing to one who knows the musical, but not without its definite pleasures.
Posted by: Lorna

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 01/11/10 03:04 PM

Hmm. I must be the only person in the world who didn't like Chicago, so I guess I'll skip Nine.

Up in the Air...Alex definitely was sending out hints she'd be open to a committed relationship. She practically invited one. Then at the end she left a voice message for Ryan saying that she was willing to continue their current arrangement if he wished, leaving it up to him. All those hints must have been on another level of the game she was playing, and Ryan just missed the elevator. The latest TV ads are promoting the movie as a romantic comedy. But while there were a lot of really funny things in the movie, I'm wondering if it's a comedy at all.
Posted by: Kay

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 01/11/10 05:43 PM

I had planned to catch Young Victoria this weekend but it is only showing at one theater, our old unimproved art house, where the seats are uncomfortable, the popcorn bad and the walls so thin you can hear the sound from the next theater...maybe I'll wait for the DVD.
Posted by: Barbara

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 01/12/10 02:02 AM

Originally posted by Lorna:
Up in the Air...But while there were a lot of really funny things in the movie, I'm wondering if it's a comedy at all.
Oh, yes, it's a comedy all right.

**********SPOILER -- Jon, don't read this******









Comedy has a certain pattern, and Up in the Air follows it. First a status quo is illustrated -- a way of living, a point of view shared by the principal characters. Ryan loves his life as a perpetual traveler, never stopping long enough to put down roots. Next, a disrupter is brought into the scene, someone who introduces an unwanted change. In this case it's Natalie, whose modernized method of firing employees would put an end to the status quo that Ryan so openly enjoys. Then come numerous ups and downs that can come to a stop in one of two ways. The disrupter can be absorbed into the body of the status quo, requiring a big change in the disrupter. That does not happen. The other way is to exile the disrupter so everyone else can return to the status quo. That does happen. Natalie gets fed up and quits. Our last view of her is her back as she walks away from the camera, dragging one more suitcase through one more airport.

This is where the movie throws us a curve. Ryan gets his status quo back, but he's not sure he wants it any more. And that's Alex's doing, not Natalie's. The old way of life just doesn't seem as satisfying as it once did. So it's a tarnished victory at best, the same way his relationship with Alex is now tarnished. No solid closure here, which you expect in traditional comedy. The possibility for closure exists, but it's left you know where.

Two sidebars. First, the blubbering bride in the wedding that almost didn't happen -- that was Melanie Lynskey, who played Pauline in Heavenly Creatures (her first acting job).

Next, the movie begins and ends with interviews with employees who'd been sacked. The interviews at the beginning are filled with anger, shock, dismay. But a note of cautious hope can be heard in the final interviews; the ex-employees are beginning to heal -- a proper note for a comedy to end on. Did you know those people are not actors? They're real former employees who got the boot in the same way pictured in the movie. Remarkable.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 01/14/10 12:24 PM

Didn't know that. Yes, it's a serious comedy, isn't it?
Posted by: Jon

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 01/19/10 02:06 PM

I did know that about the interviewees, and it's the main thing that's held me off from seeing the movie. It seems as if knowing that these were real fired people would make it all just unbearable to watch. I take it that that's not the case?
Posted by: Barbara

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 01/19/10 07:19 PM

Not at all. The interviewees at the beginning -- before the healing has begun -- are more angry than anything else. They've got some fight in them, and you feel indignant for them, but there's no wallowing in pain, for instance.
Posted by: Rita

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 01/19/10 08:34 PM

Golden Globes: Avatar won both best movie and best director (James Cameron).

Best screenplay: Up in the Air

Best actor: George Clooney lost out to Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart).

Best actress: Sandra Bullock in Blind Side.

Best actress in a comedy or musical: Meryl Streep, Julie and Julia.

Best supporting actor: Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds. Didn't somebody post something about him here?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 01/19/10 10:25 PM

Avatar beat out Up in the Air? Oh, that's just not right. As much as I enjoyed watching what CAD could do in Avatar, Up in the Air is easily the superior movie.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 01/20/10 04:22 AM

Hm, I wouldn't describe Julie and Julia as either a comedy or a musical!
Posted by: Barbara

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 01/20/10 08:17 PM

The production companies decide which categories their movies are entered in. In this case, the producers evidently thought Streep and Julie and Julia would have a better chance if they didn't go up against the heavy hitters in the more prestigious "Best Movie" category. By the same token, Up in the Air should have been in the comedy category, but since it was the best movie nominated, why not go for broke? It certainly didn't deserve to lose to Avatar; I'm with Austin on that. Avatar is a stunning visual achievement, truly cutting edge, and that should be recognized. But it was not the best movie.

David, are you reading this? Do you still dislike George Clooney?

Now, I have a confession to make. I went back to see Avatar again. A friend wanted to see the 3-D version, and I was curious enough about it to go with her. And guess what? It's not exactly the same movie as the regular version; there were a few slight changes.

First, that silly transport vessel with the bottom-mounted thrusters -- the exterior of that ship was not shown at all. We saw the interior and the pilot's view of the compound during the flyby, but no view of the burners. That was an improvement. Also, there was only one shot of a Na'Vi "aiming" an arrow incorrectly; all the others had been cut. Sigourney Weaver had a death scene that wasn't in the other version. CCH Pounder's role was enlarged. There were additional shots of the big tree's destruction. Probably a few other changes I didn't catch. But the 3-D was great; I'll echo Pete's "Wow!" here.

Chris, what did you think of The Book of Eli?
Posted by: David Dvorkin

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 01/21/10 07:29 PM

I like Clooney in light comedies. Nowadays, I avoid serious, mainstream movies with all my might. (Sometimes Leonore manages to drag me to one, and I get all cranky and whiny.)

BTW, I reviewed Avatar on my blog:
Posted by: Pete

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 01/21/10 10:51 PM

I would have thought the 2D version would just have been the right eye (or left eye; take your choice) of the 3D version?
Posted by: Christopher

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 01/23/10 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Barbara:
Chris, what did you think of The Book of Eli?
Too much religiosity for me, although it was germane to the plot. Some of the action sequences were unusual and engaging, but on the whole I'd say skip it.
Posted by: Jon

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 01/27/10 09:48 PM

I saw Up in the Air last weekend. I liked it very much -- except for the real-people interviews. Even had I not known they were real (though having heard it, I couldn't un-know it), I think I would have found them a breach in the otherwise consistent and convincing tone of the movie.

I always smile when I see that Jason Bateman has been given a juicy secondary role such as he had here, and Amy Morton (a Steppenwolf actress now a favorite of mine, having seen her stand out among the superb cast of August: Osage County on Broadway) had a nice real quality as the sister. Melanie Lynskey has become familiar to me this year -- this is her third movie I've seen in just a few months, following on The Informant! and Away We Go. In the latter, I'm embarrassed to say, until I read the final credits I thought she was Megan Mullalley, miraculously made to look much younger.

For me, one section of the movie went well beyond my general "Not great, but liked it quite a lot" reaction: the quiet conversation among Clooney, Anna Kendrick, and (especially) Vera Farmiga in the hotel lobby. That was just marvelous. Both in the writing and in the acting, that was one of those sequences that somehow catches a spark and is lifelike but even better. Its aftermath when they all crash a party was also great fun, but it was the conversation (and more especially Farmiga's share) that I would call really beautiful.

[This message has been edited by Jon (edited 01-27-2010).]
Posted by: Rita

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 02/02/10 09:11 PM

I've guess you've all heard the Best Picture category of the Oscars has been expanded to include ten nominees?

The Blind Side
District 9
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
A Serious Man
Up in the Air
Posted by: Mary

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 02/03/10 09:56 AM

(Resurfacing after a long time) District 9?

Did any of you watch that, and if so what did you think? My husband and I watched it the other night and while I think the underlying story was good and the concept was worth developing, the underlying symbolism (placing it in South Africa, making Wikus such a cheerleader for the military at first, etc) was way, way too heavy-handed for me.
Posted by: Christopher

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 02/03/10 04:40 PM

Hey, Mary! Long time no see.

I haven't seen District 9, but already it's the controversial nominee on the list. That and Up, which I think is also nominated for some best animation award? That's where it belongs. A couple of people told me District 9 collapses at the end, bang-bang stuff instead of a real resolution.
Posted by: Mary

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 02/03/10 08:21 PM

Oh, sort of. The ending leaves you with, at best, hope for the aliens in the long run and for Wikus. But for most of the aliens in the camp, and for the humans who treated them so badly? Not. I do think the concept was good, but the execution was not that great. A rewrite, about 60% less gore and shooting, and you'd have a movie.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 02/04/10 04:25 PM

Oh gosh. I liked it.
Posted by: Mary

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 02/04/10 05:05 PM

Well, you're not obligated to agree with me, Austin!

I just don't think it deserves Best Picture.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 02/05/10 11:25 AM

Oh, I agree with THAT. Too many other movies on that list that are better. I'm wondering if the Avatar craze is fading enough to give another film a chance.
Posted by: Barbara

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 03/11/10 01:58 AM

Anyone else see Alice in Wonderland? Once I got over the shock of seeing "Tim Burton" and "Walt Disney" linked together, I saw it and enjoyed it thoroughly. Witty, fast-moving, and of course extraordinary to look at. The same advanced computer technology as in Avatar, used in very clever ways. Some few lines are inaudible, mostly spoken too fast. Not a great film, but it doesn't pretend to be. A pleasant couple of hours.

Speaking of the new computer technology, I read that it's now being developed for television. I wonder how much the cable and satellite companies will charge for that.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 03/11/10 04:45 AM

I've been somewhat put off it by two things. The reviews weren't too good, but I don't trust reviewers. More seriously, the idea of conflating Wonderland and Looking-Glass - quite different worlds - really doesn't appeal at all, and the framing device seems rather pointless. I'll wait until it appears on TV.
Posted by: Christopher

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 03/11/10 03:20 PM

On TV, it'll look like any other movie. It needs the big screen and the high-techy stuff to work. It is a fun movie, and that's all it's meant to be.
Posted by: Rita

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 03/11/10 09:50 PM

The Jabberwock was scary. I loved hearing Alan Rickman's unmistakable voice coming out of the mouth of a smoking caterpillar. The mingling of live actors and computer-generated characters was the most seamless I've seen. A great movie, no. Fun? Oh yeah!
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 03/12/10 11:42 AM

I was a little disappointed. It was clever, and it was fun, but I expected it to be more fun. It looked to me as if the movie was made in haste. I enjoyed what I did see, but it could have been so much more.
Posted by: Barbara

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 03/13/10 02:45 PM

Yep, you've got a point, Austin. It could have used more time in the planning. In a rush to cash in on the Avatar bandwagon? I suspect Alice will be remembered more for its moments than its total impact. Such as the White Queen's wafting arm movements. Or the fact that grown-up Alice's fiancé manqué and the Mad Hatter have identical hair color -- which means absolutely nothing, ha.

There is one bit that's been nagging at me. Remember the scene in which the diminished Alice climbs up on the back of the computer-generated dog? She starts at the nose, climbs up over his head, then turns around just past his shoulder. I've seen that before. Some other movie...a live-action girl climbing nose-first over not a computerized dog, but a polar bear. What was that movie?!? Aargh.
Posted by: Lorna

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 03/14/10 06:36 PM

Oh, I think I remember you talking about that movie. You posted a picture of the girl and the polar bear. But I don't remember the title.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 03/14/10 08:14 PM

I went to see that movie, but I don't remember the title either.
Posted by: Mary

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 03/14/10 09:33 PM

The Golden Compass.
Posted by: Barbara

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 03/15/10 08:51 PM

That's it! Thanks, Mary.
Posted by: Kay

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 03/20/10 05:13 PM

I just got back from Alice and I have to agree with Austin...

I'll probably have other comments after I've mulled it over, but I don't think it lived up to its hype. And I didn't think the 3d added that much, feel free to wait.
Posted by: Kay

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 03/20/10 08:24 PM

Some interesting background on "Alice":
Posted by: Barbara

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 08/10/10 07:21 PM

Is anyone going to movies this summer? I just saw Salt, easily the most preposterous movie I've seen in a long time. Angelina Jolie stars as a female Bruce Willis, taking enough physical punishment to put ten normal people in the hospital for six months before bouncing up and running full out with nary a limp nor a stagger. It's all stylized violence, some of it cleverly done but most of it in the "Oh, yeah, I believe that!" category. Unless you believe one unarmed woman can take out six armed men with a few well-placed kicks. And did you know it's possible to turn on a church organ by firing a gun at it? Amazing.
Posted by: David Dvorkin

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 08/10/10 07:27 PM

I hate seeing Jolie in an action movies. A strong breeze could blow her away. I can't suspend my disbelief.
Posted by: Barbara

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 09/18/10 06:57 PM

Did anyone see The American? I was impressed by it. Not as flashy as Clooney's recent movies have been, because quietness is a basic part of the picture being built.


Right at the beginning, Clooney's character (an assassin) cold-bloodedly kills a woman he'd been making love to only moments before, thus effectively destroying any empathy for the character before it has time to build. That's important, because when you see how capable a man he is, the temptation to be on his side is quite strong. The movie doesn't go for suspense but for quietly building tension instead. Sparse dialogue, see-everything photography, toned-down action. About as different from Salt as you can imagine and a thousand times better.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 09/21/10 01:34 PM

I've just come back from seeing Tamara Drewe. It's based on a graphic novel by cartoonist Posy Symonds which appeared in instalments in The Guardian. It's set in rural Dorset (very pretty!) and there are various tongue-in-cheek references to Thomas Hardy.

Anyway, it was tremendously enjoyable with excellent performances all round. It was directed by Stephen Frears, and Roger Allam (the Queen's private secretary in Frears's The Queen) plays one of the principal characters, a successful author of detective stories. His long-suffering wife is Tamsin Greig (very good indeed). Another of the principals is an American of whom I've never heard. He's called Bill Camp and reminded me rather of Bob Balaban.

It's released in the USA on 8 October. It's a little on the long side (111 minutes), but the scenes are mostly short and the time flies by. Go and see it!
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 09/22/10 07:09 PM

I never even heard of this movie. One of the posts at IMDB says it's loosely based on Far from the Madding Crowd. Very loosely, from the sound of it.
Posted by: Jon

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 10/10/10 11:18 AM

On Friday I saw The Social Network. What a pleasure to see a movie that's really written. Aaron Sorkin's lines crackle with energy all the way through. All the acting performances are excellent, and the structure, hopping between the events themselves and the depositions in the legal action years later, works beautifully.

My only criticism has to do with the limits of aging ears: the setting of a couple of crucial conversations (including the very first one) against a realistically noisy background of bar conversation. It was hard work to filter the (realistic) distractions away, and I didn't want to miss a line.
Posted by: Barbara

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 10/19/10 02:11 PM

That one came and went without my even knowing about it. One consolation, Jon; when it shows up on TV, you can turn on the closed captioning. But the question of noise level reminds me of how much I've come to dislike previews. They're all the same now. Crash! Bang! Boom! Ultraswift cuts and swooping cameras! Noise, noise, NOISE! All the same.

Having got that off my chest, I'd to say that for sheer endless fun, RED is going to be hard to beat. Its humor is the kind I like best, the kind that arises from a situation instead of depending on an unending exchange of one-liners. And it has a fairly respectable plot as well: someone is killing off retired CIA agents. Bruce Willis is one such target but escapes the attempt on his life. In his journey to find out who's behind it and why, he accumulates other retirees to help him -- John Malkovich, Morgan Freeman, Brian Cox, Helen Mirren. Along the way they run into Rebecca Pidgeon, Ernest Borgnine, Karl Urban, Richard Dreyfuss. A lot of star power there, but the smartest casting was to include Mary-Louise Parker as an endangered friend of Willis's character. She not only holds her own in this bunch of old pros, but she even manages to steal a couple of scenes from Willis.

Recommended? Oh yes.

[This message has been edited by Barbara (edited 10-19-2010).]
Posted by: Lorna

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 10/19/10 07:39 PM

Amen to that (noisy previews). After sitting through four or five of them in a row, I end up feeling I've been assaulted.

I'm planning to see RED this weekend, if only to hear Helen Mirren say, "I kill people, dear."
Posted by: Rita

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 10/23/10 08:25 AM

Oh, what a hoot! RED isn't openly parody or camp, because it's played absolutely straight. But in its own way it has a good laugh at all the clichés of action flicks. Well, maybe Malkovich's role is self-parody, considering all the kookie roles he's played. But he too plays it straight, that is, straight for John Malkovich. It's hard to explain...oh, go see the movie.
Posted by: Christopher

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 10/25/10 09:05 PM

I did. And I agree with everything said here. It's a fun movie, and everything works.
Posted by: Lorna

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 10/26/10 02:36 PM

Yes yes yes. It never lags, even when a quiet moment appears to give everyone (including the audience!) a chance to catch their breath. Loved it.
Posted by: Barbara

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 11/10/10 09:47 PM

I went to see Hereafter yesterday, and on the whole I liked it, in spite of a few things that were less than perfect. But mostly I appreciated it for being a movie made for grown-ups.
Posted by: Rita

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 11/11/10 08:02 PM

That makes it kind of rare. Has anyone seen 127 Hours? It's in limited release, not showing here.
Posted by: Barbara

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 11/26/10 12:11 PM

Not here yet either. I did see The Next Three Days; it got mixed reviews, but I enjoyed it. It had a special appeal to me, because I liked seeing Pittsburgh again. But the main point of interest was watching the Russell Crowe character learning to do things he needed to know in order to bust his wife out of prison, and his cleverness in solving problems as they arose. Liam Neeson had only one scene in the movie, but it was a goodie. Brian Dennehy had just five lines (one of which was "Goodbye.") but still managed to make an impression. A large-ish role was played by another wonderful child actor named Ty Simpkins, who has quite a resumé for an 8-year-old. There's much to like in this movie.
Posted by: Barbara

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 12/29/10 02:11 AM

Black Swan -- a "wow" movie. It's called a psychological thriller, and I guess that's as good a label as any. The movie is loaded with little shocks that escalate into Great Big Shocks. Now, I don't flinch in movies, or turn my head away from things too horrible to take...I just watch. But Black Swan had me twitching in my seat throughout the whole movie. It gets to you.
Posted by: Lorna

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 12/29/10 10:01 AM

Does it ever! As for twitching, my husband says I practically dug a hole in his knee. (He twitched too!) I almost didn't go to this movie, because I don't like seeing non-dancers playing dancers. Remember Anne Bancroft's posturing as Anna Karenina in The Turning Point? You can fake singing, but not dancing. Then I learned Natalie Portman had started dance training at age four or five. She certainly has a dancer's body...small bust, long legs, visible rib cage, etc. She even waddles like a dancer when she walks. It's a virtuoso performance in the most intense movie I've seen in a long time.
Posted by: David Dvorkin

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 12/29/10 07:10 PM

I disliked it intensely.

Here's my review:
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 12/30/10 01:39 PM

I think you're selling Natalie Portman short, calling her amateur. She is trained as a dancer. You can't fake what she did. BTW, your "Visual Verification" isn't working.
Posted by: Jon

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 12/30/10 03:48 PM

In another genre entirely, I'll put in a good word for Tangled, the animated "Rapunzel" movie. Aside from the long-haired girl taken and trapped in a tower, it's almost all newly invented, but it works. In particular, it has some of the best voice acting I can recall in a cartoon -- Zachary Levi and in particular Donna Murphy as a scarily believable Mother Gothel.
Posted by: David Dvorkin

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 12/30/10 06:03 PM

Austin, I had read that about her training since the age of four before I wrote my review. I admire her for keeping on with it, but she's still only an amateur, and I don't just mean in the strict sense of the word. She's not at a professional level, and she's certainly far below the level of her character.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 12/31/10 09:01 AM

OK, David, I don't really know enough about ballet to argue the point. But I think Lorna does, and she seemed happy with Portman's dancing.

Jon, did you see the regular version of Tangled or the 3D?
Posted by: Jon

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 01/01/11 11:42 AM

Austin, I saw it in regular 2D.
Posted by: Jon

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 01/20/11 12:00 AM

And I went to see it a second time today, this time in 3D. It's certainly a satisfying experience "flat," but the 3D adds more than I would have expected, and once or twice (particularly in the night of the floating lanterns) is truly magical. The movie holds up very well, in fact I enjoyed it even more on re-viewing. Zachary Levi and Donna Murphy set new standards for voice work in animation.
Posted by: Barbara

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 01/20/11 03:24 PM

Wow, it must be good.
Posted by: Barbara

Re: Current Movies (2010) - 02/03/11 12:37 AM

Wow, it IS good! Jon, I finally went to see it, on your recommendation -- the 3D version. What an enjoyable movie; I was laughing all the way through. I see why you singled out Zachary Levi and Donna Murphy. They were outstanding, weren't they? I can also see why you went a second time; there's so much going on, you need more than one look to get it all. Did you notice the saucer-eyed cat that's been on the internet for several years now? Its head was on a shelf at The Snuggly Duckling. There's one thing I know I missed. Gothel gave the crown to the Stabbington brothers, to lure them into her plot. Then just a few scenes later, she gave it to Rapunzel, to use to test Eugene. How did she get it back from the brothers?

The whole movie made me think of a Broadway musical -- the set pieces, the big production numbers, even some of the music ("Mother Knows Best" etc.). Alan Menken may be a Disney composer now, but I think his New York roots are showing in Tangled.