Cassavetes also directed Gena Rowlands in what I considered her greatest role - the wife in "A Woman Under The Influence". She plays the wife of Peter Falk, an insane woman, and the impact of that insanity on her family. They were both amazing in the movie.

I like them too. And I still watch them even though it may only be for a half hour or so.

Whenever I read or hear the name "John Cassavetes" reminds me of two movies, Rosemary's baby (he played the hubby?) and the killing of a Chinese bookie, which is IMO one of the most if not the most underrated gangster movie ever, Cassavetes wrote and directed it.
"A Woman Under The Influence" sounds interesting, perhaps I should check it out.

I know right none of my friends have seen it but when i loan it to them they lov2e it

Saw it back when it was in theaters. Pretty good.

Just watched Lockout with Guy Pearce. OK action movie. Some funny one liners.

Watched Waiting again. It's a comedy from 7 or 8 years ago, I think. I tend to not like the more crass comedies but this one is pretty dang funny. Especially for anyone who's every worked in a restaurant or done customer service.

Oh yeah, definitely won't be seeing Magic Mike. Even if it does have Oliva Munn topless in it.

I know, what a cruel trick played by the fates.

"Munn is finally showing us her boobs! In that movie about male strippers."

I'll wait for it to pop-up online.

Well, there really wasn't a "wait." (A friend of mine excitedly sent me a link.)

Brave (2012) - ***1/2 out of 5

The people at Pixar have some of the more consistent-quality controlling filmmakers working today, and they crank out another winner. It doesn't match the Pixar triumphs like UP or TOY STORY 3 if only because it doesn't have that that trademark emotional gutpunch (My God, adults at those UP and TS3 screenings I went to cried.) This is more on the level of RATATOUILLE or FINDING NEMO, simply a terrific comedy that got me semi-involved with the narrative. In essence, Pixar makes adult comedies that also appeal to children.

But this movie has gotten wrongly slammed by misguided liberals who whine that they expected a "Pixar feminist" movie and complain instead that they got another Disney Princess movie. Which is total bullshit.

It does broadly follow that popular and popularily derided Disney Princess formula, but with sophisticated creative touches and surprising turns by the movie's original female director/writer (she was replaced during production because the movie was behind schedule.) Really reminds me of to a degree of THE INCREDIBLES (Pixar's best movie IMO) with what it did with the superhero formula in that regard.

What do I mean? There is no prince. There is no villain. The two lead characters are women. The princess doesn't marry or fall in love with anybody at the end. Well there is a witch*, but she's a benevolent nice scatter-brain, no more evil at worst than a legal gun dealer. There are princes, but they're one-off jokes.

Even with the conventional plot set-up with the orthodox mother and the liberalized daughter, both are treated with more depth and intelligence than usualy in these sorts of movies as they're stuck together trying to solve their dilemma (girl got mad at mom, accidentally turns her into a bear.) The princess is likeable, she made a childish mistake out of rash anger, owned up to it and fixed it like an adult. In the ending, she's treated like an independent adult woman. Oh and she shoots arrows.

I mean my fellow libs, doesn't that sound like basic feminism 101 in a nutshell that we wished Hollywood would do more of or attempt at the movies? You know, try to actually back up their supposed progressive values?

In that fashion, if PROMETHEUS aged like milk for me in reflection, BRAVE is aging like wine. It's not a great movie, but it deserves much more credit than it's currently getting. It's getting punished for orbiting the Earth and not landing on Mars.

*=Someone pointed out to me that the BRAVE witch in design (with the oversized eyeball) was obviously influenced by the evil witch in SNOW WHITE, the original Disney princess movie. A clever twist on the cliche.

Bah! Need I point out that the last thing we need, especially in a Pixar movie, is any liberal, feminist, propaganda? Seriously, Disney/Pixar is supposed to be family-oriented. Traditional-values oriented. Is nothing sacred? But it is Hollywood after all so maybe I'm hoping for the impossible.

Just watched 21 jump street it was decent but i was expecting more

There is no conflict what so ever between "family values" and leading compelling female characters in movies/TV that aren't merely designated props/playthings for men. For all of Hollywood's preaching, by default they usually fall back to the same patriarchal traditionalism that town supposedly decries. Not that I necessarily mind such traditionalism, but when they do it out of creative bankruptcy or worse cowardice, they deserve to be criticized with feet to the fires.

I'm reminded of ALIENS, Big classic action blockbuster with Sigourney Weaver the star and character that everybody liked and rooted for. She earned that rare Oscar acting nomination given for an action film. But that was what, 1986? Hollywood can do much more frequently than that.

Of course there is unfortunately still an undercurrent of sexism within Hollywood. I'm reminded of when Kathryn Bigelow was the front-runner to win the Best Director Oscar for HURT LOCKER, Salon magazine ran a piece criticizing and dismissing her talents because she never made "women movies," or whatever that means because women should only direct movies about women, like how men always make movies about men and other such wonderfully stupid observations that somebody was paid to write and somebody else published.

~I use quotations on "family values" because it's a questionable moniker used by particular peoples in recent decades waging their own cultural war using the mechanics of government against other particular peoples are actually very much pro-nuclear family and pro-marriage, a very welcome alternative to forsaking the institution of marriage or even celebrating divorce, a fact lost when some people miss the forest for the trees.

Couldn't even finish that, very disappointed I will stick with 80s teen movies which ruled!

I don't know how many of you have seen any of the "Final Destination" films but I admit, for some reason I enjoy them. HBO is running the latest (at least I think it is) Final Destination 4 or 5?

I guess I like the premise of "you can't cheat death". I don't know, but I find myself watching each one. I admit to laughing at scenes which weren't meant to by funny, but still have fun watching these films. I've never seen any of them at the movies but on HBO or cable. This last one was actually not too bad considering it's 4th (or maybe fifth) in the series.

Anyone see any of these FD films?


TIS

I saw the first movie, and I remember thinking it was alright. Not seen the rest.

I heard the last few were inventive with their demises. I like that.

RR, the first one was the airplane, then there was car accident, a carnival mishap, race track disaster and the last one, they escaped death from a collapsing bridge. Btw, the villan is the same guy who was in The Candyman...Tony????something.

I am not a fan of slasher films and I wouldn't call these that,tho there are some graphic scenes. I loved too how the very first one ended.

On the same line of "Fun entertainment" I liked Jeepers Creepers too.

TIS

The first one and the one with the rollercoaster are quite good.

Compelling leading female characters is fine. Since you mentioned it, Aliens is one of my all time favorite movies. But in addition to being such a great writer and director, it worked because of how Cameron went about it. Ripley wasn't trying to be "GI Jane." She wasn't a soldier trying to be "one of the guys." She was just put in a position and did what she had to do. More than anything, it was really more about her taking on the mother role and protecting Newt among all the chaos.

The problem comes when movie makers, for whatever reason, but often to make some political or social statement, try to have their female characters act outside of their gender roles. And then present it as something that's a good thing. Something to be cheered.

And for the record, I liked the Hurt Locker, but I don't think it deserved both "Best Movie" and "Best Director."

Mrs. Mark talked me into watching "The Help" last night. Very good picture I must say. I didn't think I would like it but I enjoyed it very much. Highly recommend. I give it 4-1/2 meatballs out of 5!

One of my faves, Mark, both the book and the movie.

Does the movie do the book justice?

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) - ***1/2

Decent, if at times even spectacularly decent reboot of the Spider-Man franchise that is less Sam Raimi's movie from a decade ago and more Sony gunning for Spidey in the BATMAN BEGINS mold. The cast was good, with the leads in Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are great, dynamite chemistry but I must admit I was disapointed that they made a point of introducing Stone's Gwen Stacy as an intellectual equal of Peter Parker, only for the movie to do absolutely nothing with that introduced element. (Then why bother?) Garfield's Parker is more inert, more awkward, more clumsy, and quite frankly more interesting than Tobey Maguire's portrayal was.

People complain about the origin story being rehashed, but that's an irrelevant concern. You've seen movies before, why watch them again? You've seen a movie about Jesus before, why see another one? Hey they already made Batman movies, why did we need Christopher Nolan's (superior) movies? Hell fans know most of these superhero origin tales by heart, so why bother? Because some stories we love to hear, even if we're very familiar with them.

I was mildly engaged, I laughed at most of the intended punchlines, I was excited, and I'm baffled by complaints that the CGI is not good. Realy guys? I saw Raimi's SPIDER-MAN on TV some weeks back, and it's amazing (no pun intended) how much CGI has evolved just in the last decade.

I do admit he first hour sorta dragged, but I can't decide if it was the story being told (technically nothing wrong with it) or the fact I didn't get much sleep last night. Also the ending turned me off, and I'm not sure why. It keeps with the tone of the movie was going for and faithful (more or less) to the Spider-Man comics, but I dunno it feels sorta contrived? Maybe it feels short in the aftermath of THE AVENGERS, but that can't be helped. It feels too contrived of the first SPIDER-MAN movie, such moments of creative lazyness that somewhat hold this back.

If there is a real reason to go see ASM, there were some scenes as I alluded to that were rare moments when I go from critically watching a movie on a technical level and get myself lost in the moment as a moviegoer. Spider-Man tying up criminals and hanging them outside the local police precinct? His great plan to get a picture of the Lizard down in the sewers that horribly backfires? Goofing off playing games on his smartphone during a stake-out? Taking his mask off to get a kid to escape a burning car? Playfully revealing his spandex hobby to his girlfriend? Such charming scenes that give a nice reminder of why Spider-Man is one of the superhero heavyweights in global popularity.

Again not a great movie, but at least it's better than SPIDER-MAN 3. That's a nicer compliment than I intended. I hope the sequel is even better, and I think that it can. Definately doesn't deserve some of the intense backlash from the Internet. (Yet it got an "A-" from Cinemascore, a decent if not gospel barometer of audience WOM.)

NOTE: I think it's funny that the marketing made a big friggin deal about how "you've not see the whole story!" mystery aspect of Spider-Man, especially regarding his parents. Which as you Spidey/comic book fans might remembere, were never around or mentioned. And you know what? I never cared about them or their fate, either as a kid or adult, and I'll argue most people feel the same way. It's like wondering about young King Lear, I mean who cares?

But regardless, ASM doesn't answer it, leaving it again for the inevitable sequel so don't worry about it. I liked the movie in spite of that shamelss marketing bait & switch. (But Sony, please no Green Goblin again. Why not try Mysterio? He was my favorite Spidey villain as a kid.)

The Hunger Games (2012) - ****

Now this is what I was talking about with my rant about women characters and Hollywood. This was a monster hit ($400 million grossed in America alone) and based off a similarly successful book series. I think it's pretty obvious two-fold why teenagers (specifically young women) really reacted positively to this and I assume the source material (which I've obviously never read) too:

(1) Teenagers love reading/seeing teenagers in adult situations, having to more or less fend for themselves. It's why HARRY POTTER and (the idiotic) TWILIGHT were so popular, among other reasons.

(2) The protagonist (played here by the talented newcomer Jennifer Lawrence)is a young girl, who you immediately rally around. She's resourceful, she's intelligent, she's likeable, we relate to her troubles more or less running what's left of her family, we follow her complicated relationship throughout the narrative with local boy Josh Hutcherson, she's a human beacon which we see this horribly dystopic future (or wicked alternate reality?) from her perspective.

See Hollywood, how hard is that?

That scene with her showing off her archery skills to the oligarchy's amusement (but more like indiffernece) was magic. The way it's paced and develops you know what will happen but man it's wonderful when it does unfold exactly as you hoped for.

(I do think it's odd how Lawrence here is a master archer, as was the female protagonist in BRAVE. Then you have Hawkeye in THE AVENGERS. Did archery become popular with the hipsters without me being aware?)

That "perspective," director Gary Ross here does in costume deisgn, art direction and other aesthetic detaild that Ridley Scott did with BLADE RUNNER, informing and educating you about everything about this ficitonal universe with the technological disparity between the impoverished powerless masses and the self-enclosed oligarchy not really in touch with reality, all without being being spoonfed with dull, insulting exposition. HUNGER GAMES the movie is more intelligent and superbly crafted than I think most of it's fans give it credit.

The opening with Lawrence in her home "district," I thought it looked quite like southwestern Virginia/West Virginia and looking up on wikipedia, what do you know that distrct is supposed to be set in the Appalachians. I even liked President/dictator Donald Sutherland's speech about that part of the world being full of underdogs. "If you knew them, you wouldn't cheer for the underdog." Brilliant.

I'll tell you what I honestly enjoyed most about HG, and it's Woody Harleson. He can be such a great actor, scoring two well-earned Oscar acting nominations over the years, yet he's still remarkably underrated in spite of all that. To some folks, he's still fucking Woody from CHEERS. He deserves more credit, specifically what he adds to HUNGER GAMES.

He's introduced before appearing as only the ex-champion of these Hunger Games, a gladiator deathmatch spectacle held by this dictatorship with kids sent to kill each other until one is left standing. Then Woody appears, and his demeanor with those eyes tells you everything you need to know about him. Yes he won, or the last survivor where he assumingly did kill other kids to save himself. And that thought has haunted him, and he tries to escape with booze and cynical indifference but with no success.

That's how dictatorships stay in power, dehumanizing the population and making such horrible shit the accepted status quo. Woody is like the masses, he knows these Hunger Games are savage and horrible, but what he's helpless. There is nothing he can do, right I like the impression given only the lunatic cabal at the capitol city are the only ones who "enjoy" this violent circus, everybody else is horrified and put in their place by this these Games.

Yet when Harleson grows some sort of friendship/mentorship with Lawrence, fire returns to those eyes and she forces him through smarts and admiration to care about her, makes him give a shit again and try to help her anyway she can during those Games. I suppose if the two upcoming movie sequels (according to wikipedia) are about the growing revolution against this society, then Harleson gives a great microcosmic demonstration of why this happens.

I have only one severe reservation about HUNGER GAMES: The fucking post-action cinematography, or as better known (or better scorned) as "shakey cam." You know where action scenes are now usually filmed with a camera tossed around back and forth, and you the audience are disoriented with no sense of geography (i.e. what the fuck is happening.) I was so capitvated by this movie, but those scenes did take me out of that spell.

But I guess I give Ross credit in one way: He doesn't sensationalize the violence with the scenes of kids actually killing other kids, he denies people a chance to enjoy that juvenile violence. And quite frankly I appreciate that because I had no appetite for it. (Yet I had no qualms with KICK ASS and the cursing/murdering 11 year old girl. Go figure. )

I suppose going in I expected THE RUNNING MAN with teenagers, an adventure thriller or something. Instead I got ROLLERBALL with teenagers (the James Caan movie, not that dumbass Chris Klein remake.) Yes it's "entertainment," but along the way you're provoked to think about certain things larger than your popcorn that only good movies make you comtemplate.

The movie is fairly faithful, and I think the actors all did their characters justice. I felt that the book did a better job of conveying the danger that they were all in for telling their stories, but I enjoyed them both.

Watched The Talented Mr. Ripley. Great movie.

We rented "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" Friday night, only to find that it was airing on cable last night. I didn't love Daniel Craig in the lead. I couldn't understand half of what he was saying; he always seemed to be mumbling (although that might have been the DVD). The rest of the cast, however, did an outstanding job, especially Stellan Skarsgard and Rooney Mara.

The movie has a very dark and disturbing story to tell. Daniel Craig plays a disgraced journalist who is hired by a Swedish industrialist to look into the 40 year old disappearance of his beloved niece. The book had an incredible number of characters that were often difficult to follow (especially given the Swedish names and places, which are not familiar to me) and the film did an admirable job of keeping them all in place.

I am glad that I saw the movie in the summer, though. Everyone always looked so freezing cold! My mom told me that she saw Dr. Zhivago on a bitter cold night and had to wait on a long line outside to get tickets. She said that they were freezing cold the entire night!

All the parts were there for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Daniel Craig is always good and it's a perfect movie for Fincher. But the question is, did it really need to be made after the original Swedish version? I'm not one of these movie snobs that automatically writes off an American remake of a foreign film but it is often the case the remakes don't measure up for one reason or another.

Also watched Bad Santa. Not for everybody but very funny if you like dark comedy.

Most of the reviews said that the American version was pretty much Swedish Version Redux, and was slightly inferior to the original. I haven't seen the Swedish version, but I believe they filmed the entire trilogy, no?

Lisbeth Salander is one of the most tragic heroines ever written. I couldn't put the first book down. I didn't admire the next two quite as much, but I would be interested to see the films.