Give YOUR Movie review

Thanks SoA and AK -- I had decided to skip it because I had heard the same that AK lists here, but I may give it a chance.

Patrick, I saw Salt in cinemas, last summer? Prolly the last movie I took my old Mum too, because she was an Angelina Jolie fan and wanted to see it. It was very suspenseful and there was a lot of action, and if I remember, not that much language, just violence. I thought it could have been done better, but in all, it was watchable.

Lila, thanks for the review of Brave. My step-daughters are both red-headed Irish lassies, and one of them has the curly hair and big blue eyes, so they were thrilled by the previews! They saw the film and gave it a thumbs-up. I don't see that many animated movies anymore, and as you say it didn't WOW you, I will probably skip it.
 
inkspot said:
Lila, thanks for the review of Brave. My step-daughters are both red-headed Irish lassies, and one of them has the curly hair and big blue eyes, so they were thrilled by the previews! They saw the film and gave it a thumbs-up. I don't see that many animated movies anymore, and as you say it didn't WOW you, I will probably skip it.
Click to expand...

I disagree with Lila here. Maybe the movie didn't 'wow' her, but Pixar doesn't need a 'wow' factor to have good films. In fact, I just walked in from seeing 'Brave' for the first time, and I loved the movie. And I thought that the film was one of Pixar's best...though I was a little underwhelmed by the animated short (Le Luna) that preceded the film. I've never really been flat out wowed by any Pixar film, yet I feel as if that's Pixar's strength; too much wow and you can distract from the story. I think this was shown in 'Brave'. You should see it. Besides that...unlike Avengers (which did blow me away with a 'wow' factor), 'Brave' is a pretty intimate story about a mother and her daughter. I felt as if the reconciliation part was self-explanatory; I won't spoil the movie yet, but the events that happened in the film led to Merida realizing how important family is, even with all their flaws and failings (this also leading to the mother realizing how wrong she was for trying to force Merida to conform to tradition because Merida clearly was NOT a traditional princess). I thought the music was well done also. Probably comes from my heritage rooted in Scotland, but the music was beautiful and well suited to the movie it played under.

If you see an animated film this year, I say: go see 'Brave'. I'd like to see Ice Age 4, but probably won't now that I've seen Brave.
 
AK, I definitely see what you mean, and I think the lack of "wow" is really a matter of preference. Personally, I expect more from Pixar movies because they typically DO blow me away... but there really wasn't anything wrong with Brave. I did feel like there was more of a Disney influence in this one, and it seemed like they borrowed a lot from previous children's blockbusters like Tangled and How to Train Your Dragon. I would have liked to see a little more originality. But again, it just depends on what you like.
 
Thanks AK; I will consider it. I can't get my husband to go to animated movies now that we don't have little kids. It was hard enough when we had little kids.

I am tired of stories and movies about the princess who wants to shoot arrows or fight dragons or whatnot. That's story to been done to death. No one thinks girls have to do girly things anymore. What we need about now is a story about a princess who wants to dance and play dress-up and NOT shoot arrows or fight dragons, and how she has to overcome everyone accusing her of being a silly flighty female ...

I saw "Moonrise Kingdom" with my husband today; he wanted to see it because it had Bill Murray and Bruce Willis, but he was disappointed. He thought it would be more flat-out comedy. It was sort of a gentle but weird story about two troubled kids who try to run away together. They are I think 12 years old, the story is set in 1965, and the two kids do go swimming in their underwear and groping each other which I found a little unsettling, but otherwise the movie was charming in a bizarre way. A goofy way? Definitely not for everyone. Tilda Swinton had a minor role as a bad guy! She did very well. There was a very disturbing death of an animal which had no point and which almost ruined the movie for me; I am still not sure why they did it. I would give the movie 2-1/2 stars out of 5 -- I would have given it 3 out of 5 except for that animal killing.
 
inkspot said:
I am tired of stories and movies about the princess who wants to shoot arrows or fight dragons or whatnot. That's story to been done to death. No one thinks girls have to do girly things anymore. What we need about now is a story about a princess who wants to dance and play dress-up and NOT shoot arrows or fight dragons, and how she has to overcome everyone accusing her of being a silly flighty female ...
Click to expand...

Except that every princess film except 'Brave' requires that the heroine end up with a male. Personally, it was refreshing to see a princess who didn't need or end up with a man, a message that runs counter to girls' ideas about romance and love (i.e. Twilight). No woman needs a man, and every princess film prior to 'Brave' exalted the idea that women can't find happiness without romance, love, or their Prince Charming. That is the tired princess storyline. I don't recall any princess films like 'Brave' where the heroine wielded a bow and arrows and still ended up with a man.

I don't think Merida's resistance to being a 'girly-girl' was so much that she hated it, it's because it wasn't what she wanted. Her mother forced it on her. I'm a cross between a tomboy and a girly-girl: which one I am depends on the day. I don't find 'Brave''s message condescending or demeaning the role of a woman; if anything, I found it rather empowering, as I found the role of Katniss to be empowering.
 
Ok, so I saw a sampling of scenes from the movie Avatar. All you need to know is that it's all about the "evil" American Army. Don't spend your money on it.
 
Carol and I also saw "Moonrise Kingdom." I also was bothered by the degree of sensuality between two TWELVE-year-olds: not so much because of the feeling of the kids for EACH OTHER, but because I fear that this kind of treatment of children in cinema encourages perverted ADULTS. As one who has once been FALSELY accused of pedophilia by a vicious liar who was trying to destroy my Christian credibility, I resent anything that erodes the sacredness of innocent adult-to-child affection. But in most respects, I liked "Moonrise Kingdom." The closest thing I can compare it to is "A Series of Unfortunate Events."


inkspot said:
I am tired of stories and movies about the princess who wants to shoot arrows or fight dragons or whatnot. That story's been done to death. No one thinks girls have to do girly things anymore. What we need about now is a story about a princess who wants to dance and play dress-up and NOT shoot arrows or fight dragons, and how she has to overcome everyone accusing her of being a silly flighty female...
Click to expand...

AMEN! The swarms of invincible superwomen in the movies and television have grown beyond all counting. If you JUST count animated films, you've got the tough chick in "Quest For Camelot," the tough chick in Disney's "Hunchback of Notre Dame," TWO tough chicks in "Search for Atlantis," the tough female triceratops in "The Land Before Time," the tough lioness in "The Lion King," the tough chick in "Mulan," the tough troll-chick in "Shrek," the tough chick in "Tangled," the tough chick in "How to Train Your Dragon," and now the tough chick in "Brave;" and that isn't even all of the animated ones. It wouldn't bother me so much, if not for the relentless insistence by film studios that EACH new tough chick supposedly is a ground-breaking pioneer, the VERY FIRST self-reliant female EVER depicted.

The argument that previous tough chicks are disqualified because they desire a man in their life won't hold water, because the MALE characters in their stories ALSO desire a woman in THEIR life, so that aspect balances out.

Which brings me back to "Moonrise Kingdom." I was expecting that this movie would conform to what is now the USUAL pattern in movies: the boy would be a useless, helpless, clueless dweeb, unable even to blow his nose without a superior female telling him how to do it. I was happily relieved, then, that the leading boy in the story actually WAS allowed to have a brain; and his having a brain DID NOT reduce the girl to instant worthlessness. They BOTH had intelligence.


P.S. Barbarian King is right about "Avatar." Anyone who understands the Hollywood culture, and who is intellectually honest enough, can EASILY see that the EEEEEE-vil military types there ARE intended as a vilification of the real-world United States Armed Forces. It's the same old overage-hippie thing.
 
CF said:
It wouldn't bother me so much, if not for the relentless insistence by film studios that EACH new tough chick supposedly is a ground-breaking pioneer, the VERY FIRST self-reliant female EVER depicted.
Click to expand...
Yah, I tend to agree with CF. I like AK's observance that the princess in Brave didn't need a man to complete her, but I still think the story of the tough tomboy girl is overdone. the pendulum could stand to swing the other way. This is not necessarily a swipe at Brave, because I didn't see it yet. It's a swipe at the same story told over and over in different ways, to empower girls. I think every little girl in America, anyway, gets it. They can be whatever they want to be. Let's stop trying to force them to be fierce ... I dunno, I'm just over it. I would like to see a really feminine girl be a heroine without beating anyone up or making the boys look bad.

CF said:
Carol and I also saw "Moonrise Kingdom." I also was bothered by the degree of sensuality between two TWELVE-year-olds: not so much because of the feeling of the kids for EACH OTHER, but because I fear that this kind of treatment of children in cinema encourages perverted ADULTS.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is how I felt as well. It was innocent for them, but it kind of is creepy if you think the adults watching it might see it as pornography. I agree with you otherwise. Except for the one incidence of unnecesary violence against a dumb animal, I thought it was a decent film. But that just shocked me and made me sort of dislike the movie.
 
Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954)

Starring: Howard Keel, Jane Powell, Russ Tamblyn, etc

Summary: Adam, the eldest of seven brothers, goes to town to get a wife. He convinces Milly to marry him that same day. They return to his backwoods home. Only then does she discover he has six brothers - all living in his cabin. Milly sets out to reform the uncouth siblings, who are anxious to get wives of their own. Then, after reading about the Roman capture of the Sabine women, Adam develops an inspired solution to his brothers' loneliness.

Review: This was a small budget film. So much so that they filmed 98% of the film on a sound stage. They wanted to film the cabin year round in the mountains to capture the transitions from spring to summer to fall to winter. The budget didn't allow it. So, they had to film all of it on a sound stage. Michael Kidd, the choreographer, made the dancing in the film so beautiful and so synced that the sound stage doesn't matter. the best example of his choreography is the Barn Raising Dance. Not only do you have the 5 brothers dancing harmoniously (the actor cast as Benjamin could not dance and never dances in the film), but you have their girls PLUS the 5 'city fellows' that are competing against the brothers for the girls' favor. The dancing is impeccable, beautifully timed and executed. If I recall correctly from watching behind the scenes features, they pretty much shot that 6 minute scene in ONE take. One take! Nearly unheard of for films, especially musicals. Jane Powell is undoubtedly the star of this film, as it mostly centers around how she takes it upon herself to civilize Adam's brothers, and in the end, Adam himself. The first time I saw this movie, I hated it. But I grew up a little, and watched it again. This time, I fell in love with it because I realized how gorgeous the choreography is.

The movie is family friendly and an enjoyable watch, but hey, it was 1954. My only complaint is that it's a product of its time. Women are seen as property, nothing else. Howard Keel's character is almost painfully and annoyingly chauvinistic, demeaning Milly at times and talking about women as if they should be at the beck and call of their husbands. However, I recognize this as not only the time period it's set in (1850s Oregon), but also the time the film itself was made (1954). The other slightly objectionable thing is the fact that the brothers kidnap the girls and take them to the cabin. Without being married. Milly, of course, kicks the men out to the barn and doesn't allow them in the cabin during the girls' captivity; and for all intents and purposes, the brothers forgetting to "get the parson" before they left town is played for laughs.

Overall, my rating is 9.5/10 for having such good music and choreography. The two best examples of the choreography are "Lonesome Polecat" and "Barn Raising" (this scene is no longer on youtube)
 
I've seen "Seven Brides," and I didn't like the kidnapping element either. Whether anyone believes me or not, one DOES NOT have to think that every woman on Earth is an invincible kung-fu Amazon goddess, to think that human beings ought not to be abducted by force against their will.
 
Aravis Kenobi said:
Except that every princess film except 'Brave' requires that the heroine end up with a male. Personally, it was refreshing to see a princess who didn't need or end up with a man, a message that runs counter to girls' ideas about romance and love (i.e. Twilight). No woman needs a man, and every princess film prior to 'Brave' exalted the idea that women can't find happiness without romance, love, or their Prince Charming. That is the tired princess storyline. I don't recall any princess films like 'Brave' where the heroine wielded a bow and arrows and still ended up with a man.

I don't think Merida's resistance to being a 'girly-girl' was so much that she hated it, it's because it wasn't what she wanted. Her mother forced it on her. I'm a cross between a tomboy and a girly-girl: which one I am depends on the day. I don't find 'Brave''s message condescending or demeaning the role of a woman; if anything, I found it rather empowering, as I found the role of Katniss to be empowering.
Click to expand...
your half right Princess Movies fall into 2 categories (we'll use Disney films are they are more plentiful).
You have Princess Classic: She's passive, sweet, domesticated and typically not very developed as a Character (either due to source material or the film itself). She is abused, or goes through something horrible typically has her fate set by outside forces (a Prince and evil character) and is wisked away without having anything resembling a character arc.
the second is Princess Power: She wants something. Freedom from an arranged marriage/overbearing parents/being an outcast/female's role in society----whatever it is. She goes on a trip finds out it's not as easy as previously thought meets a man who she isn't quite taken with ,but warms up to. She learns her responsibilities, and is rescued/rescues/works with the prince Character and has a happy ending typically in a Christian wedding.

While the Princess Power is an improvement over the Princess Classic, it hasn't introduced anything new since 'Mulan' in 1998. I would think to keep the Genre from getting stale the Princess must further evolve. I think Tangled hold a few new ideas in itself. The Princess goes out and makes a plan on her own (while this is present in 'Mulan' most other Power Princesses are thrust into their plot), saves her man, while still keeping the traditions of women---Kindness, Domestic work, and Material instinct. Also, there's this test I forget the name of in Hollywood, that judges if women characters are well developed and treated equally as men. The film must pass each of these:
1. you have 2 named females that appear more than once
2. They have a conversation between themselves, and themselves only
3. they have a conversation that isn't about men.

I'd find it interesting to see that taken to the Genre. Also, I think the Modern Princess movie has to take the Psychological aspects and relationships in stride. Cinderella (1950), has a great opening showing Cinderella with her father, and then her mourning at his deathbed. however the rest of the film Cinderella is overly patient, and overly sweet. She's about 18 , and her father died it appears around 7. So over 10 years your Mother has treated you cruelly, acted as if you were dirt, forced you to do the work of at least 3 people, while giving your own siblings everything. I'm sorry, I don't buy it. Cinderella is so vague her 'I want' song, is 'A Dream is a Wish your Heart Makes'.....what exactly does that mean??? The movies never explains. She also makes no effort to progress her story. Her dress for the ball is made for her, and then she is given a coach and gown , and then a prince. She doesn't even complain... EVER.
Now lets look at Cinderella III:A Twist in Time (we'll not look at that horrible disformed thing that's Cinderella II in the corner over there *tosses sheet over it*). So the film starts with Cindy as a Princess Classic, and then turns her story upside down by forcing her to work toward her goal starting with the shoe fitting. It's a great study on how to make a bland passive character into an interesting active one. While the film regrettably doesn't touch the Father/Mother dynamic that would realistically have a huge impact on her character, it does flesh out how she relates to everyone else, thinks and plans. She's not perfect, nor is she a super warrior , she more than once nearly gives up, and eagerly embraces her own femininity without sacrificing any of the qualities that have caused the Power Princess to grow old.

Dang, I've been typing longer than I thought I was....
 
You want girl-power stories to evolve? That's easy! Write stories that focus more on the heroine accomplishing something constructive -- in science, for example -- as opposed to stories where the heroine can't be satisfied unless she's pointedly humiliating every male within reach.
 
Copperfox said:
the tough chick in "Tangled,"
Click to expand...

Sorry but I have seen Tangled more than 15 times now and I have to say that Rapunzel is not a "tough chick" like the other "tough chicks" in movies. She is very girly and needs Flynn and shows that she does. I was actually surprised that Disney didn't make her a tougher chick!
 
Aslans Messenger said:
Sorry but I have seen Tangled more than 15 times now and I have to say that Rapunzel is not a "tough chick" like the other "tough chicks" in movies. She is very girly and needs Flynn and shows that she does. I was actually surprised that Disney didn't make her a tougher chick!
Click to expand...


I soooo agree!!! Tangled is my favorite movie ever right now!! And she is so not a "tough chick" as you said. She is a princess and has always had to rely on someone to help her though rough times. Even though mother Gothel was never the best. But she was still Someone!
 
Then am I mistaken about Rapunzel being shown as so powerful when swinging a skillet that by the end of the movie soldiers were being TRAINED TO USE skillets as she did?
 
Hmmm...... Good point. But, If you were in danger and the only thing you had was frying pan and it knocked guys out pretty well, what would you do? And about the guys using the frying pans at the end? Well, maybe they made a decree that for all non war related things they did they had to use frying pans! Or they just thought it was allot cooler. But you do make a good point.
 
I have never said, thought, meant, hinted, felt or suggested that it was BAD for a girl/woman to be able to defend herself independently. I think it's great that one of my sisters has learned fighting skills. But in the real world, the statistically average man has always been physically stronger and more aggressive than the statistically average woman. That's why female police officers are quicker to resort to their guns than male officers are -- because female officers, more often the males, come up against huge male criminals whom they CAN'T overcome physically, EVEN WITH their police training.

By all means, let women learn how to fight, including with firearms. I don't WANT any honest person of either sex to be a helpless victim of crime. But since the female sex CAN'T always do the WHOLE job unassisted, it's a very bad idea for the media to teach girls that they can all be Xena the Warrior Princess and scornfully dismiss the idea of a man protecting them.

No, I'm not forgetting that this is a cinema thread. I was leading up to this:

The martial-arts moviemakers of both China and Japan, despite their films often being fantasies, have long had a good grasp of the real-world truth I have stated. Many of their films, old as well as recent, have shown female warriors who were very powerful. Anything with Michelle Yeoh in it will demonstrate what I mean; I'm a major fan of hers. But in close correspondence with reality, the Chinese and Japanese movies show that women become great fighters LESS OFTEN than men do.
 
I totally agree with you! Woman can not always go up against the bigger and stronger like they wish. And it is good that woman want to get out there and help protect. but they do usually need a stronger person with them for the times that they did get into those scrapes. And I also like how the Chinese and Japanese in their movies show how the Woman warriors become great fighters less than the men. So i am in complete and utter agreement.
 
Good! What's more, you can EVEN show a woman as tougher or more skilled than a man, yet STILL not insist that the man be completely useless. In the Chinese movie "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," the rebellious young female fighter falls in love with a young man who leads a band of robbers. She is superior to him in kung-fu skills, because she simply has had access to higher-level training than was ever available to him. But the bandit boyfriend is superior to her in OTHER areas of achievement, such as wilderness survival skills. He also has MUCH more practical good sense than she has.

Thus the two of them form a "complementarian" couple, with each of them having a different contribution to make. This happens to have something in common with the Biblical model of marriage.
 
Yes. Agreed! I have seen that thourgh my oldest sisters marriage (she has been married for almost a year) and how it seems as if without each other they would have many disadvantages!
 
Back
Top