On the other hand, a pretty woeful movie like Children of Men, that appeared to have a point, was wonderful.

I didn't particularly like Et tu Mama Tambien, but Alfonso Cuaron's other three films have been uniformly fantastic. (The Little Princess, Harry Potter and the Prisonzer of Azkaban, and his latest.) The guy's a budding genius, imo.

His latest is a great fable about a dystopian future where mankind has been infertile for almost 20 years. The vision of the future presented is completely eerie. Cuaron wisely strayed from the book and, instead of making the scene futuristic, made the environment uncannily like our own ... with the terrifyingly believable addition of world chaos.

Clive Owens (great, as usual) stumbles into the situation of protecting the first pregnant woman in 18 years. In a wonderful performance, Michael Caine offers a bit of safe haven in what is otherwise a suspenseful, harrowing adventure.

Much has been made of the fact that Cuaron used extremely long takes for much of the film ... but I found the film so engrossing that this bit of technique was barely noticeable. If anything, it pulls you into the story and the action in a unique way, and does not stand out as showy filmmaking.



This is not a cheerful movie, but I highly recommend it.

Just got back from it as well and also mostly enjoyed it. I also give Cuaron three out of four successes but a different three (it is Prisoner of Azkaban that I find deplorable).

The first long cut was well done, adding to the suspense of the scene, and subtle enough that if I hadn't heard about the long cuts beforehand I probably wouldn't have noticed.

The second one was just needless showing off and did nothing for the movie (and apprently had at least one unperceived cut anyway). The problem with our modern digital age is that I don't believe what I see on film is real anyway so long cuts for the sake of a long cut isn't really impressive.

I remember the forgetabble Nicolas Cage movie Snake Eyes and it started with what seemed to be a 10 minute single shot that was actually cleverly edited and masked digitally. That's pointless. The beginning of Touch of Evil, that meant something. The second one in Children of Men was somewhere in between but closer to Snake Eyes.

But it is a ballsy movie for many reasons and well worth seeing (unless you're someone who only goes to movies to be made happy).

We watched Terry Gilliam's Brother's Grimm last night.

I wish I could have liked it more. I loved the concept of the characters and the appearance of familiar fairy tale elements. But something about the movie just fell flat. Combined with the fact that the pace just slowed to a crawl as the end approached, I just couldn't wait for it to be over. A real shame, it could have been wonderfull.

I agree. I enjoyed what he was trying to do but it became too earnest by th end.

However, it does currently hold the position of being the last movie I saw at a drive-in.

So, if she used weenie and McGuffin interchangeably, can we now call the weenies at DL McGuffins? Asking that has just made me realize that I have no idea what those spinny rocket things with a ridiculous line in Tomorrowland are called. I will now only call them, McGuffin.

As a Gilliam completist, I bought the DVD for Brothers Grimm when it was released (I missed the theatrical run). Heather watched it before I did. I told her I was considering watching it one night and asked her what she thought of it. Her reply: "If you've already watched every single DVD that you own... I'd consider watching something else again."

I still haven't watched it.

Or Tideland.

I felt the same way. Close to the end I remember turning to Michael and saying, "This is such an awesome concept, but they did a terrible job of pulling it off. I'm so bored."

I just watched "Devil Wears Prada". Yep, kinda late to the party but I loved Streep immensely in this film. She was fabulous. She could have exaggerated the role and didn't. Such a great choice for the character.
When Streep's not on camera the movie dragged for me. Tucci was good, though.
I kept staring at Hathaway's lips...
:D

Hmm, it's not THAT bad. Heck, it's better than Jabberwocky (what a mess that movie is).

Yeah, I'd watch it once, mousepod. The visuals are great and there are 3 or 4 really terrifying moments. There are also some nifty concepts, and as a bit of a fairy tale buff, I enjoyed many of the references. I'm glad I saw it, but all I could think afterwards was "it could have been so much better!"

It reminded me that moviemaking is such a specific art. I can't pin down what was wrong with the film, yet it was obvious it had too much of something and not enough of something else.