It is trite, but true, that there are not too many good movies out there, especially in the summer months. I have yet to see Pirates yet, but it is not like there are many other things worth watching. For instance, Slate had a piece (with audio) on My Super Ex-Girlfriend, which rang true -- the ads and set-up of the movie simply does not appear appealing. Luke Wilson is a loser and Uma Thurman plays a biatch ... that is the whole point of the movie. I am not a great fan of movies about unpleasant people, especially if there is no one that is actually pleasant in the film. Anyway, movies are too misogynist as it is -- the fact we are supposed to find people like Owen Wilson so lovable underlines the point. A lovable male loser sort etc.
There needs to be more appealing movies, especially with female leads. I know the stereotype movie-goer is a male teenager, but this is a bit limiting. This is underlined by the trite sentiment that it is always hard to find five good female leads to nominate for best actress. The supporting actress role also is tough, but there always is some young thing who is the newbie (e.g., Marisa Tomei) to win that statuette. Sure, there are exceptions (in its genre way, Stick It about female gymnasts is a worthwhile mention), but still. It is particularly amazing because this country has so many more movies than many others. Thus, even today, there are three new releases ... one a major indie. As with history and law (various cases worthy of films), the area is woefully undermined for material. Let's not even go into the lack of good romances or movies that treat sex in an adult (dare one say "European") way.
Maybe, it's just me, but I have found that many of the good films of the last year or so are documentaries. For instance, my favorite movie since Beautiful City (an Iranian film) was Wordplay, a documentary about a crossword contest. The film too was largely dominated by guys (the finalists in the big finale were all guys, two who simply annoyed me ... luckily the somewhat less annoying one won) except for a cute baton twirling sort who was the underdog winner a few years back. [The celebrities interviewed were most men as well, a primary exception being two musicians.] And, of course, there is An Inconvenient Truth, which has Gore as the biggest thing, even getting Conan O'Brien all serious about global warming.
A perfectly decent summer flick was The Devil Wears Prada. David Letterman told Anne Hathaway, the modelesque star of the movie (she did a few series roles that suggest true talent, but unfortunately has a bit too perfect look about her ... she should try not to be typecast), that he liked the movie. As AH noted, he is not exactly the film's primary demographic, and nor am I. Still, as I mentioned in the past, I did enjoy the movie. The movie had its lulls, including a pretty lame set of boyfriend material. But, AH was appealing (if not having too much bite), while the supporting cast (and Streep, playing the "devil") really stole the show. The "first assistant" role, for instance, was played wonderfully. I also see her face in AOL ads repeatedly these days.
Pleasant movie with some real craft behind it ... this is the definition of a good "summer flick." They all cannot be blockbusters, which tend to be overdone anyway. For instance, an enjoyable movie last year was the sci fi film Serenity was nicely restrained, a small scale sort of effort reflecting its Sci Fi Channel roots. AH was in the enjoyable Ella Enchanted a few years back, which as with her recent film was based on book. And, like the earlier effort, the movie was better. This seems against the rules, which say that the movie cannot be better than the book. But, this is not always true. Movies need to be different from books generally speaking, but they can be better too. It is a question of how the original material is adapted for the screen.
Sometimes, it is watered down in some fashion, but sometimes the transfer works pretty well. For instance, Ella Enchanted is based on a favorite/award winning children's book. I read the thing after watching the movie, and it was a disappointing effort. [Let me add that adults can appreciate many books for young readers, just as various classics were traditionally meant to also be read by young adults -- for instance, Little Women.]
The movie is basically a road movie where our heroine -- who is under a spell wherein she has to do everything she is told (one can see why kids ate it up) -- has various adventures and falls in love as she tries to find a way to be truly independent. The book has basically the same set-up (father gets re-married, she is shipped to bordering school ... sort of a Cinderella set-up), but the center of the book has her under a spell where she accepts (or tries to) her subservient state. It is utterly depressing and the last third take-off on a typical fairy tale isn't much better. The idea is great, but the follow through is not. The movie is much more fun.
It is somewhat unfair, perhaps, for me to compare AH's latest to the book, since the problem is that I simply cannot get into it. I have taken the tack in recent years that at some point it is not worth it to struggle through books. This might be because of all the stuff read online these days -- imagine a day where a couple hours a day (at least) are not spent online. Yes, Virginia, before 1999, I did not even have Internet access. Anyway, after seeing the movie, I stopped at the bookstore in the same complex (also Target, which is a pretty good store ... diverse selection, reasonable prices) and picked up the paperback. Sort of an impulse buy, though a perusal seemed to suggest it was a good read. Nonetheless, it surely does not start well -- and if the first fifty pages of a book are not good, one is in trouble (especially the publisher). Again, the concept is good, but the book does not seem to be. And, this times its over four hundred pages of it.
The book starts on a trite and unpleasant note. Our heroine just did Europe (with a stop-over in the Far East, leading to a stomach ailment that provided a useful loss of 20lb on her 5'10 frame) and now needs to find an after-college job. Perhaps, this is a "normal" thing outside of the Gilmore Girls, but it just is an opener to suggest that this is not just some poor little college girl trying to make it out in the real world. By chance, she gets her assistant job, and in less than two weeks finds a room to share in the city. [The movie starts with her getting ready for interview at the place she shares with her boyfriend.] She starts when you know who is away on vacation (the movie, not surprisingly, sees this as filler), leading to various stereotypical newbies to the city scenes.
Tiresome. For instance, she has to go from the 59th Street subway station (around 7AM) to Madison. Now, the station has exits on Lexington and Third (the back exit, and not likely to be the one someone who took the 6 would use) and the station also takes up a few blocks north to south. Nonetheless, the streets in that direction are short, and it is rather easy to see how things go (one way 61st, the next 58th etc.). So, if she had problems finding where she had to go, it must have been east to west. The blocks on the east side are 5th-Madison-Park-Lex-3-2-1. Now, there are parts of the city that are tricky (largely under 14th), but mid-town is not. Likewise, that part of town would not be exactly deserted at that time of day. It is a good time to take the subway, though it too would not be too empty. Finally, the idea that she will be stuck asking some storekeeper who couldn't speak English except to ask her the type of coffee she wants seems dubious.
Just too cute. The movie avoids these "foreigner from Connecticut who has been living with her friend in Manhattan for long enough to know better" type scenes. Ditto her first time arriving for work. She is nervous, especially after having problems finding the place [the real problem is numbers -- too few buildings with addresses ... and entrances off the block], and she has to deal with a smart aleck security guard. In a cute line, she says that she decided to hate him. Still, the overall motif of the too innocent/polite girl from CT vs. the brusque New Yorkers also fell to stereotype. Again, she had been living in the city with her friend already for a few months. Surely, the movie was not free for stereotype, but it also didn't include this material.
And, overall, the book was dragging ... too early. Clearly, some editing would be useful. It is her first book, and the writer's goal was nonfiction, and perhaps it shows. Oh well, can't have everything. I probably will pass it on to someone I watched the film with, who always says I am too critical. Perhaps, she will enjoy it -- she likes things she experienced in some fashion before. Anyway, my Mike Royko bio came in ... maybe, it is time to watch Continental Divide again.
Nah ... the "book" was better in that case.