what makes a good movie?

this is a question that has plagued me recently. the last few movies i've seen (unfortunately in the company of my man) have left me feeling as if i've been beat down. i'm being serious - i have actually felt physical reprecussions as the result of certain movies. most notably was the one i saw last night moonlight. i'll save my review for later.

anyway, what i feel makes a good movie:

1. i leave feeling as if i've learned something. now this doesn't work with absolutely every movie that i consider good but it's a key feature for me. i also don't mean that i've learned something in a scholarly sense but i enjoy learning about little human details. example: "happiness". many people are (and i understand) disturbed by this movie. i was too but i love the little icky details of these peoples lives. i loved watching jane addams attempt to teach an ESL class. learning how others handle the emotions/situations is always fun for me. i realize it's just a movie but again: art imitates life. that's my view anyway.

2. it's just plain watchable. my favorite example of this NOT being true is "blair witch project". while i consider it just a good idea gone bad in general, it was absolutely torturous to view. sure, that was part of their point but shaking a camera for an hour does not a good movie or point make. come on! an opposite is "il postino" - not a great movie but it was full of gorgeous cinematography.

3. "...and the oscar for best actor goes to...". of course the acting must be convincing. and if you watch movies at all you know that the best acting jobs are often the most subtle. if you know what i mean. one of my favorite examples is patricia clarkson . i'll watch anything with her in it because she is an acting goddess. disagree if you must but at least watch: "station agent", "far from heaven" and "all the real girls" and you'll know what i mean. well, i would also say she was alright in "high art" but i do NOT consider that a great movie.

so, there are many other factors, in my opinion, that make a movie great but i think those are the three most important for me. for now anyway. ha. moving on...

moonlight. people on IMDb state that the movie making is amazing. i disagree 100%. people also say that the story was lacking and unbelievable and i agree 100%. the 'story' revolves around a girl (maybe 12?) who discovers a bleeding boy in the shed on the land of her very nice home. the boy, we learn in the first disturbing scene (and it only gets worse), is a drug mule from a middle eastern country. he's shot when the deal goes bad and takes shelter in her shed. the girl, we learn has just gotten her first period (one of those disturbing scenes i referenced earlier), was adopted by her wealthy hands-off parents and is generally unhappy. they run off to 'the big city' to avoid the guys who are seeking the boy. they go through all kinds of trials trying to survive on their own, rob, lie, cheat and become alcoholic coke heads. oh and of course, they fall in love. do you sense my bitterness? of course, they are acting out the loss of their innocense and sense of abandonments. it's very drawn out. i have a hard time watching children acting as adults. "me and you and everyone that we know" made me feel the same way although not as disturbed as after i watched this. essentially, the movie is really heavy. i don't think that most will enjoy it. i saw it at the hollywood theatre and they billed it as 'a dark comedy'. i'm considering suing the hollywood theatre for this false description. ok, not really. f.

"i'm white too!"

confederate states of america. the movie was often referred to (within the movie) as c.s.a. so i'll use that also. truth be told, the movie was not at all what i was expecting. i'd heard there was a movie that based it's story on a, thankfully false, assumption that the confederacy won the civil war. being from the south i was naturally intrigued. the movie is actually a mockumentary within a movie that uses some artifacts from reality. that may sound confusing but it isn't. the movie begins with us being shown a documentary from a british television channel, the name of this documentary is the same title of the movie. as a black person, especially one with southern roots, watching this movie i naturally had a lot of feelings that may or may not be shared by others. within the documentary we are told of the horrors that america (CSA) bestows upon the rest of the world. for example, the CSA takes over mexico, south and central america; on the west coast, the asian population (mostly Chinese) are the slaves; america supports Hitler during WWII and other disturbing presuppositions of an america ruled by slave owners. the documentary was broken up by commercials featuring products like 'sambo axel grease' and 'darkie toothpaste'. disturbing doesn't really being to describe my sense during this film. what hit home though was that during the credits we are told that those products, and most others shown, are real and half were sold through the 1980s. though this movie is based on an historical fallacy it is or it should be, quite telling how frighteningly close to the truth a lot of the movie is. b+.

not so 'veklempt' anymore...

...thus i am able to give my $.02 for what i've seen lately.


an american haunting. *sigh. alleged true story of a 1880s family in tennessee who is haunted by a poltergeist. it wasn't listed as a 'scary movie' but the story is horrific. i sat with my mouth agape and cringed - not because of blood or gore or because i am afraid of ghosts; no, this movie affirmed my notion that reality (if this is indeed a true story) tends to be much more disturbing than anything hollywood can dream up. besides, donald sutherland was truly disappointing. sissy spacek - eh - though, really, what did she have to work with? c-.

a lovely day

i've got nothing to really type just a review of the day: it was a good day, certainly. i lazed around and then went to meet m for scrabble. i have come to really look forward to playing scrabble every couple of weeks. it's a fun distraction and hopefully will halt any onset of alzheimer's or dementia. she brought j with her and j is NO JOKE when it comes to scrabble. she beat us both but with grace. heh.

j came over, he brought me a rose and i had to properly thank him. *grin. so then he and i went to see an awfully disturbing movie. i'll try to review it later..when i'm able to think about it without wanting to puke. seriously.

we just hung then and talked a lot. went to the grocery store - i like shopping with him it feels very domestic. awwwww. anyway, it was a nice chill night. i realized i won't see him until next week. we both have stuff this week and are both leaving town this weekend. i won't be back til monday though. i keep thinking he's a such a sweetie and i feel very lucky to have met him. as my friend heidi would say: the cheese is addictive.

coupledom

it's a rainy, chilly sunday morning. perfect time to update, i say, with a meandering musing sort of update. i wish i could write a review but i have only seen one movie since that last time i wrote. i suppose that's related to what is on my mind.

i have only a couple other times been part of a couple. a dyad. a unit, if you will. it's a strange state of being. it has been on my mind the last two days since j and i just attended two dinner parties on friday and last night. it was the first time we'd ever been asked to be anywhere together within a group and i was basically just curious to see how it would work out.


friday we were invited (a-ha! first oddity is saying 'we') to one of my co-worker's home for dinner. she invited another co-worker and her partner. so the house is amazing and the meal is BEYOND amazing - chicken kabobs over cous cous with some amazing bread i can't name and the most flavorful salad i've ever had. dessert was from a nearby bakery, etc. i found the conversation amusing. out of the six, four work for the same company so there was that commonality. the only time i felt uncomfortable was during the inevitable, "so how did you two get together?" i wasn't embarrassed or anything - it was just the first time it was ever asked. so, if we stay together we'll be asked it again, i'm sure. i don't know i just find it strange to be answering that question. i usually ask others and 'ooohh' and 'aawwww' over the story. i'm sincere in my gushing to others but there's a part of me that feels others don't necessarily care but it's considered polite to ask. why?

yesterday m decided to host a 'seis de mayo' dinner. it was a good time. most of the usual suspects were there. m made the most delicious enchiladas EVER - potato, spinach, zucchini and mushroom all in one. to.die.for. so we all ate and then we played a really...um, different?...game called "Fact or Crap" and it consisted of taking turns reading statements from a card and then having everyone hold up a sign that says either (you guessed it) fact or crap. it had a funky token system. being there with j was alright. he knew most people and others were just trying to get to know him. what made it uncomfortable was all me. i tend to have a "quiet viciousness". when it comes to trivia/knowledge games- that side of me really comes out. i am way more competitive than i want to admit. it really began when everyone was just playing with the tokens and not listening as i tried to read the directions. i am VERY into playing by the rules. the others? not so much. it was pointed out more than once that i was the only earth sign in the room and therefore the only grounding force. yeah, not such a good place to be in. it didn't matter because they outvoted me decided to play by their own rules. in the end j and i tied with the most tokens. good thing i think brains are sexy.

as i type this crap in my head out i see that there's really nothing to do but keep my own self in check. sigh.

i quit!

i totally left work today because i couldn't stand it anymore. i had had it! i told everyone i was going to do outreach (visiting clients in their home) and i did but i still had about an hour fifteen minutes left over to my true work day but i just headed to the one place in the world that soothes the frayed nerves in moments like that: the nearest movie theatre.

the sentinel. truth? this was the only movie playing within the time frame i had. i firmly believe that you get what you pay for. the movie stars michael douglas, keifer sutherland and eva longaria as secret service/fbi agents involved in the "done-a-million-times-but-here-we-go-again-case of-being-framed-and-finding-out-who-really-done-it". there was not much else to it and i truly have nothing more to say. i suppose it served it's purpose as pure hollywood escapist action-drama. next time i'll more carefully plan my near nervous breakdown so that i can watch a better movie. c-