Movies I've seen
Apr. 3rd, 2011 10:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cmk418So, when I made my filmic resolutions on Oscar Sunday, one of them was to see more films. Since then, I've seen two in the theater - "Rango" and "Jane Eyre".
"Rango" was a lot of fun. I liked the twist on Westerns as well as the "Chinatown"-like subplot. And Timothy Olyphant (in voice over, naturally) gets what is by far the best part in it.
"Jane Eyre" - full disclosure here. There was no way that I wasn't going to like this film. I absolutely adore the book. So, the good things - I liked that it was told in flashback. It helped make St. John a little more likeable, getting to know him before Rochester was introduced. Also, the reveal of the Rochester's wife happened differently than I expected and seemed to be much more subdued than just unleashing the crazy on the audience. I also thought that Mia Wasikowska was wonderful as Jane. The things that should have been better - not having enough on Jane's youth - I always found that part of the book to be emotionally powerful and I wish they would have had at least more between her and Helen than was in this version; and why can't anyone ever do the fortune teller scene - it's definitely a part in the book that I read over and over again, but the scene isn't in any of the adaptations I've seen (yet - my sister is loaning me her 4-hour version and she says it's in there).
Last week, we rented "Unstoppable" - it is the extremely straightforward story of a train racing down a track without air brakes or a driver and a group of folks that have to stop it. That's it. It's watchable, but there's not a lot of substance there.
Hopefully there will be more fthat I want to see at the theater soon and more time to watch them.
"Rango" was a lot of fun. I liked the twist on Westerns as well as the "Chinatown"-like subplot. And Timothy Olyphant (in voice over, naturally) gets what is by far the best part in it.
"Jane Eyre" - full disclosure here. There was no way that I wasn't going to like this film. I absolutely adore the book. So, the good things - I liked that it was told in flashback. It helped make St. John a little more likeable, getting to know him before Rochester was introduced. Also, the reveal of the Rochester's wife happened differently than I expected and seemed to be much more subdued than just unleashing the crazy on the audience. I also thought that Mia Wasikowska was wonderful as Jane. The things that should have been better - not having enough on Jane's youth - I always found that part of the book to be emotionally powerful and I wish they would have had at least more between her and Helen than was in this version; and why can't anyone ever do the fortune teller scene - it's definitely a part in the book that I read over and over again, but the scene isn't in any of the adaptations I've seen (yet - my sister is loaning me her 4-hour version and she says it's in there).
Last week, we rented "Unstoppable" - it is the extremely straightforward story of a train racing down a track without air brakes or a driver and a group of folks that have to stop it. That's it. It's watchable, but there's not a lot of substance there.
Hopefully there will be more fthat I want to see at the theater soon and more time to watch them.
