kmgilles: (Default)
i saw the new luc besson film, the family, tonight.

i was really impressed, all the way around, but especially with the performances of the two actors playing the kids. it took me pretty much the entire film to realize that was dianna agron as the daughter. although he's been in a few things previously i've never seen john d'leo (who played he son) before. they were both superb. obviously de niro, pfeiffer, and jones were fantastic, because they're them. herc domenick lombardozzi from the wire has a nice, small role. it was very funny, exactly in the same tone as the trailer. i really enjoyed the pacing and the editing, but the characterization was really where it was at.

content notes: it was a bit more gorey than i really expected, and there was some super triggering stuff mostly around violence against women, and also possible animal harm.
kmgilles: (Default)
i've been watching a lot of random movies on netflix recently. the major upside i've discovered (of which there are surprisingly few) is that because you didn't buy/rent/download the specific movie it's easy to try it for 5 minutes and bail, which means i'm trying things i might otherwise might

movies i haven't bailed on (but did sort of consider it, even though i had heard of it and wanted to see it) include the josh radnor written/directed/staring twee indie comedy liberal arts. it has a great cast (allison janney! among others), but i found the story kind of ... alienating? it seemed fine at first, but it became more and more apparent how cut off from the feelings of all the female characters the narrative was (also, pretty sure it failed the bechdel test). i enjoyed the storyline where radnor's character was kind of mentor-y to this random kid who was having a hard time, but it was in such stark contrast to all his scenes with his love interest ... whose story, it's worth noting, has no resolution AT ALL.

spoilers )

and then there's an incredibly irritating section where radnor's character argues with olsen's character about an obvious twilight-analogue and its value. olsen's character, shortly before accusing radnor of being an elitist, says that the book "isn't tolstoy, but it isn't television." i'm always likely to be offended by people lumping all of tv in together*, so obviously it was going to bother me. i don't know what it means that radnor who has been starring in himym for a ridiculous number of years wrote this line, but it was still somehow more enraging than the idiocy of the argument the characters had about the value of twilight (where they both made such shitty arguments it was impossible to actually agree with either of them). because yeah, there's no tv that exists that's a better way to pass the time than reading THE WORST BOOK IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (radnor's description). it isn't like there's any tv written by people who also write critically acclaimed books! nope!

i don't even know what my point is other than that this made me incredibly angry, and kind of disappointed in josh radnor.

*especially when they aren't doing it to other things, ie. a list of things that are bad: "magazines like cosmo and maxim; tv." yes that is something i really heard someone say ina talk earlier this year, and yes it did undermine my ability to take seriously anything else they said.

fine me:

November 2013

Page generated Fri, Sep. 22nd, 2017 03:15 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios


RSS Atom