Avoidance

Avoidance


A little less than a human being, a little less than a happy high, a little less than a suicide, the only things you really tried.

Maia. 20. Maryland via Chicago. Last.fm. Tumblr. Ask. Things. Tags. Movies. College. Twitter.

One of these days I will write a short essay on Jane Austen and/or Pride & Prejudice adaptations, because I have an excess of opinions about them and no one to listen but the internet.  For today, I’ll just talk about how I finally saw the 1940 adaptation all the way through, and I actually didn’t hate it. (there are spoilers)

Read More


May 22nd at 10PM / via: notmyera / op: notmyera / tagged: movies. the women. review. / 15 notes
I just watched this and it was very good, if not completely compatible with my value system.  Norma Shearer was really wonderful and now I want to see some more of her.  Rosalind Russell’s costumes are ridiculous, and Joan Crawford’s dress in the last scene (in this picture) is gorgeous.  Also, Virginia Weidler (Dinah in The Philadelphia Story) plays another adorable little girl.  I can’t believe I’ve never seen this before!

I just watched this and it was very good, if not completely compatible with my value system.  Norma Shearer was really wonderful and now I want to see some more of her.  Rosalind Russell’s costumes are ridiculous, and Joan Crawford’s dress in the last scene (in this picture) is gorgeous.  Also, Virginia Weidler (Dinah in The Philadelphia Story) plays another adorable little girl.  I can’t believe I’ve never seen this before!

(Source: notmyera)


I went to go see Thor yesterday, so here are some quick thoughts: Things that worked against the movie: 1. The first 10/20 minutes, which felt pointless and boring and not like a proper superhero movie crescendo. 2. A (sort-of) villain who was 918391283949x more charismatic than the hero. 3. A hero whose character development relied strongly on a weakly developed romance. The best bits of the movie: 1. When Thor was on earth, it was hilarious. 2. Jane, Erik, and Darcy.  Natalie Portman, as always, is wonderful.  Usually I’m not a fan of Kat Dennings and I really liked her in this. 3. Shield, and references/build-up to THE AVENGERS. 4. Heimdall (Idris Elba), who was awesome and was kind of more heroic and awesome than anyone. Overall, it was enjoyable, but still poorly done, given I was far more interested/invested in everyone but the main character.

I went to go see Thor yesterday, so here are some quick thoughts:

Things that worked against the movie:

1. The first 10/20 minutes, which felt pointless and boring and not like a proper superhero movie crescendo.

2. A (sort-of) villain who was 918391283949x more charismatic than the hero.

3. A hero whose character development relied strongly on a weakly developed romance.

The best bits of the movie:

1. When Thor was on earth, it was hilarious.

2. Jane, Erik, and Darcy.  Natalie Portman, as always, is wonderful.  Usually I’m not a fan of Kat Dennings and I really liked her in this.

3. Shield, and references/build-up to THE AVENGERS.

4. Heimdall (Idris Elba), who was awesome and was kind of more heroic and awesome than anyone.

Overall, it was enjoyable, but still poorly done, given I was far more interested/invested in everyone but the main character.


[My thoughts on Scream 4 - NO spoilers] I saw this last night and it was better than I thought it would be.  I mean, it wasn’t perfect, but it was really amazing (and since I’ve seen all the other 3, it was decidedly more predictable and less scary - not necessarily the ending, just most of the kills).  All of my friends loved the beginning, which was good but not my favorite part (although I love Kristen Bell).  I enjoyed that it took me until the end to absolutely love/believe it (Emma Roberts had a lot to do with that and there’s a scene that involves a broken mirror in which she convinced me that this movie was awesome).  Also Neve Campbell, as always, is fucking perfect.  Surprise(!), though, I fucking loved Hayden Panettiere/her character… Like, if she had been the only person to live and then carried the franchise on her own I might have been ok with it.  Also, Rory Culkin is adorable can he please be in more films kthnx.

[My thoughts on Scream 4 - NO spoilers] I saw this last night and it was better than I thought it would be.  I mean, it wasn’t perfect, but it was really amazing (and since I’ve seen all the other 3, it was decidedly more predictable and less scary - not necessarily the ending, just most of the kills).  All of my friends loved the beginning, which was good but not my favorite part (although I love Kristen Bell).  I enjoyed that it took me until the end to absolutely love/believe it (Emma Roberts had a lot to do with that and there’s a scene that involves a broken mirror in which she convinced me that this movie was awesome).  Also Neve Campbell, as always, is fucking perfect.  Surprise(!), though, I fucking loved Hayden Panettiere/her character… Like, if she had been the only person to live and then carried the franchise on her own I might have been ok with it.  Also, Rory Culkin is adorable can he please be in more films kthnx.

(Source: undeadcritic)


We watched this today in class and all I can really say is:  I still can’t imagine Michael Gambon before he was 50. Still can’t do it. Helen Mirren is a fox.  Peter Greenaway’s cinematography always feels so limited (“it’s art” ugh I don’t care its boring and disengaging). This film only puts forth the question: why?  - And not in a Socrates/Greater Meaning way, but rather in a… what are you trying to say here?  because you aren’t saying anything here. way  I think that number four is because I never care about characters in Greenaway films, or 80s art films of a similar vein (think Brazil).  I love the music tho.

We watched this today in class and all I can really say is:

  1.  I still can’t imagine Michael Gambon before he was 50. Still can’t do it.
  2. Helen Mirren is a fox.
  3.  Peter Greenaway’s cinematography always feels so limited (“it’s art” ugh I don’t care its boring and disengaging).
  4. This film only puts forth the question: why?  - And not in a Socrates/Greater Meaning way, but rather in a… what are you trying to say here?  because you aren’t saying anything here. way
  5.  I think that number four is because I never care about characters in Greenaway films, or 80s art films of a similar vein (think Brazil).
  6.  I love the music tho.

This.  100 times this.  I like Gwenyth Paltrow.  I really like her in Great Expectations, I love her in the Royal Tenenbaums, I don’t mind her in Shakespeare in Love.  Why is she so fake and ridiculous in this film?  While I think the biggest problem was her accent, I think that was largely a result of overacting the part of silly Emma.  Emma becomes a caricature in this movie.  I’m just… glad to see I’m not crazy and the only one who felt this way.

This.  100 times this.  I like Gwenyth Paltrow.  I really like her in Great Expectations, I love her in the Royal Tenenbaums, I don’t mind her in Shakespeare in Love.  Why is she so fake and ridiculous in this film?  While I think the biggest problem was her accent, I think that was largely a result of overacting the part of silly Emma.  Emma becomes a caricature in this movie.  I’m just… glad to see I’m not crazy and the only one who felt this way.


I WENT TO GO SEE THE ILLUSIONIST! dreeeeams really do come truuuue.  In all honesty, I think I prefer The Triplets of Belleville, but I might need to see The Illusionist again to be sure.  I think that the pace was a little bit disjointed, and until about halfway through the film I was a little lost.  That might have been the intention, but it made me a little distracted.  I think some of the animation wasn’t as perfect as Triplets, but other parts were even more breathtaking, so I guess that evened out.  Still, I think most of its faults can probably be blamed on the arduous production difficulties that the film faced in Scotland.  It was also really nice to see a Chomet film in theatres, which is where I think they’re really made to be seen. ALSO, I loved all of the sight seeing in that movie (Paris! Dover! London! Scottish countryside! Edinburgh!). Anyways, then I got some crepes and now I’m home early to work on my painting and I really want some chips but the vending machine is broken.

I WENT TO GO SEE THE ILLUSIONIST! dreeeeams really do come truuuue.  In all honesty, I think I prefer The Triplets of Belleville, but I might need to see The Illusionist again to be sure.  I think that the pace was a little bit disjointed, and until about halfway through the film I was a little lost.  That might have been the intention, but it made me a little distracted.  I think some of the animation wasn’t as perfect as Triplets, but other parts were even more breathtaking, so I guess that evened out.  Still, I think most of its faults can probably be blamed on the arduous production difficulties that the film faced in Scotland.  It was also really nice to see a Chomet film in theatres, which is where I think they’re really made to be seen. ALSO, I loved all of the sight seeing in that movie (Paris! Dover! London! Scottish countryside! Edinburgh!).

Anyways, then I got some crepes and now I’m home early to work on my painting and I really want some chips but the vending machine is broken.


This was positively fantastic.  My heart just… Art/architecture/culture being destroyed… my heart dies.  I think this documentary is one of the most effective at showing the full-scale destruction of World War II, of artifacts, but also of human beings.  Not only does it show the atrocities of war it shows the human strength and moral issues that followed in the aftermath of the war.  I watched it in my Art Matters class and it was all I could do to keep from crying.  Ugh people in my class were falling asleep and not into it and I was just like… how do you not have feelings?

This was positively fantastic.  My heart just… Art/architecture/culture being destroyed… my heart dies.  I think this documentary is one of the most effective at showing the full-scale destruction of World War II, of artifacts, but also of human beings.  Not only does it show the atrocities of war it shows the human strength and moral issues that followed in the aftermath of the war.  I watched it in my Art Matters class and it was all I could do to keep from crying.  Ugh people in my class were falling asleep and not into it and I was just like… how do you not have feelings?


Things I want to say about Harry Potter which I do not consider to be spoilers. 

1. No Dudley/Harry bonding moment, made me a little disappointed.

2. Emma Watson is flawless

3. I don’t know if I like where they cut it off?

4. Emma Watson is flawless.

Anyways, the rest of my night was completely fucking ridiculous but also kind of awesome but also kind of nerve-racking and UGH WHY ISN’T IT EASIER TO TELL IF PEOPLE WANT TO BE YOUR FRIEND and oh my goodness tonight was just totally craaaaaaaaaaaazy, but in a way that I don’t really feel like explaining and I’m sure you don’t really care about.

Harry Potter was quite good, I sort of have the need to see it again though.


Today was ridiculous. 

I went to go see RELEASE THE KRAKEN (or Clash of the Titans, whichever you prefer), today at a pseudo midnight showing.  It was hilariously awful, so much fun.  I went with a huge group of friends and it was lovely.  It was a gold mine for hilarious quotations and a ridiculous soundtrack and close up of hilarity.  Liam Neeson was perfect.  So was Voldemort- wait, what?  Hades.  Also the entire cast of Skins?  Love it when movies just raid BBC actors.  Also, love it when movies pair up a motherly figure and the son figure romantically, and just ignore prophecies made at the beginning of the film.  Afterward there was some struggle involving my parking ticket and not paying it and being a fucking idiot whatever.  Also, earlier today I made banana bread.  it was a success.



powered by tumblr. themed by kiyla.