Cinematic Sunday
Dec. 27th, 2009 10:00 pmOw. Some friends from high school and I went bowling yesterday, and now I'm sore from my waist to my knees because I'm an old lady. Fun, but ow.
*
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
fiara and I saw Young Victoria this afternoon. It was good, but unevenly so.
The acting was excellent: Rupert Friend was charming as Prince Albert, Emily Blunt was convincing as independent-yet-girlish Victoria, and Miranda Richardson did a nice turn as the scheming mother with a hidden heart. The costumes and sets were also lovely.
The love story was well-paced, sweet, and nicely done all around. However, they seemed to have a hard time integrating the politics into that story. It ended up being unnecessarily confusing, I thought, but perhaps part of that is due to my ignorance; my knowledge of the Victorian political scene really doesn't pick up until the 1860s, and the movie ends in 1840. But for a big historical epic, it ran short; they could've profitably tacked on another half hour and avoided ( mild spoiler ).
I kept wondering what the significance of constantly seeing Victoria reflected in mirrors was. I have yet to figure out a good reason. One thought is that we were supposed to see her as a seen object, played with by her mother and Conroy. Then again, maybe the director just thought it looked cool.
Other than that, the cinematography was generally good; the editing, on the other hand, seemed a bit amateurish. There was more than one use of freeze frames, to which I went, "Didn't people last use these non-ironically twenty years ago?" Oh, well.
*
Continuing my sporadic attempt to catch up on some of the pop cultural milestones I've missed over the years,* I watched Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark tonight. I've been spoiled by The Mummy; I was expecting this to be like that one, and thus found it disappointingly dour. I guess that's the problem with watching the reinterpretation before the original.
Marion in particular just got kind of annoying. It was pretty obvious she was only in the movie to be the love interest rather than to contribute much of anything useful. (I guess she helps out in the firefight in Nepal. But then she gets kidnapped, and that's pretty much it for her independent action.) Maybe the point for 1981 was that she was there at all, and wasn't a screaming ninny, and it would take a few more decades to build up that kind of role into one who could kick as much ass as the male lead.
* Over the past five months or so, this has consisted of finally watching The Wizard of Oz, Footloose, Stage Door (debatably a pop culture reference point--although I recognized the calla lilies line--but a good movie nonetheless) and various Astaire/Rogers films. Oh, and The Awful Truth, but since it lived up to its title, I only managed the first thirty minutes before wandering away in boredom.
*
fiara and I saw Young Victoria this afternoon. It was good, but unevenly so.The acting was excellent: Rupert Friend was charming as Prince Albert, Emily Blunt was convincing as independent-yet-girlish Victoria, and Miranda Richardson did a nice turn as the scheming mother with a hidden heart. The costumes and sets were also lovely.
The love story was well-paced, sweet, and nicely done all around. However, they seemed to have a hard time integrating the politics into that story. It ended up being unnecessarily confusing, I thought, but perhaps part of that is due to my ignorance; my knowledge of the Victorian political scene really doesn't pick up until the 1860s, and the movie ends in 1840. But for a big historical epic, it ran short; they could've profitably tacked on another half hour and avoided ( mild spoiler ).
I kept wondering what the significance of constantly seeing Victoria reflected in mirrors was. I have yet to figure out a good reason. One thought is that we were supposed to see her as a seen object, played with by her mother and Conroy. Then again, maybe the director just thought it looked cool.
Other than that, the cinematography was generally good; the editing, on the other hand, seemed a bit amateurish. There was more than one use of freeze frames, to which I went, "Didn't people last use these non-ironically twenty years ago?" Oh, well.
*
Continuing my sporadic attempt to catch up on some of the pop cultural milestones I've missed over the years,* I watched Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark tonight. I've been spoiled by The Mummy; I was expecting this to be like that one, and thus found it disappointingly dour. I guess that's the problem with watching the reinterpretation before the original.
Marion in particular just got kind of annoying. It was pretty obvious she was only in the movie to be the love interest rather than to contribute much of anything useful. (I guess she helps out in the firefight in Nepal. But then she gets kidnapped, and that's pretty much it for her independent action.) Maybe the point for 1981 was that she was there at all, and wasn't a screaming ninny, and it would take a few more decades to build up that kind of role into one who could kick as much ass as the male lead.
* Over the past five months or so, this has consisted of finally watching The Wizard of Oz, Footloose, Stage Door (debatably a pop culture reference point--although I recognized the calla lilies line--but a good movie nonetheless) and various Astaire/Rogers films. Oh, and The Awful Truth, but since it lived up to its title, I only managed the first thirty minutes before wandering away in boredom.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}