Lynda and I saw The Iron Lady at the Carmike Cinema on Tuesday night. Being a fan of Margaret Thatcher, and having seen a number of trailers, I was interested in seeing this. It is an excellent movie, and I found only one item about it disappointing: It was too short. The showing started at 7:05 PM. When you figure the ads for other movies and the concessions probably took 15 minutes, the actual movie started about 7:20. We were walking out after the credits at 9:05. That meant the actual story was just a little over 90 minutes. Since many themes were not fully explored, I would have liked at least another half hour.
I liked the way the movie started, with Thatcher walking to a small grocery store unnoticed, some number of years after she left the prime ministership. She then returned to her apartment to hallucinate about her dead husband. The thoughts of that old woman kept going back to two different eras, with one vignette into a third. The views of Thatcher's entry into politics as a young, single woman provided information I had no prior knowledge of. There was also one view of Thatcher's childhood.
Most of the flashbacks were to the years Thatcher was prime minister. This time I expected to know much about. However, I was surprised to be watching scenes I knew nothing about. The riots by striking workers, the IRA activities in England, the bombing of the hotel where the Conservative party was holding a convention—I didn't know of any of that. And I realized: Thatcher was prime minister from 1979 to 1990. I spent five of those years in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. In the pre-Internet, pre-cable and satalite TV era, those two countries were not actually places where news coverage was complete. I never heard of most of that. It gave me a greater appreciation for her accomplishments. I had an idea that she changed the U.K. with relatively little opposition. I learned instead that she did it in the face of much opposition.
The move was well put together. Meryl Streep is very believable as Thatcher. The mixing up of times, including Thatcher interacting with her dead husband, kept you on your toes as to what was happening. Given the amount of time in the movie, they really didn't explore some things as much as I wish they had, such as Thatcher's road to conservatism in her youth, or the relations between she and her children. They alluded to some degree of estrangement, but weren't very specific.
The Iron Lady may have run out its string in the theatres, but if you haven't seen it, and have a chance to see it, by all means do. It's well worth the price.
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Movie Review: "War Horse"
After not seeing War Horse when we had some opportunities to, we finally made the time last night. It's a good movie. It's now at the end of its run. Only seven of us saw the 7:10 PM showing last night. I can't imagine they would have many at the 10:20 PM showing, not in this retirement community. So this review probably comes too late to help anyone else make a decision of whether to see it or not. But review it I shall.
It's the story of a boy and his horse in Scotland. The boy's dad, a closet drunk, buys a thoroughbred yearling at auction, for a ridiculous price, when he's supposed to buy a work horse. Somehow the boy trains the horse, and gets him to plow. But due to the price of the horse and farm losses, the family can't make the rent. So the tenant farmer sells the horse, the only thing of real value that he has, to the army, as England is about to fight what we now call World War 1. As the boy and his horse part, he vows to find the horse wherever he is. The boy is too young to enlist, though not by much.
The bulk of the movie follows the horse, Joey, as his officer-owner falls in the first action, he's taken by the Germans, he winds up with a French jam maker and his granddaughter, ends up back with one side in the war, then the next, then gets caught in no man's land. He is rescued from there by the combined efforts of a British soldier and a German soldier under a mini-truce, and, though severely injured from barb wire, is led back to the British side. The boy who trained him is now in the Army in that very sector of a long, long front, his eyes bandaged after a gas attack. When he hears that a special horse has just been rescued, he figures it's Joey, whistles for him, and the horse responds just before being put out of its misery because of its injuries.
As I said, it's a good movie. But I was a bit disappointed. I didn't think the trailers did much to clue us in as to what the story was about. The reliance on coincidence to bring Albert and Joey together at the front is a bit hard to take. Some of the special effects, such as a snowstorm near the end (or was that flying ash, I wasn't sure), could have been better.
On the other hand, the depiction of how the war destroyed the land was excellent. The scene where Joey was part of a horse team pulling artillery was excellent. The home scenes before the war were great.
Maybe the build-up of the movie was over done, and caused me to set my expectations too high. I was expecting a once in a decade production, and all I got was a great, great movie. If you have a chance, if it stays around in theatres a bit longer, by all means see it. It was good wholesome entertainment, and the $9.00 I paid (two seniors tickets) was well spent.
It's the story of a boy and his horse in Scotland. The boy's dad, a closet drunk, buys a thoroughbred yearling at auction, for a ridiculous price, when he's supposed to buy a work horse. Somehow the boy trains the horse, and gets him to plow. But due to the price of the horse and farm losses, the family can't make the rent. So the tenant farmer sells the horse, the only thing of real value that he has, to the army, as England is about to fight what we now call World War 1. As the boy and his horse part, he vows to find the horse wherever he is. The boy is too young to enlist, though not by much.
The bulk of the movie follows the horse, Joey, as his officer-owner falls in the first action, he's taken by the Germans, he winds up with a French jam maker and his granddaughter, ends up back with one side in the war, then the next, then gets caught in no man's land. He is rescued from there by the combined efforts of a British soldier and a German soldier under a mini-truce, and, though severely injured from barb wire, is led back to the British side. The boy who trained him is now in the Army in that very sector of a long, long front, his eyes bandaged after a gas attack. When he hears that a special horse has just been rescued, he figures it's Joey, whistles for him, and the horse responds just before being put out of its misery because of its injuries.
As I said, it's a good movie. But I was a bit disappointed. I didn't think the trailers did much to clue us in as to what the story was about. The reliance on coincidence to bring Albert and Joey together at the front is a bit hard to take. Some of the special effects, such as a snowstorm near the end (or was that flying ash, I wasn't sure), could have been better.
On the other hand, the depiction of how the war destroyed the land was excellent. The scene where Joey was part of a horse team pulling artillery was excellent. The home scenes before the war were great.
Maybe the build-up of the movie was over done, and caused me to set my expectations too high. I was expecting a once in a decade production, and all I got was a great, great movie. If you have a chance, if it stays around in theatres a bit longer, by all means see it. It was good wholesome entertainment, and the $9.00 I paid (two seniors tickets) was well spent.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Movie Review: Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Today after church, Lynda suggested we drive past the Carmike 6 Cinema that we pass and see what time The Voyage of the Dawn Treader would be playing. Unfortunately, we were already past the drive to the shopping center when she suggested it. So I turned around in the Dairy Queen parking lot up the road, went back, and we learned it was to start at 12:15 PM. It was 12:20, which meant all we had missed was dancing hot dogs or previews of movies we will never watch. I paid for two senior tickets at matinee prices, and we arrived in the theatre before all the previews were done, but not too much before.
The Dawn Treader was good, much better than Prince Caspian (which we saw on TV only). We missed The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe both at the cinema and on TV. Of all the Narnia books, which I never read until adulthood, I liked The Dawn Treader best. It had the best imagery of them all, and seemed to have the least fill in stuff. The wall of water at the end of the book has often crossed my mind, as has the city of people underwater. I had forgotten all about poor Eustace Scrubbs—not the name, but his becoming a dragon. After seeing the movie, the cleansing of his dragon nature by Aslan came immediately to mind.
But back to the movie. Obviously it was not totally faithful to the book, but it did a good job of putting into pictures what C.S. Lewis must have been trying to paint with words. The details of the ship, and of ship life, and of sailing on open seas were quite good. The different islands they went to and the quest to find the seven missing lords. The island with the gold dump was quite well depicted. Oh, and the mansion that Lucy goes into and finding the book of spells to read from, that was great.
But I do have a little fault to find. It's been about ten years since I read VotDT, and obviously I don't remember it all that well (except the great imagery). But one difference in the message of the book doesn't seem to come through. Or rather, one message I get from the movie I don't remember in the book. And I may be reading too much into it. Narnia is overcome by evil, or at least the island realm of Narnia is. To break evil's hold, they must find the seven swords of the seven lost lords and lay them on Aslan's table. Only then will the spell of evil be broken.
To find the swords, they must go where the lords went, to this island and that one, and overcome evil along the way. Part of the journey of the three children of Adam and Eve is overcoming their own obsessions: beauty for Lucy, power for Edmund, and I guess greed (or maybe self-indulgence) for Eustace. This they do, and they fight evil, but none of that overcomes the evil. The evil is overcome by the magic of the swords, once they touch each other on the table. It seems to me that is the wrong message to send. Evil is not overcome by magic, but by the constant application of good.
As I say, maybe I'm trying too hard to figure out a message from the movie, rather than be entertained. The three children are faithful to the task laid before them, and only through their faithfulness can the magic be applied. Eustace goes through the biggest character arc, from a sniveling twit worthy of his name to a boy one might want to know and be with. The removal of his dragon nature in the movie was much less dramatic than in the book, and seems much less of a metaphor for Christian conversion. I seem to remember that the book included Aslan ripping at the dragon flesh with his claws, and the cleansing thereby was much more significant in the book than in the movie.
This review is late relative to the movie's appearance in theatres. At many places it's already been removed and replaced by various banal comedies that appear designed to entertain our sexual nature rather than our intellect. But, if you haven't seen it, and can find it, by all means go see it. Then read the book soon after. I may do so this week.
The Dawn Treader was good, much better than Prince Caspian (which we saw on TV only). We missed The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe both at the cinema and on TV. Of all the Narnia books, which I never read until adulthood, I liked The Dawn Treader best. It had the best imagery of them all, and seemed to have the least fill in stuff. The wall of water at the end of the book has often crossed my mind, as has the city of people underwater. I had forgotten all about poor Eustace Scrubbs—not the name, but his becoming a dragon. After seeing the movie, the cleansing of his dragon nature by Aslan came immediately to mind.
But back to the movie. Obviously it was not totally faithful to the book, but it did a good job of putting into pictures what C.S. Lewis must have been trying to paint with words. The details of the ship, and of ship life, and of sailing on open seas were quite good. The different islands they went to and the quest to find the seven missing lords. The island with the gold dump was quite well depicted. Oh, and the mansion that Lucy goes into and finding the book of spells to read from, that was great.
But I do have a little fault to find. It's been about ten years since I read VotDT, and obviously I don't remember it all that well (except the great imagery). But one difference in the message of the book doesn't seem to come through. Or rather, one message I get from the movie I don't remember in the book. And I may be reading too much into it. Narnia is overcome by evil, or at least the island realm of Narnia is. To break evil's hold, they must find the seven swords of the seven lost lords and lay them on Aslan's table. Only then will the spell of evil be broken.
To find the swords, they must go where the lords went, to this island and that one, and overcome evil along the way. Part of the journey of the three children of Adam and Eve is overcoming their own obsessions: beauty for Lucy, power for Edmund, and I guess greed (or maybe self-indulgence) for Eustace. This they do, and they fight evil, but none of that overcomes the evil. The evil is overcome by the magic of the swords, once they touch each other on the table. It seems to me that is the wrong message to send. Evil is not overcome by magic, but by the constant application of good.
As I say, maybe I'm trying too hard to figure out a message from the movie, rather than be entertained. The three children are faithful to the task laid before them, and only through their faithfulness can the magic be applied. Eustace goes through the biggest character arc, from a sniveling twit worthy of his name to a boy one might want to know and be with. The removal of his dragon nature in the movie was much less dramatic than in the book, and seems much less of a metaphor for Christian conversion. I seem to remember that the book included Aslan ripping at the dragon flesh with his claws, and the cleansing thereby was much more significant in the book than in the movie.
This review is late relative to the movie's appearance in theatres. At many places it's already been removed and replaced by various banal comedies that appear designed to entertain our sexual nature rather than our intellect. But, if you haven't seen it, and can find it, by all means go see it. Then read the book soon after. I may do so this week.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
"The Namesake" is a good movie
One of the CDs our son brought with him from Chicago for possible viewing during our Thanksgiving family time was The Namesake. This is some years old, not quite sure how much, but I'd never hear of it, nor the book on which it was based. It's the story of Bengali Indian immigrants to the USA.
Having spent those years overseas, interacted socially and in business with many Indian people, this type of movie was right up my alley. A Bengali man immigrates to the USA, Boston area, I suppose for study and work, goes back to India and takes a Bengali Indian wife, and they live in the USA. They have two children who are thoroughly American.
The story is the trials of both the immigrant couple and their children. The couple has their difficulties with American life, and never fully give up their Indian ways. Trips to India are rare. The children have no real connection to India, except through their parents. The few trips to India don't seem to have a positive effect on them (except seeing the Taj Mahal). They struggle having parents who are so different from those of their friends.
The title comes from the naming of the eldest child, a son. The couple has written to India to ask the boy's grandmother to send them a name (obviously a few decades ago, when international communications were mainly by letter). When the hospital says they have to name the boy, they say they won't have a name for six weeks. But they ask what's the big deal, for in India the child may not be given a "good name" for a few years, relying on an in-family nickname. But they must name the boy in the American system, and temporarily name him Gogol after the father's favorite author, the Russian Nickolai Gogol. I'd never heard of this author until seeing this movie. Much of the story revolves around Gogol and his name, which becomes permanent.
I liked the movie. It includes a few subtitles for the Bengali dialog, which obviously makes the movie harder to watch, but most of it is in English. The immigrant couple have strong Bengali accents, which also ads to the difficulty. But overall it's not that hard. The interpersonal relationships are good. Of course, I'm partial to stories involving the world as a whole, not just America, so as I said this was my kind of movie.
You can't see it in a theatre. Wikipedia tells me the movie was released in 2006. I didn't see it them (we seldom go to movies), but I'm glad I saw it now. If you haven't seen it, and have a chance to rent it, do so. I believe you will be entertained.
Having spent those years overseas, interacted socially and in business with many Indian people, this type of movie was right up my alley. A Bengali man immigrates to the USA, Boston area, I suppose for study and work, goes back to India and takes a Bengali Indian wife, and they live in the USA. They have two children who are thoroughly American.
The story is the trials of both the immigrant couple and their children. The couple has their difficulties with American life, and never fully give up their Indian ways. Trips to India are rare. The children have no real connection to India, except through their parents. The few trips to India don't seem to have a positive effect on them (except seeing the Taj Mahal). They struggle having parents who are so different from those of their friends.
The title comes from the naming of the eldest child, a son. The couple has written to India to ask the boy's grandmother to send them a name (obviously a few decades ago, when international communications were mainly by letter). When the hospital says they have to name the boy, they say they won't have a name for six weeks. But they ask what's the big deal, for in India the child may not be given a "good name" for a few years, relying on an in-family nickname. But they must name the boy in the American system, and temporarily name him Gogol after the father's favorite author, the Russian Nickolai Gogol. I'd never heard of this author until seeing this movie. Much of the story revolves around Gogol and his name, which becomes permanent.
I liked the movie. It includes a few subtitles for the Bengali dialog, which obviously makes the movie harder to watch, but most of it is in English. The immigrant couple have strong Bengali accents, which also ads to the difficulty. But overall it's not that hard. The interpersonal relationships are good. Of course, I'm partial to stories involving the world as a whole, not just America, so as I said this was my kind of movie.
You can't see it in a theatre. Wikipedia tells me the movie was released in 2006. I didn't see it them (we seldom go to movies), but I'm glad I saw it now. If you haven't seen it, and have a chance to rent it, do so. I believe you will be entertained.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Movie Review: The Half-Blood Prince
Lynda and I went to see "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" on Sunday afternoon, at matinee prices of $4.00 each. Popcorn and pop cost more than the movie. I hesitated to write a review yesterday, wanting a day to see if my feelings had changed. They hadn't. I know no other way to say this than to say it straight, and with words that Ron Weasly might use: It was a bloody waste of time and money.
I haven't read the books, and so don't know what this particular one said. As a lead-in to seeing this one we watched the first four Potter films over the last two weekends, finishing up Saturday evening. We had re-watched the fifth one in late April in Chicago.
Now I know everyone is supposed to be all ga-ga about Harry Potter. Maybe the books are good, I don't know. But this one did not, for me, do enough to warrant the 2hr 20min we spent in the theater. Nor the $8.00 we paid for two tickets (the popcorn was excellent though).
I'd say some specifics of why I didn't like it, but I have already invested enough time on this thing, and won't waste any more.
I haven't read the books, and so don't know what this particular one said. As a lead-in to seeing this one we watched the first four Potter films over the last two weekends, finishing up Saturday evening. We had re-watched the fifth one in late April in Chicago.
Now I know everyone is supposed to be all ga-ga about Harry Potter. Maybe the books are good, I don't know. But this one did not, for me, do enough to warrant the 2hr 20min we spent in the theater. Nor the $8.00 we paid for two tickets (the popcorn was excellent though).
I'd say some specifics of why I didn't like it, but I have already invested enough time on this thing, and won't waste any more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
