I have always been fascinated by the world of The Tudors. In that respect I read what I can on them. I read "The Other Boleyn Girl" by Phillipa Gregory, which I loved, I have spent time on the internet researching them. I bought a biography on Henry VIII and started reading that, it is a tad dry but I think that I will try it again. The point is I find the whole Henry VIII saga intriguing. In that vein I was at a bookstore and I stumbled across a novel, a rather thick one titled, "The Autobiography of Henry VIII" by Margaret George. I had read one other historical novel by her "The Memoirs of Cleopatra," and though it was long and a tad boring towards the end I thought that it was good writing and it seemed to be well researched. So I thought that I would give her Henry VIII a try.
Yes I know that the very definition of autobiography means written by oneself. And how is a modern novel written by a King who has been dead since 1547? The reason Margaret George called it the "Autobiography of Henry VIII" was because she put it as a first person narrative, the book was supposed to be Henry's journal. Hence the title. Anyway I was taken in from the start. To read things from Henry's point of the view was a nice change of pace. Reading about how when he was very young and was going to meet Katharine of Aragon in his brother's stead, how from the moment he saw her he fell in love. He felt that she was indeed the love of his life, that he should be the one to be in his brother Arthur's place.
We see Henry's pain as his mother and father favor the first born son over and above him. We experience his confusion when after his brother dies and then his mother and finally his father he finds himself King of England. And after many years he finds himself the husband of Katharine and truly happy. Then we watch as Henry becomes bewitched by Anne and throws his country into a tailspin trying to change the way the world worked. With each new bride we watch as he falls incredibly in love, sure that this is the one true love. And we experience his pain when he realizes he has been betrayed or that the ones he trusted most turned from him.
The book is well written and well researched, it had poetry and reality that was well mixed. I enjoyed spending time not only in the court of Henry VIII but also in his mind. If anyone enjoys historical novels or finds themselves especially interested in the Tudor court I would reccommend this novel. However it is not for everyone because it is a long novel and gets very involved. I give it a 7 out of 10. A good read, and well written but not for everyone.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Monday, March 21, 2011
A Couple Of Movie Reviews, As Promised
Alright I promised a movie review tonight and here it is. Actually, honestly it is a couple of them because I watched a couple of movies. The movies were "How Do You Know" and "The Tourist." I must warn you all that I don't have high praise for either of them, they were both simply mediocre. Let me explain.
"How Do You Know," starring Resse Witherspoon, Paul Rudd, Owen Wilson, and Jack Nicholson and written and directed by James L. Brooks, is a romantic comedy that forgot to bring both the romance and the comedy. Resse Witheespoon plays, Lisa, a baseball player who for most of the years of her life has focused on nothing but baseball. She has dated only jocks, and is pretty hard. She is at a time in her life when she is just past her prime and has found out that she has been cut from her team. She starts dating the ever egotistical Owen Wilson, another baseball player, who isn't so much about quality but rather quantity when it comes to relationships. And because things aren't serious with him she agrees to a blind date with Paul Rudd. Paul Rudd is a man who works in his father's company and who is currently being investigted by the government for...something. I couldn't really tell what was happening there. Anyway they have a great first date, according to George (Paul Rudd), and this is the first good thing to happen to him in awhile. He thinks that this might just lead to something great. She on the other hand pretty much forgets about him and moves in with Owen Wilson, who happens to live in the same building as George's father, played by Jack Nicholson. One day George goes to visit his dad and runs into Lisa. Lisa invites George into her new home and introduces him to her boyfriend Matty (Owen Wilson). Matty gets upset that she invited someone into HIS place, this statement makes Lisa angry and so she gathers her stuff and moves out. George invites her to his place for a drink. They have another great night together. After a few hours Matty calls and Lisa goes back to him.
That is pretty much the movie. There is no real surprise at all, and the comedy is so subtle that it's barely there. Paul Rudd has a few funny moments, he is usually the one to bring the real comedy, but other then that I spent most of the movie bored. Resse Witherspoon's character is supposed to be tough and kind of like a tomboy but she's really just annoying. And as for the romance part of this romantic comedy it was really all one sided until the big end. I found "How Do You Know" to be boring and pretty lame. Sorry to all those out there with high hopes for a Resse Witherspoon, Paul Rudd, James L. Brooks romantic comedy but this is definetly not.
On to "The Tourist." Starring two of the most beautiful and well loved actors in Hollywood Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp and written by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, Christopher McQuarrie, and Julian Fellows and directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, this movie was simply okay. I had heard that the critcs weren't in favor of the film, they found that Jolie and Depp had no chemistry and that the whole film was a little awkward. However I also heard from the people that it was a good action/suspense movie. That everyone did a grand old job. And I was personally excited to see it because I have been hoping the two of them would make a movie together for a long time. It turns out that, that should have stayed a dream. The film is about Frank, a math teacher from Wisconsin, and Elise, a mysterious woman being followed by the police. They meet on a train on their way to Italy. Elise invites Frank to spend the evening with her and sleep in her hotel suite. What ensues then is case after case of mistaken identity. Frank is mistaken for a big time theif by Interpol and the gangster this theif stole from. And so begin the chase scenes and shoot outs.
It sounds exciting right? But it was really kind of boring. I disagree with the critics about Depp's and Jolie's on-screen chemistry. I felt that they had some. I don't know if there were sparks between them nor did I believe they made the most interesting couple but there was good acting going on. The chase scenes were typical action scenes, the bad guys easy to spot the good guys in the right. Yes there were a few twists that were supposed to shock but I kind of figured things out before they were revealed. It made for a rather boring film. I know that plenty of people are going to see the film due to it's star cast but I am stating here that I found it lacking.
There you go. On both films I would have to give them a low rating. "How Do You Know" gets a 3 out of 10. I was hoping for laughs and found none. "The Tourist" recieves a 5 out of 10 due to the performances of the actors involved. However I can't give it more then that because it really was rather perdictable. The Venice back drop did make for nice visuals but really nothing too exciting. A shame that this weekend yielded such poor movie results but I guess that happens.
"How Do You Know," starring Resse Witherspoon, Paul Rudd, Owen Wilson, and Jack Nicholson and written and directed by James L. Brooks, is a romantic comedy that forgot to bring both the romance and the comedy. Resse Witheespoon plays, Lisa, a baseball player who for most of the years of her life has focused on nothing but baseball. She has dated only jocks, and is pretty hard. She is at a time in her life when she is just past her prime and has found out that she has been cut from her team. She starts dating the ever egotistical Owen Wilson, another baseball player, who isn't so much about quality but rather quantity when it comes to relationships. And because things aren't serious with him she agrees to a blind date with Paul Rudd. Paul Rudd is a man who works in his father's company and who is currently being investigted by the government for...something. I couldn't really tell what was happening there. Anyway they have a great first date, according to George (Paul Rudd), and this is the first good thing to happen to him in awhile. He thinks that this might just lead to something great. She on the other hand pretty much forgets about him and moves in with Owen Wilson, who happens to live in the same building as George's father, played by Jack Nicholson. One day George goes to visit his dad and runs into Lisa. Lisa invites George into her new home and introduces him to her boyfriend Matty (Owen Wilson). Matty gets upset that she invited someone into HIS place, this statement makes Lisa angry and so she gathers her stuff and moves out. George invites her to his place for a drink. They have another great night together. After a few hours Matty calls and Lisa goes back to him.
That is pretty much the movie. There is no real surprise at all, and the comedy is so subtle that it's barely there. Paul Rudd has a few funny moments, he is usually the one to bring the real comedy, but other then that I spent most of the movie bored. Resse Witherspoon's character is supposed to be tough and kind of like a tomboy but she's really just annoying. And as for the romance part of this romantic comedy it was really all one sided until the big end. I found "How Do You Know" to be boring and pretty lame. Sorry to all those out there with high hopes for a Resse Witherspoon, Paul Rudd, James L. Brooks romantic comedy but this is definetly not.
On to "The Tourist." Starring two of the most beautiful and well loved actors in Hollywood Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp and written by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, Christopher McQuarrie, and Julian Fellows and directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, this movie was simply okay. I had heard that the critcs weren't in favor of the film, they found that Jolie and Depp had no chemistry and that the whole film was a little awkward. However I also heard from the people that it was a good action/suspense movie. That everyone did a grand old job. And I was personally excited to see it because I have been hoping the two of them would make a movie together for a long time. It turns out that, that should have stayed a dream. The film is about Frank, a math teacher from Wisconsin, and Elise, a mysterious woman being followed by the police. They meet on a train on their way to Italy. Elise invites Frank to spend the evening with her and sleep in her hotel suite. What ensues then is case after case of mistaken identity. Frank is mistaken for a big time theif by Interpol and the gangster this theif stole from. And so begin the chase scenes and shoot outs.
It sounds exciting right? But it was really kind of boring. I disagree with the critics about Depp's and Jolie's on-screen chemistry. I felt that they had some. I don't know if there were sparks between them nor did I believe they made the most interesting couple but there was good acting going on. The chase scenes were typical action scenes, the bad guys easy to spot the good guys in the right. Yes there were a few twists that were supposed to shock but I kind of figured things out before they were revealed. It made for a rather boring film. I know that plenty of people are going to see the film due to it's star cast but I am stating here that I found it lacking.
There you go. On both films I would have to give them a low rating. "How Do You Know" gets a 3 out of 10. I was hoping for laughs and found none. "The Tourist" recieves a 5 out of 10 due to the performances of the actors involved. However I can't give it more then that because it really was rather perdictable. The Venice back drop did make for nice visuals but really nothing too exciting. A shame that this weekend yielded such poor movie results but I guess that happens.
"Every Life Has A Soundtrack, All You Have To Do Is Listen."
I finished the latest Jodi Picoult quite a few days ago but I didn't have internet for unknown reasons and so I am just now posting my review. Right now I will post this book review and then later there will be a movie review about upcoming movies. On to the book review part of the review now.
As I said in my previous post I love almost all of Jodi Picoult's novels. A couple have fallen a little short for me but this one intrigued me from the start. It is titled "Sing You Home," all about Zoe, a music therapist married to Max, a recovering alcholic landscaper, and their wish to have a child. It has been difficult for them due to both of their infertilities. The story begins when Zoe is twenty-eight weeks into an IVF pregnancy. Far enough along that she is actually hopeful that this will end in a baby and not a miscarriage like her first two. She is huge and healthy and happy. Her mom has a baby shower all planned out, gifts and games, and cake is waiting. Half way through the shower Zoe begins to hemorrhage and is rushed to the hospital. Where she delivers a stillborn son.
While at the hospital she discovers that she has a severe blood clotting disorder that could cause serious and permanent damage if she were to get pregnant again. Which is something she is determined to do. However after she gets out of the hospital and Max and her spread the ashes of the son they never knew Max tells her he can no longer go through the uncertainty of trying to have a baby. The pain and the money that goes into it. And so he asks for a divorce. After this Max falls off the wagon big time and almost dies in a car crash. It is this that points Max in the direction of his brother's church and pastor. The Eternal Glory Church with Pastor Clive Lincoln. An extremist church that claims to follow the Bible to it's fullest meaning. Especially the passages that condem homosexuality.
Around this time Zoe runs into Vanessa Shaw. A counselor at the local high school with whom she has worked in her musical therapist capacity. They begin spending time together. Working through Zoe's depression over her dead baby, and her clotting condition, and most recently the knowledge that she has cancer, and has to have a hysterectomy. They do little things together, going shopping, running errands and going to the movies. On one of their movie trips they run into Max and his new church buddies protesting a movie entitled "Juliet & Juliet." This is Zoe's first glimpse at Max's new life. Knowing that Vanessa is gay Zoe gets them out of the situation before it can escalte into anything.
Eventaully after spending all their time together Vanessa and Zoe find themselves in love. A situation that both surprises and delights Zoe. In short order they move in together and get married. Eventually they decide that they want a baby. Now that Zoe no longer has a uterus, Vanessa decides to carry one of Zoe's embryos so that it is a part of both of them. Zoe and Max have three more embryos frozen at the fertility clinic from their last round of IVF. Zoe goes to Max asking for permission to use them. However with Max's new beliefs and the new crowd he runs in, he denys her the use of them and instead wishes to take them so that he can give them to his brother and sister-in-law. And so begins the court case.
It is a battle of church and state. Questions such as "who will provide the best home life for the child?" "Is this a matter of the law being carried out or simply the church trying to push it's own agenda?" Each side believes they know what is best for the "pre-born children" as they are reffered to. Each side tries to trap the other into tripping up. Making a big enough mistake that the judge will rule for their side. It is a tough read at times.
The book was really well written and very well researched. Jodi Picoult nevers leaves a fact unreasearched, which should show just how dedicated she is to getting things right. And the poetry of her writing is absolutely beautiful. Because this story had so much to do with music and it's healing properties Jodi Picoult and her friend Ellen Wilber put together a companion soundtrack. Jodi wrote the lyrics and Ellen wrote the music and sang the songs. I think that it was a nice idea to have. The lyrics and music were beautiful although didn't really seem to go along with the chapters each track was selected for, but they should have hired a professional singer. Ellen just didn't have the range needed in order to make these songs beautiful. I was a little disappointed in that. I love to read and listen to music. And a lot of times I enjoy trying to find music to go along with the mood of the book and so I was excited that this book came with music already picked out. But I was disappointed in the outcome. I ended up using my own mix to go with it, using a lot of the artists that are mentioned in the book.
Despite the poor quality of the CD the book is a great read. It is a tough story to read, especially if you are thinking about having a baby or know what it's like to go through having a baby, but for me this makes it even better. The rawness, and the pain that come through make the story darkly beautiful in the way only Jodi can do. The story is told through the eyes of Zoe, Max and Vanessa. And so we get different perspectives on each person's life and how they see what is going on around them. We feel the power of music every time Zoe brings it up, and we feel the pain of everything she goes through. We understand Max's inability to cope and his need to keep drinking after every promise not to, and we feel his heart being torn in two during the trial. We watch Vanessa fall head over heels in love with Zoe and promise hersef that she will make sure that Zoe is always happy. It's a great way to storytell. I love it.
If you are at all a fan of Jodi's go out and get "Sing You Home." It's worth the money. And if you are looking to dive into a new author this may very well be a good first for Jodi Picoult. I recommend this novel highly and I can't wait to see what else Jodi has in store.
As I said in my previous post I love almost all of Jodi Picoult's novels. A couple have fallen a little short for me but this one intrigued me from the start. It is titled "Sing You Home," all about Zoe, a music therapist married to Max, a recovering alcholic landscaper, and their wish to have a child. It has been difficult for them due to both of their infertilities. The story begins when Zoe is twenty-eight weeks into an IVF pregnancy. Far enough along that she is actually hopeful that this will end in a baby and not a miscarriage like her first two. She is huge and healthy and happy. Her mom has a baby shower all planned out, gifts and games, and cake is waiting. Half way through the shower Zoe begins to hemorrhage and is rushed to the hospital. Where she delivers a stillborn son.
While at the hospital she discovers that she has a severe blood clotting disorder that could cause serious and permanent damage if she were to get pregnant again. Which is something she is determined to do. However after she gets out of the hospital and Max and her spread the ashes of the son they never knew Max tells her he can no longer go through the uncertainty of trying to have a baby. The pain and the money that goes into it. And so he asks for a divorce. After this Max falls off the wagon big time and almost dies in a car crash. It is this that points Max in the direction of his brother's church and pastor. The Eternal Glory Church with Pastor Clive Lincoln. An extremist church that claims to follow the Bible to it's fullest meaning. Especially the passages that condem homosexuality.
Around this time Zoe runs into Vanessa Shaw. A counselor at the local high school with whom she has worked in her musical therapist capacity. They begin spending time together. Working through Zoe's depression over her dead baby, and her clotting condition, and most recently the knowledge that she has cancer, and has to have a hysterectomy. They do little things together, going shopping, running errands and going to the movies. On one of their movie trips they run into Max and his new church buddies protesting a movie entitled "Juliet & Juliet." This is Zoe's first glimpse at Max's new life. Knowing that Vanessa is gay Zoe gets them out of the situation before it can escalte into anything.
Eventaully after spending all their time together Vanessa and Zoe find themselves in love. A situation that both surprises and delights Zoe. In short order they move in together and get married. Eventually they decide that they want a baby. Now that Zoe no longer has a uterus, Vanessa decides to carry one of Zoe's embryos so that it is a part of both of them. Zoe and Max have three more embryos frozen at the fertility clinic from their last round of IVF. Zoe goes to Max asking for permission to use them. However with Max's new beliefs and the new crowd he runs in, he denys her the use of them and instead wishes to take them so that he can give them to his brother and sister-in-law. And so begins the court case.
It is a battle of church and state. Questions such as "who will provide the best home life for the child?" "Is this a matter of the law being carried out or simply the church trying to push it's own agenda?" Each side believes they know what is best for the "pre-born children" as they are reffered to. Each side tries to trap the other into tripping up. Making a big enough mistake that the judge will rule for their side. It is a tough read at times.
The book was really well written and very well researched. Jodi Picoult nevers leaves a fact unreasearched, which should show just how dedicated she is to getting things right. And the poetry of her writing is absolutely beautiful. Because this story had so much to do with music and it's healing properties Jodi Picoult and her friend Ellen Wilber put together a companion soundtrack. Jodi wrote the lyrics and Ellen wrote the music and sang the songs. I think that it was a nice idea to have. The lyrics and music were beautiful although didn't really seem to go along with the chapters each track was selected for, but they should have hired a professional singer. Ellen just didn't have the range needed in order to make these songs beautiful. I was a little disappointed in that. I love to read and listen to music. And a lot of times I enjoy trying to find music to go along with the mood of the book and so I was excited that this book came with music already picked out. But I was disappointed in the outcome. I ended up using my own mix to go with it, using a lot of the artists that are mentioned in the book.
Despite the poor quality of the CD the book is a great read. It is a tough story to read, especially if you are thinking about having a baby or know what it's like to go through having a baby, but for me this makes it even better. The rawness, and the pain that come through make the story darkly beautiful in the way only Jodi can do. The story is told through the eyes of Zoe, Max and Vanessa. And so we get different perspectives on each person's life and how they see what is going on around them. We feel the power of music every time Zoe brings it up, and we feel the pain of everything she goes through. We understand Max's inability to cope and his need to keep drinking after every promise not to, and we feel his heart being torn in two during the trial. We watch Vanessa fall head over heels in love with Zoe and promise hersef that she will make sure that Zoe is always happy. It's a great way to storytell. I love it.
If you are at all a fan of Jodi's go out and get "Sing You Home." It's worth the money. And if you are looking to dive into a new author this may very well be a good first for Jodi Picoult. I recommend this novel highly and I can't wait to see what else Jodi has in store.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Books Once More
Well I know that it has been a long time since there was a book post but there was the Academy Award project to complete so I guess I kind of have a small amount of an excuse. But it is here, the time to put up a post about the books. I have been deabating for quite some time about exactly what books to talk about. I could talk about Jane Austen, I love her and I just finished re-reading "Sense & Sensibility" but I think that I want to read more of her before putting up a "how cool is Jane Austen" post. Then I was thinking that since I recently just read the first three of the MaryJanice Davidson "Undead" series for the second time, maybe I would talk about that. But that is something that I would like to write about as a whole. I could write about one of the books I am currently in the middle of but I would feel like that is a half hearted post. So what to write about? Obviously it has to be something that I really love. Something that will be worth the wait. And then I got to thinking about one of my favorite authors, Jodi Picoult. With that thought in my mind, I have decided to write about her.
She now has 18 novels out. I own 17 of them, the newest just came out a few days ago. I can't wait to go get it! I didn't think that it was coming out until May otherwise I would have gotten it right away. Anyway minus her first couple of novels, which I still own, all of her work is pretty amazing. Granted I haven't read the Wonder Woman comics that she wrote or the play she wrote with her son but other then that I think I have read all of her fiction. I love it. Her style of fiction is really something that I enjoy reading. Hence the owning of all her fiction novels and the springing for the hardbacks of her newest novels. I bought two of the Sookie Stackhouse novels in hardback, and I don't think that I will be doing that again seeing as the series is declining, other then that I rarely buy an author's latest novel as a hardback. I'm rambling a tiny bit. I'm a tad distracted. Anyway when it comes to Jodi Picoult I don't mind spending the extra dough.
Her novels usually end up as a courtroom mystery. I think that the most recognized name is going to be "My Sister's Keeper." It has been turned into a movie starring Cameron Diaz and so it has become a pretty recognizable title. The novel is about a family who has a daughter named Kate who has leukemia. Because her life was going to be filled with waiting for donors and surgeries the family decides to genetically engineer another daughter they name Anna. She was born so that Kate will always have someone around who is a perfect match for bone marrow donation, blood transfusions, and any other surgery that may be needed. This is how life goes on for quite a few years. It goes on until Anna hires a lawyer and sues her family for the rights to her body. This is where it turns to the courtroom. The novel is told through the eyes of Anna, Campbell (her lawyer), Sara (the mom), Brian (the dad), Jesse (the brother), and Julia (Anna's guardian ad litam). The novel is told from all these points of view, each chapter a different person, a different font. It makes it iteresting. The reader gets to experience what almost everyone is thinking. Anyway I enjoy it. The writing is beautiful, the story heartfelt and real. It's a great place to start if you are just beginning to find your way through Jodi's work.
Her writing, even in the few that I didn't enjoy as much, is always thought out. Each sentence, each phrase is put together with care and finesse. She's a master at taking dark subjects, "designer babies", rape, autism,school shootings, abusive realationships, and putting them in words that make the reader WANT to read about it, WANT to look at it, face it head on. It's a brilliant ability. I just love her work, her poetry, her talent. I highly reccomend her novels. Maybe skip ahead to her third novel "Picture Perfect" and go from there. Her first two are really not as great. They are her still trying to find her style. They are only something that a real fan of hers will want to read. But I say give a lot of the others a chance. They are worth the time. I know that I can't wait until I can get to a bookstore and buy her latest novel "Sing You Home."
Jodi Picoult is an author that rarely disappoints, rarely lets me down. An author that I can see myself reading as long as she is writing. So go out, give her a try, see if maybe you become devoted to her as I am!
She now has 18 novels out. I own 17 of them, the newest just came out a few days ago. I can't wait to go get it! I didn't think that it was coming out until May otherwise I would have gotten it right away. Anyway minus her first couple of novels, which I still own, all of her work is pretty amazing. Granted I haven't read the Wonder Woman comics that she wrote or the play she wrote with her son but other then that I think I have read all of her fiction. I love it. Her style of fiction is really something that I enjoy reading. Hence the owning of all her fiction novels and the springing for the hardbacks of her newest novels. I bought two of the Sookie Stackhouse novels in hardback, and I don't think that I will be doing that again seeing as the series is declining, other then that I rarely buy an author's latest novel as a hardback. I'm rambling a tiny bit. I'm a tad distracted. Anyway when it comes to Jodi Picoult I don't mind spending the extra dough.
Her novels usually end up as a courtroom mystery. I think that the most recognized name is going to be "My Sister's Keeper." It has been turned into a movie starring Cameron Diaz and so it has become a pretty recognizable title. The novel is about a family who has a daughter named Kate who has leukemia. Because her life was going to be filled with waiting for donors and surgeries the family decides to genetically engineer another daughter they name Anna. She was born so that Kate will always have someone around who is a perfect match for bone marrow donation, blood transfusions, and any other surgery that may be needed. This is how life goes on for quite a few years. It goes on until Anna hires a lawyer and sues her family for the rights to her body. This is where it turns to the courtroom. The novel is told through the eyes of Anna, Campbell (her lawyer), Sara (the mom), Brian (the dad), Jesse (the brother), and Julia (Anna's guardian ad litam). The novel is told from all these points of view, each chapter a different person, a different font. It makes it iteresting. The reader gets to experience what almost everyone is thinking. Anyway I enjoy it. The writing is beautiful, the story heartfelt and real. It's a great place to start if you are just beginning to find your way through Jodi's work.
Her writing, even in the few that I didn't enjoy as much, is always thought out. Each sentence, each phrase is put together with care and finesse. She's a master at taking dark subjects, "designer babies", rape, autism,school shootings, abusive realationships, and putting them in words that make the reader WANT to read about it, WANT to look at it, face it head on. It's a brilliant ability. I just love her work, her poetry, her talent. I highly reccomend her novels. Maybe skip ahead to her third novel "Picture Perfect" and go from there. Her first two are really not as great. They are her still trying to find her style. They are only something that a real fan of hers will want to read. But I say give a lot of the others a chance. They are worth the time. I know that I can't wait until I can get to a bookstore and buy her latest novel "Sing You Home."
Jodi Picoult is an author that rarely disappoints, rarely lets me down. An author that I can see myself reading as long as she is writing. So go out, give her a try, see if maybe you become devoted to her as I am!
Monday, February 28, 2011
That's Entertainment?
I know that I said the last post was my final Academy Award post. And I had every intention of sticking to that. However today I was with my mom and we were getting our hair done at a friend's salon and naturally we started talking about the show last night. I was telling my mom about it, specifically about some of the more boring aspects. Doing a few impressions of a couple of the most boring speeches. My mom made the point that not all of them, them being the winners, would have good public speaking abilities. I know that not all actors will be naturally good public speakers and many of the winners were of course people behind the scenes. But I made the point that if you know you aren't a good public speaker, make the speech short and sweet. My mom then jokingly said that I should be the director of the Academy Awards. Realizing that this may be a tad silly she then made a more reasonable suggestion of writing a blog about my impressions of the entertainment of the night. And so here we are.
When they first annouced that Anne Hathaway and James Franco were going to be hosting I was equal parts annoyed and confused. A weird pairing to be sure, I found it strange that a nominee for best actor was going to be hosting and I really don't like Anne Hathaway, equal parts confused and annoyed. I figured sitting through three hours of Anne Hathaway's annoying fake perkiness would make the night a tough one for me. But I figured that as strange as it was that James Franco was a host he would make the night full of fun and be nice eye candy. Wow I don't know if I could have been more wrong. Anne Hathaway made the evening fun and interesting. It turns out that her fake perkiness and annoying simpering self make the perfect combination for hosting the Academy Awards. And whether it was due to nerves or just that he isn't very exciting live James Franco bored me almost to tears. The one highlight of his night was when he came out wearing the Marilyn Monroe get-up from her "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend" number from the movie "Gentlemen Perfer Blondes." It was amusing. However other then that he was droll, stiff, and didn't seem to be paying attention to what was going on around him. It made Anne Hathaway work twice as hard to keep the energy up.
If that was the only boring part of the evening it might have been excusable. This was unfortuantely not the case. The show itself was almost a dud. Sure it was full of glamour and glitz. And the stage they had for the night was pretty spectacular. It was like one big screen, with layers. Other then that the whole night was missing something. I don't know if the Academy had to put a cap on how much humor they were allowed to use or what but the funny was definetely not present. The funniest speech was from Hollywood legend Kirk Douglas, who presented the award for best supporting actress, and you could only understand every third word or so. Even Randy Newman brought the funny. Excepting a few other moments of humor, including a moment between Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr. that made fun of Downey Jr.'s sordid past and a great Bob Hope story by Billy Crystal, that was about it.
Acceptance speeches should be something that you want to listen to. Or at the very least things that you don't mind listening to. Most of them turn into this "I want to thank my manager of 5 years and my cast and crew, my mom and of course my beautiful wife/husband. Also this person, and this person and this person and this person..." until the music starts playing and they are escorted off. It's like a bedtime story. Only not interesting in the least. There have been a handful of truly amazing acceptance speeches in the history of the Academy Awards. Including Sally Field's exremely long speech which actually was the speech that made the Academy put the cap on speech length. Nice work Sally.
Since then winners have been trying to cram quite a lot into a small amount of time. However even with the cap there have been some great speeches. Halle Berry when she won best actress, Tom Hanks when he won for "Philadelphia," and Forrest Whitaker's speech when he won for "The Last King of Scotland." This year there was really nothing noteworthy. Except of course for being noteworthy in boringville. Colleen Atwood, won best costume design for "Alice In Wonderland," gave a speech that was something that would have been edited out if the show had been something other than live. Yes I know that she is not a performer or a public speaker but her speech was awful even for someone who was nervous. She took a long list out of her bra or wherever she stored it and read the whole thing. Without glancing up even once. Not only did she read from a list but she went over the time limit. It was disaster city!
There were a few funny moments. A few times that made me remember what it used to be like to watch the show. Especially the moment that made the night full of drama, when the camera went to Annette Benning's face when Natalie Portman won. That is one pissed off actress. Again I want to say that I understand that not every good actor can speak publicly and of course those that are behind the scenes, costume desginers, writers, directors, that aren't used to performing at all. I accept that there is that nervousness to deal with, the animosity of those around that didn't win. But those who do win can do a couple of things to make the night a little more with the pep and less with the tired. A: if you know you are too nervous to stand up there for any length of time make the speech short and sweet. B: if you are an actor and aren't good with the public speaking AND haven't been practicing your acceptance speech since day one of your first day of work on your first movie, or even before, use a little of your craft. Act your way through it. Find a way to act yourself. Or at least a way to act the part of a person who can be interesting for at least a minute. C: if none of the above works fake crying, say a quick thank you to the Academy and your family and book it off the stage.
Whether it's nerves or pure boringness baked in the entertainment event of the year needs to find a way to keep people entertained. People tune in to watch the Academy Awards in the millions,this year I believe they said that a billion people were watching. However that number is going to dwindle if the show starts becoming less of a show and more of a "here's an award for you...next." I love the Academy Awards. I always have and I always will. I may not get a 100% of winner perdictions right but I seem to navigate it alright and it will always, always be my favorite time of year. But they need to go back to when it was a night full of amazing things and a true joy to watch.
I mean it is the entertainment industry right? And the event is an entertainment event. So why not bring the entertainment? After all, no matter what, the show must go on.
When they first annouced that Anne Hathaway and James Franco were going to be hosting I was equal parts annoyed and confused. A weird pairing to be sure, I found it strange that a nominee for best actor was going to be hosting and I really don't like Anne Hathaway, equal parts confused and annoyed. I figured sitting through three hours of Anne Hathaway's annoying fake perkiness would make the night a tough one for me. But I figured that as strange as it was that James Franco was a host he would make the night full of fun and be nice eye candy. Wow I don't know if I could have been more wrong. Anne Hathaway made the evening fun and interesting. It turns out that her fake perkiness and annoying simpering self make the perfect combination for hosting the Academy Awards. And whether it was due to nerves or just that he isn't very exciting live James Franco bored me almost to tears. The one highlight of his night was when he came out wearing the Marilyn Monroe get-up from her "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend" number from the movie "Gentlemen Perfer Blondes." It was amusing. However other then that he was droll, stiff, and didn't seem to be paying attention to what was going on around him. It made Anne Hathaway work twice as hard to keep the energy up.
If that was the only boring part of the evening it might have been excusable. This was unfortuantely not the case. The show itself was almost a dud. Sure it was full of glamour and glitz. And the stage they had for the night was pretty spectacular. It was like one big screen, with layers. Other then that the whole night was missing something. I don't know if the Academy had to put a cap on how much humor they were allowed to use or what but the funny was definetely not present. The funniest speech was from Hollywood legend Kirk Douglas, who presented the award for best supporting actress, and you could only understand every third word or so. Even Randy Newman brought the funny. Excepting a few other moments of humor, including a moment between Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr. that made fun of Downey Jr.'s sordid past and a great Bob Hope story by Billy Crystal, that was about it.
Acceptance speeches should be something that you want to listen to. Or at the very least things that you don't mind listening to. Most of them turn into this "I want to thank my manager of 5 years and my cast and crew, my mom and of course my beautiful wife/husband. Also this person, and this person and this person and this person..." until the music starts playing and they are escorted off. It's like a bedtime story. Only not interesting in the least. There have been a handful of truly amazing acceptance speeches in the history of the Academy Awards. Including Sally Field's exremely long speech which actually was the speech that made the Academy put the cap on speech length. Nice work Sally.
Since then winners have been trying to cram quite a lot into a small amount of time. However even with the cap there have been some great speeches. Halle Berry when she won best actress, Tom Hanks when he won for "Philadelphia," and Forrest Whitaker's speech when he won for "The Last King of Scotland." This year there was really nothing noteworthy. Except of course for being noteworthy in boringville. Colleen Atwood, won best costume design for "Alice In Wonderland," gave a speech that was something that would have been edited out if the show had been something other than live. Yes I know that she is not a performer or a public speaker but her speech was awful even for someone who was nervous. She took a long list out of her bra or wherever she stored it and read the whole thing. Without glancing up even once. Not only did she read from a list but she went over the time limit. It was disaster city!
There were a few funny moments. A few times that made me remember what it used to be like to watch the show. Especially the moment that made the night full of drama, when the camera went to Annette Benning's face when Natalie Portman won. That is one pissed off actress. Again I want to say that I understand that not every good actor can speak publicly and of course those that are behind the scenes, costume desginers, writers, directors, that aren't used to performing at all. I accept that there is that nervousness to deal with, the animosity of those around that didn't win. But those who do win can do a couple of things to make the night a little more with the pep and less with the tired. A: if you know you are too nervous to stand up there for any length of time make the speech short and sweet. B: if you are an actor and aren't good with the public speaking AND haven't been practicing your acceptance speech since day one of your first day of work on your first movie, or even before, use a little of your craft. Act your way through it. Find a way to act yourself. Or at least a way to act the part of a person who can be interesting for at least a minute. C: if none of the above works fake crying, say a quick thank you to the Academy and your family and book it off the stage.
Whether it's nerves or pure boringness baked in the entertainment event of the year needs to find a way to keep people entertained. People tune in to watch the Academy Awards in the millions,this year I believe they said that a billion people were watching. However that number is going to dwindle if the show starts becoming less of a show and more of a "here's an award for you...next." I love the Academy Awards. I always have and I always will. I may not get a 100% of winner perdictions right but I seem to navigate it alright and it will always, always be my favorite time of year. But they need to go back to when it was a night full of amazing things and a true joy to watch.
I mean it is the entertainment industry right? And the event is an entertainment event. So why not bring the entertainment? After all, no matter what, the show must go on.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
And the Winners Are...
The Awards finished around 8:30pm. And it was an interesting night. Hosted by Anne Hathaway and James Franco the night was full of fun and glamour. Most of the winners were what I expected and hoped for. I wanted to take a moment to list the winners for the top 6 categories. Best supporting actor, best supporting actress, best actor and actress, best director and best picture.
Best supporting actress went to Melissa Leo for her wonderful performance in "The Fighter," a well deserved win but with a four letter slip up and one too many "whoo-hoos" a poor thank you speech. Best supporting actor went to Christian Bale, which means that I missed one, for his truly incredible performance in "The Fighter." I believe that Christian Bale was amazing. Truly so. And I am glad that he won because he really did soar in that role. His speech and his look left a lot to be desired about him in person but he did seem truly grateful for the win. I still think that Geoffrey Rush should have won. It is hard to describe how fantastic he was if you have not seen the movie but it was more of a subtle performance then Christian Bale's. However congratulations to Christian Bale!
Best actress went to the pregnant, beautiful and much deserving Natalie Portman for her unbelieveable performance in "Black Swan." A teary and grateful acceptance speech, with an incredible memory for many names, made the win sweet and really well deserved. Best actor was taken by Colin Firth. As it should have been. His speech was simple and heartfelt and beautiful. He seemed to be really and truly grateful which made it a wonderful win. Best director went to Tom Hooper for "The King's Speech." A well deserved win, the movie was beautifully and richly directed. Tom Hooper had wit and humor in his speech and was grateful to his mother. For a very special reason. His mother is Australian and was invited by some Australian friends of hers to a table read of an unproduced script a few years ago. She almost declined the offer but went despite her reluctance. It turned out to be a fateful trip because the script was "The King's Speech." After she went to the read she went home and called her son and said "I think I have found your next film." It was a match made in film heaven.
Best picture went to "The King's Speech." I truly believe that this was the right move on the Academy's part. The movie is incredible. And I am so happy that it got the recognition that it deserves. I hope that this will inspire people to go see the movie and see what all the fuss is about. I know that it has been wildly popular with audiences already and I hope that this gives it yet another push towards becoming a classic great.
Congratulations to all the winners in all the categories! Tonight was a beautiful night with many moments of fun, beauty, wit, and some wonderful nods to past winners and award shows. It was a truly glamourous night.
Best supporting actress went to Melissa Leo for her wonderful performance in "The Fighter," a well deserved win but with a four letter slip up and one too many "whoo-hoos" a poor thank you speech. Best supporting actor went to Christian Bale, which means that I missed one, for his truly incredible performance in "The Fighter." I believe that Christian Bale was amazing. Truly so. And I am glad that he won because he really did soar in that role. His speech and his look left a lot to be desired about him in person but he did seem truly grateful for the win. I still think that Geoffrey Rush should have won. It is hard to describe how fantastic he was if you have not seen the movie but it was more of a subtle performance then Christian Bale's. However congratulations to Christian Bale!
Best actress went to the pregnant, beautiful and much deserving Natalie Portman for her unbelieveable performance in "Black Swan." A teary and grateful acceptance speech, with an incredible memory for many names, made the win sweet and really well deserved. Best actor was taken by Colin Firth. As it should have been. His speech was simple and heartfelt and beautiful. He seemed to be really and truly grateful which made it a wonderful win. Best director went to Tom Hooper for "The King's Speech." A well deserved win, the movie was beautifully and richly directed. Tom Hooper had wit and humor in his speech and was grateful to his mother. For a very special reason. His mother is Australian and was invited by some Australian friends of hers to a table read of an unproduced script a few years ago. She almost declined the offer but went despite her reluctance. It turned out to be a fateful trip because the script was "The King's Speech." After she went to the read she went home and called her son and said "I think I have found your next film." It was a match made in film heaven.
Best picture went to "The King's Speech." I truly believe that this was the right move on the Academy's part. The movie is incredible. And I am so happy that it got the recognition that it deserves. I hope that this will inspire people to go see the movie and see what all the fuss is about. I know that it has been wildly popular with audiences already and I hope that this gives it yet another push towards becoming a classic great.
Congratulations to all the winners in all the categories! Tonight was a beautiful night with many moments of fun, beauty, wit, and some wonderful nods to past winners and award shows. It was a truly glamourous night.
Today's the Day and I Did It!
And so the day of the Academy Awards has arrived. In about four hours they are going to start showing before the show specials, including the very famous red carpet coverage. It's a very nice day! I am looking forward to it! And at 5pm the show starts. It will be a glorious evening that I am really looking forward to celebrating.
The big thing is that I actually watched all ten best picture nominees! I did it. I saw "True Grit" on Friday. After watching it I felt such a sense of accomplishment. It was a cool feeling! I have completed one of my projects and boy do I feel happy about it!
Now to the review. "True Grit" was good. It was adapted and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen. Starring Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, and (I don't care if they call her 'supporting' she's a star) Hailee Steinfeld. It is a remake of the old John Wayne classic. Hailee Steinfeld plays Mattie Ross a 14-year-old girl who's father was shot by a man named Tom Chaney, played by Josh Brolin. She decides that she is going to do whatever it takes to avenge her father's death and bring his killer to justice. This leads her to Rooster Cogburn, played by the nominated Jeff Bridges, a one eyed, tough talking, quick to shoot U.S. Marshall. She hires him to find Chaney who has crossed the river into Indian territory. Reluctantly he agrees. Part of their agreement is that she will get to go with him to get Chaney. But thinking she is a tad too young to go hunting fugitives he ditches her, for lack of a better word, and teams up with a Texas ranger named LaBoeuf, played by Matt Damon. Not to be thwarted Mattie runs after them.
What then occurs is really just an old fashioned western. There are shoot outs, threats, snakes, horses. There wasn't a whole lot to it. Other then the acting. Hailee Steinfeld was a real splash! She blew me away. I truly believe that she stole the show. Even from Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon, both very good vetren actors. And this is her first movie! I was shocked. Honestly and pleasantly surprised. That doesn't happen that often when it comes to new actors. I am glad that she got the oscar nod. I think she deserves the nod. I think that she should have been considered as a lead actress seeing as it is her story and her purpose that makes the movie.
I thought that Jeff Bridges did a good job, Matt Damon was good as well. Neither of them blew me away, neither of them did anything that was spectacular. And there were times when I couldn't even understand what Jeff Bridges was saying. His accent was so thick and then he was also a drunk so he had the slurry thing going on as well. Now I will admit that I haven't sat down to watch the original "True Grit" so I can't compare it. But when I heard about this film and heard that the Coen brothers were taking it under their wing I was excited. I figured that it was going to be as good as other Coen brother movies, not that I have seen all that many of them, but they do have a reputation. One that I have heard about over and over again, one that I have come to trust. I also heard how good this movie was going to be. I just didn't find it all that impressive. I don't really know why. Maybe I missed something but it wasn't best picture material. I seem to be the only one saying that though. I've heard people say that they think if it wasn't for "The King's Speech" "True Grit" would win. It was a good western. But nothing that I could see made it any different from any other western.
Well there it is. My final review for the best picture nominee list. I am very excited that I did this project and am looking forward to seeing the awards tonight. I hope that my ballot makes me the $50 I get if I get all five catagories right. But even if I only get some of them right I know that I made informed decisions and the ones that I think really should win. Happy Academy Awards day everyone! Have a great one!
The big thing is that I actually watched all ten best picture nominees! I did it. I saw "True Grit" on Friday. After watching it I felt such a sense of accomplishment. It was a cool feeling! I have completed one of my projects and boy do I feel happy about it!
Now to the review. "True Grit" was good. It was adapted and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen. Starring Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, and (I don't care if they call her 'supporting' she's a star) Hailee Steinfeld. It is a remake of the old John Wayne classic. Hailee Steinfeld plays Mattie Ross a 14-year-old girl who's father was shot by a man named Tom Chaney, played by Josh Brolin. She decides that she is going to do whatever it takes to avenge her father's death and bring his killer to justice. This leads her to Rooster Cogburn, played by the nominated Jeff Bridges, a one eyed, tough talking, quick to shoot U.S. Marshall. She hires him to find Chaney who has crossed the river into Indian territory. Reluctantly he agrees. Part of their agreement is that she will get to go with him to get Chaney. But thinking she is a tad too young to go hunting fugitives he ditches her, for lack of a better word, and teams up with a Texas ranger named LaBoeuf, played by Matt Damon. Not to be thwarted Mattie runs after them.
What then occurs is really just an old fashioned western. There are shoot outs, threats, snakes, horses. There wasn't a whole lot to it. Other then the acting. Hailee Steinfeld was a real splash! She blew me away. I truly believe that she stole the show. Even from Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon, both very good vetren actors. And this is her first movie! I was shocked. Honestly and pleasantly surprised. That doesn't happen that often when it comes to new actors. I am glad that she got the oscar nod. I think she deserves the nod. I think that she should have been considered as a lead actress seeing as it is her story and her purpose that makes the movie.
I thought that Jeff Bridges did a good job, Matt Damon was good as well. Neither of them blew me away, neither of them did anything that was spectacular. And there were times when I couldn't even understand what Jeff Bridges was saying. His accent was so thick and then he was also a drunk so he had the slurry thing going on as well. Now I will admit that I haven't sat down to watch the original "True Grit" so I can't compare it. But when I heard about this film and heard that the Coen brothers were taking it under their wing I was excited. I figured that it was going to be as good as other Coen brother movies, not that I have seen all that many of them, but they do have a reputation. One that I have heard about over and over again, one that I have come to trust. I also heard how good this movie was going to be. I just didn't find it all that impressive. I don't really know why. Maybe I missed something but it wasn't best picture material. I seem to be the only one saying that though. I've heard people say that they think if it wasn't for "The King's Speech" "True Grit" would win. It was a good western. But nothing that I could see made it any different from any other western.
Well there it is. My final review for the best picture nominee list. I am very excited that I did this project and am looking forward to seeing the awards tonight. I hope that my ballot makes me the $50 I get if I get all five catagories right. But even if I only get some of them right I know that I made informed decisions and the ones that I think really should win. Happy Academy Awards day everyone! Have a great one!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)