Random raves

Really enjoyed seeing this film, and it was a nice homage to the book - the characters are not screwed around with in their essence, which is a relief. I thought it could have been half an hour shorter - the book actually has more action (of a sort) and gives Therese more context at first - but it hits the main plot points well. The design and photography are gorgeous, and yes, a nice shout-out to 50's-style cigarette porn there as well.

I thought Cate's acting style was particularly mannered in this film, but given the context of 50's behaviour and film influences, it makes sense. Rooney Mara is perfect, although I was a bit irked that they changed her career aim from being a theatre set designer (since Carol instantly respected that in the novel, and it could not be construed as a cute little hobby like photography). They didn't make Harge an arsehole, which is great, and Sarah Paulson was perfect as Abby. I'm also glad they had a queer woman portraying one of the main characters. The scene near the end where Therese is being chatted up by a Patricia Highsmith lookalike at a party was an amusing touch.

This review pretty much sums up the rest of my thoughts on the film - not perfect, but it brings the period to life (even if ALL the cars are way too immaculate): http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention/review-cate-blanchett-masters-all-the-signals-for-todd-haynes-carol

I just watched the Star Trek movie, finally. Ok, I've never been a Trekkie, but I didn't mind the TV show as a kidlet (I liked it way better than Lost In Space). But am I the only person in the universe to think that the recent movie was essentially shite? Great cast, but the story sucked, the effects were trite and music was fucking annoying.

It was the story part that was the worst aspect - all the chicks in mini-skirts, James T Kirk driving sports cars (!) and futuristic motor bikes and being a Bad Boy™ until his True Worth™ is finally recognised and he is redeemed via the powah of finding his True Destiny™ as the Noble Captain™, because he Just Knows the Right Thing to Do At All Times™ (it's In His Blood™, don't you know). And he didn't even do the flirting with chicks thing well. Shatner at least managed to play the shagging-the-green-ladies bit with humour and actual panache, as opposed to the "How you doin'?'" style of this moron. And Shatner had better sideburns.

As for Spock and Uhura getting it on, WTF? And even more WTF without any backstory (or forwardstory) about their getting it on whatsoever (except for him getting a bit of a snog from her when Vulcan gets blown up - way to comfort someone) - so much for even bothering to try and sell that particular subplot. I've read fanfic from 17-year-olds that's more convincing in terms of character arc (and getting unlikely couples together).

Yeah, they threw in a couple of lines from the TV show and some visual gags (viz. green ladies), but it added up to a sticky half-melted mess of candy floss when you were hoping for nice buttery popcorn.

I'm even more amazed at the fact that this pile of crap was so highly rated. I think Roger Ebert's review was the only one that seemed near the mark, from my perspective. I would alter his final line: "If you want [shitty, bombastic, underdeveloped and unnuanced] space opera, you've got it." It's not even good sci-fi, even for the crappy standard of sci-fi in movies.

6/10, mainly for some good characterisation of everyone except Kirk (the Prodigal Bad Boy™ - there is a difference between pouty bad boy and proper mavericks) and Spock-the-younger (he's sooo emotional and conflicted and sad and girls want to kiss it better, gah!) and the baddie (let's get Eric Bana and waste him), and a couple of funny bits - Kirk running around an icy planet being chased by a giant bug seemed to be about the only scene that could have been seamlessly incorporated into the TV show.

A few weeks ago, I watched Deliver Us From Evil, the movie about a priest in the US who serially-abused dozens of children, while the Church, in its wisdom, shuffled the priest around various parishes in something that looked very much like an effort to cover things up rather than fix them. So much for pastoral care, eh? It's not like the Church doesn't have an option, even if they don't want to go through the "embarrassment" of a priest going through a criminal trial - they can lock their erring priesthood up in monasteries, if they so choose (not that I'm actually endorsing that as a solution for some bastard who's already committed a crime, but it might be a solution for those who think they might commit a crime).

Other than the shameful behaviour of the Catholic Church authorities - the movie over-eggs it by including some quotes about the origins of celibacy, as if that explains child-molestation, and might be seen to imply that child-abuse is an institutional agenda within the Church rather than a cover-up - the thing that gets me is the depth of pathology of the priest concerned. The movie features lengthy interviews with him, which are horrendously creepy in his utter incapacity to acknowledge the damage he's done (he's fairly frank about what he did, up to a point. Somehow "clothes were undone" and orgasms were had without any actors) or the depth of culpability he had. There was some allusion to childhood sexual activity with his siblings (in the context of an older abusive sibling), and it seems that he feels that it didn't damage him, so how are others so damaged? He even goes so far as to suggest meeting some of the adult children that he abused in the supposed aim of "creating a dialogue" - and writes them letters to that effect, in a wonderfully pastoral manner - so the depth of what is described as "dissociation" (and I would simply describe as "brokenness") is breathtaking. He "didn't expect a hug" but they could "talk". Fortunately, the invitation is withdrawn later, although some of the adult abused children the movie followed thought of taking him up on it.

And he's a charming twinkly Irish chappie, who still - still - gets all cheery and frank about his desire for children. He's obviously mightily enjoys describing his love of children for the camera - the creepy cheerfulness of it comes across even during archive footage of his court case. Ugh.

It's an upsetting movie in many ways. There is a scene where the Korean father of one of the children who was abused for years cries aloud at the abuse of trust of the priest who would stay in their home some nights and creep into the kid's room. It was hard to watch. The weaselling of the local bishop (and cardinal, as he works his way up the chain) and outright enabling of the situation is frankly horrific. It's that thing about indifference being the greatest of sins - he went out of the way to protect the reputation of the Church, and not any of the individuals (children and parents) entrusted to the pastoral "care" of the fucked-up priest. Not to get all Godwin about it, but people like him helped Himmler, Goebbels and Hitler achieve their aims while not necessarily being directly "culpable". They simply didn't care about anything except their power bases and personal agendas.

The movie had some faults. There was the part about the history of the Church and an implied history of the Church covering up sexual abuse, although a psychologist makes an interesting assertion that since the Church considers all sex to be bad in the context of the priesthood, child abuse might be perceived as nothing more "bad" than that. What the movie didn't manage to express was the fact that the Church has a history of covering up or attempting to suppress every fucking thing that might impinge on its power. Child abuse - to the Church hierarchy, in the main - is nothing more or less than another annoyingly embarrassing fact, like Galileo and his planets revolving around the sun. There was also a completely fucking pointless journey of three of the adult abused children to Rome, to present their grievances. So, unannounced, they turn up to some Vatican audience day with cameras, and it's supposed to be all shock-horror when they aren't admitted. Then there's another cheap shot with their visiting a church to pray subsequently. That kind of thing annoys me when Michael Moore does it (as the AV Club review mentions), and it annoyed me even more here. Completely unnecessary. The Slate review gives a good overview, even down to the frigging annoying use of Hallelujah in the end credits. 

So, I'd give it an 7.5 out of 10, given the amazing footage of the priest, and some of the connections which get drawn. Not a date movie, though, as one of the reviews points out.

Then this weekend, I watched Jesus Camp, about the evangelical Christians who run brainwashing sessions evangelical study camps for young children. One of the first scenes in the movie involves a fervent prayer session with young children praying in "tongues". I almost turned it off then and there - just revolting. I am someone who very much dislikes parents who induce their kids to make overt political statements - yes, I get discomforted with kids wearing "My two mommies are gay" t-shirts, seriously. Yes, take them to the Pride parade, but don't frigging make them your little placards.

So, yes, these kids are being encouraged to fight holy wars, and are being fed a diet of statements like "SIN=DEATH". Seriously, if you're showing kids a slideshow where you have five and six-year-olds in the audience, and you're giving them that message, you're fucked in the head. The woman pastor who runs the camps, though, is obviously very much a believer and is very good at what she does. It's very much the "love bomb" technique, complete with plenty of whiffs of brimstone just in case. Her convincing engagement contrasts with Ted Haggard, who is also briefly in the movie, and who comes across as a patronising fuckwad, which is no surprise. One scene that was interesting was with this poor kid (7 or 8) who confessed his struggles about believing all of the Bible (the scene is discussed in this review). The total incomprehension of most of his audience was - frankly - chilling. Then there was the 9-year-old girl who has a habit of evangelising people in public places - when a group of middle-aged black men relaxing in a park asserted that yes, they were certain of going to heaven, she speculated that they were "probably Muslims". Honestly.

What I could have done without in the movie was the really really crappy ambientish music - what is it about some indie movies and the electronic composers they hook up with? - and the annoying "liberal" radio host who was supposed to translate to us just how fucked up some of that stuff was. Thank you, I can make up my own mind. The AV Club review is one I pretty much agree with - 6 out of 10 for the amount of access they got to the subjects, but minus points for repetitiveness, the stupid radio host and the crap music.

But yes, both of these movies were interesting in how children can be there to serve the agendas of certain adults - I think the Jesus Camp movie highlighted it in particular. Sure, the kids seemed healthy and they were certainly engaged with the aims that the adults projected upon them... but how contingent do they feel that the love and approval they get now is? What are the underlying fears? Given the SIN=DEATH equation, that part seemed pretty obvious.

Haircut, yayaayay. My new hairdresser is such a dude - he put me onto a new musical genre called "Igloo", which I'm having troubles tracking down. He's an old dnb man from way back, so I would assume his recs to at least somewhat intersect with my tastes (although he doesn't like dubstep - too two-steppy for him, but I don't get that sense from it).

( Rant about fuckwit at tattoo shop )

In more productive news, I got four cream coloured and nicely-textured cushions that won't clash with my couches. I also got a cocktail shaker and some Grand Marnier, so it'll be margaritas tomorrow, baybeh. Also, I got the makings for sangria, which I haven't done in ages. There was a NZ syrah (NZ-grown shiraz is often labelled thus, due to the more French style they tend to put out) I spotted at the booze shop called "The Underarm". This made me LOL; it's been a while. ;-) On a more serious note, it sounds like a tasty wine, so I'll get it another time. However, the $10 tempranillo for the sangria was what I was there for. Something cooling for this weather!

I also went to see Milk this evening. It's a good movie, and Sean Penn was great. I'll give it a B+, because the pacing was kind of strange. I'm glad it's getting prominence, because I think it's important for people to know their queer history. Harvey Milk was obviously of his time and place, but he certainly influenced the gay rights movement and its level of political engagement in many countries, including my own.

I had a woman sit next to me in the movie theatre, who I had a brief chat with (she asked if the seat were free and what I was reading), and who looked very stereotypically straight - very slender, trendy clothing, very done hair. However, she was extremely engaged in the movie, to the point of quite earnestly crying in the final scenes. Perhaps she does that with all movies, but it certainly made me wonder what it was about the movie that spoke to her. Hm.

Then sushi at Tasuke and home to melt a bit more.

Yes, it's very sad: I'm actually looking forward to the new Get Smart movie. I loved the original TV programme when I was a kidlet (hm, gadgets and Agent 99... I wonder why?), and it looks like they've managed to update it without losing the fun silliness of the original. As long as it doesn't tip over into outright stupidity, I'll be happy. I like Monty Python, Mel Brooks, and, um, Leslie Nielsen movies, though, so my "stupidity tolerance" is probably reasonably high.

Also, Malcolm McDowell Terence Stamp and Anne Hathaway dressed up as a Catholic schoolgirl. And gadgets. What else does one want?

Damn, sucked in by the reviews. I don't like Gaiman, and I don't like fairy stories, but since all the reviews hyped this "wonderful fantasy film", I thought it might be worth seeing. Alas, no. It's still a fairy story and it's still Gaimanesque (although I'm sure with way less of the creepy stuff he would have included in the novel, which I didn't read). Meh.

Evil witches and (not-quite-so) innocent maidens to rescue. >yawn< There were a few vaguely entertaining moments, including Robert De Niro as a screaming queen, although I note he failed to get properly "dressed". The movie hit a lot of fairy story tropes, but didn't play with them. And, you know, it felt like the same old tired sexist shit. Even Shrek manages to put much more amusing spin on all those things.

I still haven't put my finger on why I like fantasy and yet not fairy stories. Speaking of fantasy movies, I love The Princess Bride. But it's not a fairy story, although it's still boy-gets-girl. Westley doesn't discover he's really a prince. It's not magic that drives the plot. And it is actually funny, and does actually play with the tropes too. Hm.

Stardust wasn't a complete waste of money, but I would much rather have waited for the DVD, if I had to see it at all. Some nice cinematography, though.

ETA: Fixered wonky HMTL!

Well, I just got to see Itty Bitty Titty Committee. It's a "look at grassroots-style feminist groups and the feisty young women who run them."

It follows a bunch of lesbo-anarcho-feminists in a group who run around shagging each other and carrying out "actions". I would probably have loved it 15 years ago, and it's kind of cute and amusing with the mild piss-takes of earnest queer/feminist politics. But it felt incredibly dated. Well, ok, there is a t/g character, and they have a website and mini camcorder. But they are listening to riot grrl punk (does anyone who wasn't around at the time actually buy Sleater-Kinney nowadays?), buying and making zines, reading 70's and 80's rad fem works, and not looking at anyone's website except their own. Oh, and they text each other as well. But does anyone have a standalone answer machine that's not their mobi's voicemail these days?

Really, it added up to adolescent dyke drama, lots of outmoded politics and passé music to me. The director, Jamie Babbit, is nearly my age, and I liked But I'm a Cheerleader. The humour about the "scene" was very reminiscent of that movie. But something supposedly situated today should actually be situated in the present. Or, if she had made the movie about the Queer Nation days of the early 90s, it would have been fine.

The cast were good, and quite a lot of the stuff portrayed was excruciatingly familiar. Maybe that's part of the reason I really felt like Jenny Shimizu's grumpy eye-rolling character throughout - been there, done that, and I don't need to relive it again (what was done at the time politically was valuable in many respects, and the whole ACT-UP/QN thing was very energising, but strategies and politics evolve, even if many of the issues haven't). And the interpersonal fuckups were too horribly real - amusing at times, but also cringeworthy.  God, maybe I am getting middle-aged. Unfortunately, Jamie Babbit's attempt to shoehorn nostalgia into a modern setting didn't really work for me.

6½ out of 10, for the sharply-observed characters and interpersonal stuff, even if I thought throughout, "Thank god I'm no longer 19!!" And, actually, the portrayal of the political shenanigans too, even if it is 15 years late. But I had to subtract 2 points for outdatedness and at least half for the movie name: "...an on-campus group called the Itty Bitty Titty Committee, whose focus is to empower women who suffer from D-cup envy." Obviously I've been a little too subsumed in some of those retro values when I find it not at all amusing from the viewpoint of someone suffering from less-than-D-cup envy. Or maybe real feminists really do have small tits. (I know, I know... it made me grumpy, as I say).

Ok, cuteoverload.com has finally succeeded in killing me. Ducklings! Little flappy wings! David Attenborough! Hilarious music!

On the other moving pictures front, I went to see The Queen today. It's about the reaction of the Royal Family to Princess Di's death, and the manoeuvrings of the newly-elected Labour government at the time. What an excellent movie. Helen Mirren just gets better and better. And the guy who played Tony Blair, Michael Sheen, was perfect too. I was the only person in the theatre who laughed when a flunky told Blair that Gordon Brown was on the phone, and he said, "Tell him to wait". Ho ho.

But there were a number of funny moments throughout, as there were poignant ones. I liked the Queen's interaction with the king stag, and all the associated symbolism. I also liked how her handling of her dogs and her vehicles compared and contrasted with her handling of human beings and the situation. The photography was awesome, with some great shots of the Highlands.

I didn't really like the way that Cherie Blair was played as a bit of a smart-arse. While she's always been reasonably frank about her political opinions, I think she's way too intelligent to have been such a smirking schoolgirl about them. Prince Phillip is played perfectly by James Cromwell, in that I wanted to shoot him with his own shotgun. Prince Charles was played by Alex Jennings, who gave him possibly a bit too much of a wimpish affect, but he handled the emotional stuff well.

The Salon review is actually one of the few of Stephanie Zarcharek's where I think she mainly hits it on the head. The Guardian fills in more of the gaps from the UK perspective. It's definitely worth heading along to. It's sympathetic, but not sycophantic, and is an interesting look at the possible behind-the-scenes events relating to those mad times in England.

Jesus fucking christ.

No, really. Jesus fucking christ.

If anyone can sit through that movie and be unaffected, there is something seriously wrong with them.

I thought it'd be not too far away from yer usual Hollywood treatment - following the Heroes through their last hours, noble speeches, cloying sentimentality, heavy-handed politics, yadda yadda. There was none of that. None at all. No speeches, no heroes, no cheesy dramatics. In short, restraint. Not that the subject matter wasn't shocking in itself.

For me, it was after lunch at work when we learned what was going on. One of the guys in the next office was looking at the Beeb website and saw the news come in. We promptly fired up CNN (which was amazingly quick - one advantage of working at a university on the London MAN), just in time to see the next plane hit the other tower.

If you saw it live, you know exactly what you felt then - this movie's impact is an order of magnitude higher.

And it's a good time of year to go see it, if it's still on where you are.

As I mentioned, I saw the X-Men movie on Sunday evening, and did my usual perving over Famke Janssen.  It galled me that Wolverine wimped out from his manly duty when she jumped him (and I did like seeing Hugh Jackman with his shirt off again, but I wish he'd get better haircuts in RL). But maybe I have a thing for (not too) castrating bitches. Speaking of lust objects, I don't normally do the androgenous thing, but I certainly got my drool on for the actress who played Arclight (second from right, here) in the movie, Omahyra Mota. mmm hmmm.

I'm now thinking of other actors I have the hots for (not in any particular order):

Pascale Bussières (from When Night is Falling, but she is just as stunning in anything. Phwooar.)
Jodhi May (brains AND gorgeousness, who can resist?)
Jada Pinkett-Smith (for general cuteness and attitude)
Karina Lombard (who played Marina in The L Word). The only thing I think when I look at that woman is "Holy hell".
Daniel Day Lewis (when he and I were both younger)
Michelle Yeoh (not only does she look good, but she can move)
Joseph Fiennes (ok, one of the few men at whom I went "mmm" at first sight. Such a pretty mouth and eyes)
Natalie Portman (she's just getting better as she gets older)
Ziyi Zhang (while we're talking seemingly-ethereal-but-core-of-steel)
Matthew Macfadyen (he's got a nice accent, although I do prefer him with his hair a la Darcy)
Jessica Alba (alright, alright, pure eyecandy).
Rachel Weisz (only reason I went to see Constantine)
Keanu Reeves (ok, I lied about Constantine. I just wish he would never open his mouth. Ever.)
Drew Barrymore (do I need to say anything here?)
Gina Torres (Zoe from Firefly. But I think every single female character from that series is delicious. Amazing).
Lucy Lawless (my one claim to ...something was that I met her at a party in Auckland in the late 80s. There you go)

Honorable mentions:

Like everyone else in the world, I wouldn't chuck Angelina Jolie out of bed. And Sean Maher from Firefly gets the award for best shirtless male EVAH.