Catching You Up, 7/7: Tom Jones

The last of these, and one of my favorite films.

Tom Jones.
Okay, I know this movie came out in 1963, but it won Best Picture. It's a wonderful film. And I got to see it at the Lincoln Center last month. Also, I have seen Tom Jones before (three times), but I must recommend it most heartily.

I have read the book, and been taught to love the book, and its main character, which is really not that difficult if he looks like Albert Finney. I've picked up the book since watching it, and I can't understand how I ever thought Tom could have been anyone else. It's a perfectly cast film.

Much is taken out for the purposes of making the movie a reasonable length. The first 200 pages are summed up in a short silent section preceding the film's title credits. Characters are cut out (although it was not until my fourth viewing that I mused, "I miss Nightengale"), but the characters that remain are rendered even truer than the reader could have hoped. The dining scene between Tom and Mrs. Waters is the stuff of cinema legend, the hunt is a wonderful sequence to stand on its own, Sophia is even more beautiful than you hoped, and you know Mr. Fielding would have approved of characters breaking the fourth wall whenever they could.

But none of this compares to Squire Western. He amused me in the book, but my inner feminist was really ticked at the way he treated his daughter. But when he's right in front of you, completely drunk and doing the most ludicrous things, you find yourself laughing. And here are the reasons to love him:

• He sleeps on his dogs.
• He throws his beer at his dogs.
• He shoves one of his dogs off the table to get to his food.
• He falls on a woman and begins to hump her.
• He saves his daughter from rape by throwing her over his shoulder and slapping her ass.
• Did we mention the sleeping on his dogs?
• He fights for Tom, even when Tom should be beaten.
• He does all of these things three sheets to the wind.

Tom is amazing, but he's not getting a bulleted list. Because reading the book you come to love him. I've had a professor dub him "The Greatest Thigh Spreader in History," and I concur. Tom Jones is so awesome, he's got a facebook profile. You should friend him.

I really do recommend this movie, whether you want to be a film buff, a filmmaker, or you need to waste time and you can't get out to the movies. And if you dig it, get the book. It's a bit of work, (982 pages with strange Capitalization and Seemingly Random Italics) but ultimately worth it.

The only thing missing is Peter O'Toole.
GRADE: A+

Catching You Up, 6/7: Stardust

Almost... there...

Stardust.
Another adaptation in which I am familiar with the source. I think I enjoyed the film more, and after seeing the trailer for Beowulf, I can understand why.

It differs from the book, but it's a good adaptation, and everything is in place that I was hoping for. It's a good popcorn movie. It's a great movie to see with your bff or significant other or whatever at 11 AM on a Sunday, which is exactly how I experienced it. I did have this question:

Not enough Pete.

That out of the way, oh my God, DeNiro made me giggle. My avoidance of all reviews of the film (not out of choice, just because I've hardly had a chance to look around in a week or two) made me completely surprised at his appearance. (Not that he was in the film, I've seen the FLYING PIRATES ads all over, just his character.) I'll keep my mouth shut so you can be afforded the same pleasant surprise.

Michelle Pfieffer showed up again. I really like to think that the running gag of her looks is some sort of self-depricating jab at all the work she's gotten done but I know that's totally wrong. So instead, nice to see you again, Michelle!

It's good, it's light, it's fluffy. WARNING TO GAIMAN FANS: Very different ending. I mean, ultimately the same, but they get there a little differently, and I kind of like it. It lacked the weird unsettling deus-ex-machina vibe I found in the book.

Also, if you're wondering why the narrator sounds so soothing, it's because it's none other than Gand-- Magne-- Ian McKellen.
GRADE: B-

Catching You Up, 1/7: Ratatouille.

Greetings, faithful reader I begged to remember my blog! I trust you are well, so am I. Since my last review I've hunted and successfully landed a new job, and landed myself in a new city. I did manage to catch a few movies along the way (try six) and I'm here to fill you in on them, should you manage to snatch them up before it's too late! Also I beg your forgiveness as it has been some time since I have seen some of these and notes were mislaid.

That said, please expect this page to be updated by 12:00:07 AM on Tuesdays.

That said, let us move on to our reviews.

Ratatouille.
Overall, a decent movie. I'm always interested with what Pixar serves up, and with the exception of Finding Nemo (hate me all you want, but it really was just a movie about fish, which, sad to say, will never fascinate me, no matter how much you say "he will be my squishy"), I have always been fascinated. I have become somewhat distressed by the recent hype with Pixar, DreamWorks, and other similar animation studios hyping how "lifelike" their animation can be. And, when your film deals with rats (rats running a restaurant, no less), lifelike may not be what you want to really want to go for. And damn, were those rats lifelike. The few scenes where they move about en masse made me squirm, especially because these were moments involving lots and lots of food. In spite of all of this "lifelike" hype and reviews I read condemning the plot, there was one thing that could not keep me away from this film:

Peter O'Toole.

Peter O'Toole is like salt to meat, a killer bass line to a rock song, terza rima to an epic poem; he brings out the best in everything. And even though he only lent his voice to this, it made it that richer. In the words of my high school Spanish teacher, "he made it suena." I took great relish anytime his character, Anton Ego, graced the screen, and squealed with delight at his coffin-shaped room and his exceedingly grim appearing typewriter.

As for the story, it being Pixar, Pixar being Disney, it had its morals of being yourself, being all you can be, grrl power (I was really happy to see that's normal for Disney now, but that's a rant for another day), honoring your past while striving towards your future, and all such things. However, I feel like the film was suffering from what I've come to refer to as Corpse Bride Syndrome (or CBS): It was so caught up in its technology (stop motion, ratty looking rats) and its message (love the one you love, not the one you're with; and the aforementioned themes) that plot seemed a little thin, especially compared with Brad Bird's last work with Pixar; The Incredibles: by comparison I found the characters more believable (fuller, perhaps) and while still pretty heavy on the lesson to be learned, I had more fun getting there than I did here.

But, all that said, I found the film (much like the dishes served) eminently satisfying and great with a light sauvingnon blanc.
GRADE: B