blisslabs glamour gloves

I get lazy when movies come out, even movies I�want to see. So I�end up missing a lot of stuff I�want to see. This week I�got the chance to catch up on two different movies, and both of them completely surprised me. These movies have been out for a while so Iapos;m not gonna worry about spoilers.

No Country For Old Men - I�had heard so much about this being the best film the Coens had ever made, about the amazing performances, and most importantly I�had read the novel, which is an absolute masterpiece. I�donapos;t know why I didnapos;t catch it in theaters, but once it got on the Netflix box I�had a chance. So color me surprised when I�thought it was just....ehn.

Really. It was slow, kinda boring, not nearly as compelling as the source material, and while Iapos;m the first person not to care about whether itapos;s faithful, they made some strange adaptation decisions. They took out my two favorite scenes in the book, not just favorite, but two scenes which I�think are central to the theme. In the book, right before Moss gets killed, he picks up a teenage girl hitchhiking and they spend an evening just sitting and talking. Moss is totally faithful to his wife, itapos;s not like that at all, it doesnapos;t even have that subtext. But in their late night conversation on the steps of their motel room you get a final sense of who this character is and what matters to him. And then the next scene they find him and the girl shot dead. In the movie thereapos;s no girl, thereapos;s no final reckoning for Mossapos;s character, so his death is strangely ineffective and dry. He could just be another extra. They also removed the scene where the sheriff finally resigns from the force and gets in his car, and his only feeling is defeat. I guess thatapos;s hard to convey in a film, but to me the overall theme of the movie is about how the world is falling apart and how this sheriff is no longer able to maintain order. Thatapos;s why the title is "No Country For Old Men." And I didnapos;t really get a sense of that theme, about a world no longer under the control of order.

What I�did get though, and what I will praise the film for, is how effective the actors are. Every single actor in the film completely disappears in their roles, but the real standouts are Javier Bardem (of course) and Tommy Lee Jones. Theyapos;re both incredibly well-written and characterized, even if the plot falters. This movie to me is primarily a showcase for the actors and for the atmosphere and location. They get that part perfect. And the Coens, while totally capable in translating this work, make their style a little too muted for my taste. Thereapos;s not the stylistic flourish like there was in Fargo or Blood Simple. I�know that was the point, that it was their creative decision, but I think it kind of makes the movie a little too dry, a little too detached.�

So in the end while it was pretty great, I�have to disagree with most of the critics. It wasnapos;t the best film of that year (that goes to Once). And on a completely different tangent...

Spider-Man 3 - I�really liked the first Spider-Man. It was silly without being stupid, fun without being corny, and aware of itself as a comic book movie. It didnapos;t try to be too serious, and I�respected that choice. And after all the critics went nuts over the second one, I�was eager to see it. But frankly I�thought it sucked. I�thought it was way too silly, it crossed that line between fun silly and lame silly. Doc Ock was neat and Raimi was more confident being himself in his direction, but other than that I was really tuned out, openly mocking the dialogue by the end. So I wasnapos;t eager to see 3, and I�purposefully skipped it, even though I was interested in seeing Venom. The lackluster critical response made me confident that I wasnapos;t missing much.

Imagine my surprise when I�saw the film tonight - it was really good I�liked it a lot. I�liked the charaters, I liked the performances, I�liked Raimiapos;s direction. He really seemed like he was having fun. It once again perfectly straddled the line between fun and corny, it was aware of its silliness and didnapos;t try to make the material too serious. And in this case the creative choice worked. The action scenes were really well directed, and the sound design was AWESOME. I�always love it when I�watch a movie that I�think is going to be not that good and it turns out to be great. I�thought the same thing about Star Trek: Nemesis. I�also like how the musical score played between serious orchestral and fun jazz, and the biggest surprise is Topher Grace. His character isnapos;t the character in the comic book, but they write him really well and Topher Grace does a surprisingly great job. I�eas even tolerable of Kirsten Dunst, whom I�normally find really annoying.

It isnapos;t perfect. The effects are still too cartoony for my taste, and I�really didnapos;t like Peter Parker when he went all dark and emo. It was a little too emo (esp with his hair) and did occasionally cross over into the corny side. He overdoes the darkness a little too much. The Sandman character is woefully underdeveloped and didnapos;t really need to be the Sandman (even though Thomas Haden Church does well with it).� The movieapos;s a little schizo in the middle when he goes all dark in the jazz club, and there are too many musical numbers. The jazz club scene is especially ludicrous and could have been done completely differently with much better effect, although I can see Raimiapos;s voice in it loud and clear, which is nice. Overall I�had a really really good time watching it.

Weird. I�am mildly disappointed by the movie that was supposed to be great, and Iapos;m surprisingly happy with the movie thatapos;s supposed to be mediocre.
blisslabs glamour gloves, blisslabs, blisslab, blissfulness.