Buckle up y’all, I watched the 2020 Emma with my four sisters and my sister-in-law (and my 4 month niece, her first period drama, can’t say she appreciated the experience), and I have plenty of thoughts.
I watched it this late because I needed some time to get over the irritation I felt for yet another Emma version and one which didn’t appear to my taste. But as I read favorable opinions from bloggers whose taste I didn’t distrust and watched this video from Karolina Żebrowska about how the clothing at least was quite accurate, I slightly thawed a bit. Then in June I reread Emma and decided I was ready to watch it, so I was happy when one sister suggested an Emma 2020 girls night. One sister had seen it and asked why we would want to watch it (uh, oh), but I was still interested.
It was so much fun to get together and have tea and watch it and discuss it and compare all the Emma adaptations. Some of us decided afterwards we probably would not have finished it had we not watched it this way, but then I struggle to watch much straight through, period.
We thought that the humor in Emma wasn’t exactly inaccurate, just (intentionally) over exaggerated above everything else in the book. And then melodrama was added to everything along with a few changes making Jane Austen’s calmest, most every day, least dramatic book into quite a confection colored comedy drama. All of which made it quite fun to watch as a group.
One sister pointed out that all the hilarity felt quite intentional and that the movie makers clearly understood Jane Austen whereas the makers of 2005 Pride and Prejudice, which is also quite funny but not intentionally, did not understand JA since they were attempting to make Pride and Prejudice a serious romance which Jane Austen didn’t intend and indeed lampooned. Judging by Jane Austen’s humor, satire, and comments, I think she would have liked this Emma despite not being accurate to all of the book, and she would have torn to shreds the 2005 Pride and Prejudice.
I still think the casting inaccurate, but after I saw that the spirit of the movie wasn’t meant to be accurate, it didn’t offend my taste as much. BUT, they were all so very odd looking (and perhaps more than was intended). Nobody in the main bunch had regency looks. Emma had a fishy look (literally). Harriet, as one sister pointed out, looked like a Renaissance painting. Mr. Martin looked like a cute precious little cartoon man. We all though Mr. Knightley, particularly his large purplish mouth full of what seemed like more than the usual amount of teeth (that is a literary quote from somewhere I think), was odd looking, two of us said ogre-ish. I also thought he had a sort of plaster-y look, and one sister said he looked like he’d “been through something” (a war? a machine?). I thought the monkey-eared pair (Frank and Elton) looked more 1930’s and 40’s maybe.
To leave off brutalizing faces, as far as the actual characterizations went, I think Emma was pretty accurate actually as far as I could tell, because for such a dominant main character, I felt like this movie drowned her out a bit. Or maybe I was just too distracted by the bizarre Mr. Knightley.
Mr. Knightley dressed far too foppish both for his age and situation as a country gentleman. It wasn’t his style at all as a plain, sensible, country gentleman, but then that is NOT how this movie portrayed him. He did quite a bit of mooning over Emma which since this movie wasn’t going for accuracy but comedy and drama said mooning was quite hysterical. The scene with him running to see her was killer.
We discussed the four Mr. Knightley’s portrayals and who was the best looking. For looks, I think several sisters said Jeremy Northam (who I’m as prejudiced against as ever), but one said it would be Johnny Lee Miller if he had hair. Johnny Lee Miller is most of our group’s favorite portrayal, I think.
I, however, am still strongly for Mark Strong (who also has hairline issues) both in looks and portrayal although I think a blend of Strong and Miller’s portrayals would be the most accurate. I think Strong is the only Mr. Knightley who actually shows the strength and firmness of mind and manner displayed by Mr. Knightley in the book. I suppose Strong, literally played it too strong though. All the other three tend to either be completely milk-soppish and moony or end up that way as my sister pointed out Miller did (his portrayal is definitely the funniest in wit, however 2020 Mr. Knightley is the funniest in behavior).
We discussed how several of the proposals in the adaptations ended up being awkward with Mark Strong’s Knightley bringing up how he held Emma in his arms as a baby (could have left that out dude!), and Johnny Lee Miller being shorter than Romola Garai and the awkwardness this caused (aided by his now complete mooniness).
One sister then mentioned she’d heard the Emma 2020 proposal followed the awkward tradition, and after she said this I remembered, the nose bleed scene, I’d forgotten it was in here and didn’t know it was during the proposal. Perfect timing as the proposal scene arrived soon after. Eeeeewwww! I get nosebleeds regularly; I don’t need to see more, and there was just enough blood to be weird (rather than accurate) in such a unnaturally pristine movie!
Also with all the cotton-candy-ness and drama and unnatural perfect spotlessness, why the odd insertions of realism or “realism”? The stark juxtaposition is startling and adds to the bizarreness and hectic-ness rather than adding reality. Also, like my sister said, “we get that they went commando, we really didn’t need to see it.” And also yes, people get nosebleeds, and I’m sure somewhere in the world somewhere in time someone got one during a proposal. But really, can we get a decent proposal?
Speaking of the busyness, there was certainly a lot going on with the clothes. I thought a few things were pretty, and I definitely want boots like Emma wore. I also felt that similar to the men, there wasn’t enough differentiation individually between the ladies’ styles or at least Emma and Harriet (we barely saw Jane or Mrs. Weston). My sisters mentioned the prevalence of yellow which other bloggers have mentioned as well.
I find it interesting that the 2009 version featured a lot of yellow as well, Emma wore a lot of patterned yellow (I think she had maybe two dresses which she wore a couple times), but it was a more restful lemony yellow paired sometimes with calm blue while in this movie it was usually solid and quite bright and not confined to Emma.
Overall, while I liked elements of the costumes in the 2020 version, I think I prefer the outfits in the 2009 Emma. They were more to my taste and fit the country setting far better. In the 2020 version I thought everyone was dressed more like grand London people going out or at balls (and Emma and her father are portrayed as far wealthier than the book gave out) all the time, there was no variation in formality it felt.
A few other things:
This movie is much shorter than the 2009 Emma (which has the most accurate pacing to the book), and I felt that the Westons and the Jane and Frank story lines suffered for it. I don’t think that is what the directors wanted to focus on, but these storylines are significant in the book.
I disliked how John and Isabella were portrayed, they weren’t quarrelsome like that, they were a close family. The book John got irritated when he was taken from hearth and home and children not because of them, and he got fed up with his father-in-law and his wife’s silliness (a motherly not the shrewish silliness in this movie). I like that the 2009 version softens John. The Eltons also didn’t feature quite so much, and I actually felt sorry for Mr. Elton!
And the music could be odd for example, the randomly sung hymns randomly which were considerably louder than the rest of the music were odd, and “How Firm a Foundation” was sung to the American tune which was published a good 15 years after Emma was published. And then there was the “eerie” music, it starts off sounding like a horror movie or something, which since it was utilized during the especially dramatic made said moments quite a bit funnier. Overall the music was disappointing (such as the ball) or distracting and adding to the whirl of sensory overload. Again, the 2009 music is so special I think.
With all that said, I’d definitely watch this version again, it’s definitely quite an experience. I don’t think the filmmakers were aiming for an accurate Emma nor trying to be better than Jane Austen nor “updating it” nor anything insulting to the author’s genius; I think they took the author’s sense of fun and ran with it. It’s not a restful film though, unlike 2009 which is my favorite overall. It’s so hectic, all the colors and patterns and drama and pacing and then the changes that the filmmakers do add all tended to the dramatic, so it’s all such a whirl. I actually thought near the beginning that it felt like Disney made the movie because the candy colored and busy clothing and decor, the mischievous irreverent tone, some very Disney-esque music (at least near the begining), and the exaggerative humor and drama. I need to watch it again simply to catch more and observe more (especially as we girls were talking and analyzing the whole time).
The prompt for this one was a bar scene. I haven’t seen too many Westerns, and it would have to take a super fantastic bar scene to wipe out the first one that came to mind which was one from The Apple Dumpling Gang.
Oh, how we love this movie in our family! This movie has adventure, stellar slapstick humor, tons of sarcasm with killer delivery, genius timing, romance. It is just about perfect for a de-stressing fun movie night. Lots of quoting done by the people who can remember the exact quotes, bless Imdb for their quote section.
Here is a taste of a few:
Theodore: “You know something, Amos? The Lord poured your brains in with a teaspoon, and somebody joggled His arm.”
Frank Stillwell: “If I ever get within shootin’ distance of that doggone Amos Tucker, he’s gonna have winders where his ears was.”
Sheriff McCoy: “You two couldn’t steal candy from a baby without coming out on the short end.”
John Wintle: “I’m leaving for San Francisco tonight.”
Sheriff McCoy: “San Francisco’s loss is Quake City’s gain.”
The bar scene.
So it really starts with the rather slick, sleek Donovan getting married to Dusty (her nickname for a reason), a no-touch, for the children’s sake marriage (see this romantic photo). Then Donovan gets right back to his gambling addiction and saddles Dusty with babysitting the kids. She takes the kids to the general store for candy and discovers (so she thinks) that Donovan bought the bed she was admiring for the two of them.
She marches right to the saloon where Donovan is peaceably playing cards:
He looks shocked, “Who me?”
“Yes you, you snake oil salesman! Are you coming out here or am I coming in there?
“What’s the matter, Dusty? Is there some trouble?”
“Yes, there’s trouble all right! And you’re in it!”
She then proceeds to chase him around the saloon flinging epithets (among other things) at him while he tries to simultaneously get away from her and inquire why she is angry. Everyone else tries to get away from both of them while the poker and billiard area is being destroyed. One flabbergasted townsperson asked, “What happened with them two?” to which the the Sheriff replies in a deadpan manner, “They got married.”
Finally Donovan manages to get an answer as to what the whole fiasco is about: “That’s it? The bed?” and then it’s his turn to get angry. A very quiet anger at first, “The bed happens to be for the kids, Dusty. When the nights are getting colder, they’ll need a warmer place to sleep. So the brass bed is for the boys, and the smaller bed is for CELIA!!!
I cannot explain the hilarious way this line is delivered, but the crescendo is just absolutely killer.
After which Dusty meekly and daintily insinuates it’s all his fault for not explaining and sweeps grandly out of the wrecked bar with Celia in tow leaving everyone in stunned silence.
There are so many details of hilarity, sarcasm, contrast etc. This scene just perfect in conception and delivery and while this movie has tons of excellent scenes, I think this has to be the best.
Go watch this movie.
Also, for extra credit. Apparently a great-great-great uncle went to prison for killing a man in a bar brawl over a woman. In the great Wild West state of . . . Illinois.
***Spoilers and a VERY Critical Review***
I was not originally going to see this. I don’t usually see movies in theatres, and I didn’t even really want to try this one at all. I was horrified by the non-American and otherwise poor casting. Laurie is not a frail, delicate French-American boy. He was a big, bonny Italian-American boy. I get frustrated with Little Women adaptations because of the inaccuracy of the rendering and because I HATE a part of the book’s plot. I hate Laurie and Amy together at a soul level so I will never love an adaptation.* However, I went to see Star Wars in theatre, I kept seeing Little Women everywhere, and I always want to like a Little Women retelling, I was feeling too optimistic, and I thought I could be okay if the professor was young and Laurie wasn’t Laure (like in that cute, shallow, quick little modern retelling), I thought I could suspend my infuriation at the Laurie-Amy thing. Well, one can only do that if Laurie and Jo is minimized and Laurie and Amy is minimized, it wasn’t.
- Not great acting, so many things felt forced, and I could hear the accents
- It overall felt slick and flippant. The choice to cut back and forth in time was terrible, it wasn’t flashbacks, it was every scene. It hurts my brain. It ruined the pathos of Beth’s story, made everything feel rushed and shallow. I think it rather disguised the other flaws by flicking you away before you could digest the ineptitude of the scene. As did wasting time on dramatic scenes, feminist sermons, slow motion parts, etc. when two hours isn’t really enough to do the book justice and other episodes from the book could have been included.
- Why do Meg and John get cut out so much? I adore that proposal scene and a couple other of their scenes? Its Little Women, not Jo March or The Jo and Amy and Laurie Triangle. Not that I really wanted to see more of this John, I think his accent and his acting was the worst. And why in heaven’s name does almost every version feel the need to make John a needy, creepy sort of person. Quietly liking someone doesn’t mean creepy. I think he was WAY more subtle than that. It was only brought out by Laurie’s (awesome) mischievousness, another thing lacking in the movie.
- Laurie was more Laurie in behavior than I expected despite his looks, but he didn’t feel genuine.
- Why are almost all the girl blonde or red-head? I think they were all brunettes, possibly dark brunettes, definitely Alcott herself was, except for the golden girl, Amy (that heightens the contrast of Amy and the others). They all look too small except for Amy who looked and sounded coarse (the exact opposite of book Amy). Emma Watson is overacting as useful. Beth was okay. Saoirse Ronan wasn’t bad acted, she just was the least Jo of any Jo I’ve seen.
- Stupid additions of modern thought that are historically inaccurate, I mean some people think incorrectly about history and so they put incorrect and modern historical opinions on these characters. Also reflected in the slovenly, unlady-like dressing and behavior (the hair, oh, my stars, put up their hair, Meg would never have been so sloppy). In the book Jo was rude, brusque but she still followed some manners of then, like being decently dressed and not putting her skirts up to her waist or dancing in a weird, wild bar scene (the Marches were teetotalers and very sheltered, that is mentioned in the book).The Marches were unconventional, not inappropriate and not modernly conventional, sorry. If you want a modern retelling, do a MODERN version. Granted there has been one done (very indie and quick), but there have been so multiple period ones done as well.
- So much second hand embarrassment, so little of the books genuine humor. I chose to go to the bathroom around the part Jo was writing Laurie a desperate letter, I couldn’t bear it. I missed when he and Amy came back. Actually I was getting ready for it to be over well before then, but I seriously considered just leaving then and several times after that, but I was sure it was almost done. And then it got really just plain goofy when the professor comes back. Any sweetness in that was sapped right out but the silliness, shallowness, and insincerity of that scene, why couldn’t they have had a quiet moment and more time together overall. If you are going to change the plot, change that part, give them a real spark. They just emphasized him as being an afterthought.
- Also, I recognized Marmee from somewhere (note: I feel like they didn’t call her Marmee enough and Teddy was only used like once). And I knew I hadn’t liked her at.all and thought her poorly acted. Later that evening I remembered, she was the idiot, terribly acted purple haired catastrophe from the NOT REAL parts of Stars Wars Episode VIII. Figures.
- As much as things in the 94 version of Little Women irritate me (Laurie and Amy, John and Meg being too old and shunted to the side, and John being a creepo), that is still the best we have. Everything is just way more iconic, the music, the acting, the script, the clothing. Amy’s European wardrobe is just stunning. And everything about the overall feel and look of the setting, houses, clothing, etc. felt more historically accurate.
- Did I like anything? Well, I liked that Professor Bhaer was young and handsome and not poorly acted. Too bad he was given hardly any time. I loved the knitted sontags the girls were wearing. I’d first seen them/noticed them on A Bluestocking Dressmakers instagram. As a knitter, it’s always cool to see handknits, especially since I don’t feel like they show up much in period pieces, and I don’t know much about that aspect of historical costuming. The scenes were pretty. I liked Meg’s purple dress. I do want to go and look at photos of the clothes more particularly.
*I swear I hate the Laurie and Amy thing all the way to the very atoms of my being. I’ll never in anyway be okay with it. It is just fundamentally wrong.
Nobody cheers when the stereotypical jock and the perfect cheerleader get together. The basic rich boy and basic middle-class girl. And that is all Laurie and Amy end up being once they get married, before he was something special, although she was never super unique.
I just can’t like Amy. I wouldn’t like her much without Laurie, but the Laurie thing drives everything home. She’s one of the lucky ones who get everything without effort without depth. She’s blessed and boring. And charming, witty Laurie gets flattened, faded out, out to be her “perfect” match. He loses every part of his “Laurie-ness,” his “Teddy-ness.” Look, Teddy was Jo’s pet name for him . . . she has a pet name for him. Amy calls him my lord (ick), isn’t that evidence enough?
Jo and Laurie are so close, I think that Laurie could’ve waited. I think the concept of love as a pie in the sky stars above thing is untrue. Love is made up of attraction/passion, affection, trust, friendship, and CHOICE. If Jo didn’t have the first, or didn’t think she did (they were SO close, it seems like it could only have been blindness), she would’ve learned later. And why must Laurie fit society’s mold? Rich man, rich wife, blah, blah. Suited to each other? They brought out each others shallowness. Bhaer and Amy got leavings, sorry. And someone mentioned thinking Amy would’ve turned Laurie down had he not been rich. I think it’s too convenient that Amy gets everything she wants. Its too unbelievable how easily Laurie gives up. And there is the sister code. Doesn’t matter if Jo rejected him. Hands off, period.
All the rationalizations, are rationalizations. Jo and Laurie were too similar? Um, “similar” people (and I don’t think they were all that similar, and better to be like either of them than a milksop like Amy). Jo and Laurie had a spark, John and Meg had a spark (in the books, the movies seem to manage to ruin this). No one else did.
I didn’t read much in July. I brought several books on vacation and barely read at all. I was not in the mood, but my younger sisters started watching Psych and got me hooked again. I’d meant to rewatch those at some point. I remember one blogger recently asking if people preferred Monk or Psych. Since at that point I’d watched Psych 7 years ago and Monk recently, I wasn’t sure. Oh, it’s Psych all the way. I was SO thrilled that this show stood the test of time for me. The first time I watched it the 7th season was still airing, and between waiting for episodes and not likening the feel anymore, I quit in the early episodes of that season. This time, I quit sooner. I actually feel the show falls in quality in season 6. But before that, yes, just my thing.
It’s also the first real adult U.S. television show I watched. I think Castle was next, but I didn’t really watch that in order, not sure that will have the same appeal either. Any show needs to end many seasons sooner than it does. Even ones I enjoy. The other shows I’ve watched in more recent years like Parks and Rec and Friends, well, I don’t think those will stand the test of time. I didn’t enjoy them near as much as expected. Television shows are such a “commitment” to me, that I usually (now anyway) see things on Pinterest or clips on YouTube and watch, then I have to feel like starting them.
I’d seen clips and quotes from That 70’s Show years ago, but I wasn’t ready to commit, nor I think able to handle that humor then, don’t get me wrong, Fez almost always crosses the line so far he isn’t even in sight (why couldn’t they have focused more on his naivety and sweetness?!), and there are things the other characters say that bother me too, but oh, my, now, I LOVE this show. And by this I mean the early seasons plus Jackie and Hyde, there are only 6 (5 and 6 are a joke for most characters as they are overused, flattened, or made out of character and their plot-lines are mostly soap operatic) seasons, 7 is a joke (as Jackie and Hyde join the character and plot devolution and soap opera drama) and some stupid fanfic got made into a season unwatched, unmentionable, nightmarish. I think the show should’ve stopped at 4 or 5 after putting Jackie and Hyde together in 3. I don’t like everything in Jackie and Hyde’s relationship (all the drama which is such lazy writing, plus so out of character for Hyde), but wow, overall one of my (if not my) favorite couples ever, I knew they were going to be together before starting the show, and I was shipping them so hard. Of course the writing fell short of this couple’s potential starting at the end of 5 and reappearing again in 6 and then ruining everything later. All this sounds like I hated the show, but I loved the beginning plus Jackie and Hyde so much that the disappointment in the later seasons hurt. So much potential wasted.
Dad bought Avengers: Endgame the day it came out on digital and we watched it that day. I hadn’t cared for Infinity War, I was barely paying attention by the end (probably shouldn’t watch dramatic/action films on my laptop), but I greatly enjoyed this one. And Thor, oh, my. The I got up the next day and watched Spider-Man: Far from Home which was the main reason I’d wanted to watch Engame, while I enjoyed it (although I got there 10-15″ after it started), it didn’t live up to my expectations (this is why I just CAN’T be allowed to look forward to movies!!!). I didn’t care for the plot, it felt kind of “filler.” Plus a bit disappointed in Peter and M.J.’s romance, it felt rushed and not as cute as it should’ve been, perhaps it should’ve been slower and resolved in the next movie.
Now for the books.
Then There Were Five and The Four-Story Mistake by Elizabeth Enright. #2 and #3 of the Melendy family, very charming, possibly a bit lower than middle-grade? Except something sad/scary in #3, so parents should preview first.
The Chief’s Daughter by Rosemary Sutcliff. Another short story, probably the shortest of hers yet.
Ordeal by Innocence by Agatha Christie. Not my fav.
Thornyhold by Mary Stewart. Enjoyable, a bit different than her usual.
I didn’t watch many movies this month, more television mysteries. We geniuses just realized (actually we had to be told), that since my dad has Amazon Prime (for how long I don’t know, probably years including ones when I paid for my own, ouch), we can watch his Prime video. Duh. I don’t love Prime, it’s not worth it to me to pay for it, but since now it’s free, I want to make more of an effort to find things to watch, so I’ve been going through my movie list. Of all the 153 movies I’ve currently checked, about 26 are on Netflix. I discovered Big Country (which I’d not heard of and which I greatly enjoyed) by searching Gregory Peck in the search bar, so I think I should try that option to find more movies/shows not on my list.
A couple movie mysteries. I’m happy to state that I’ve not watched Hallmark in weeks though.
Platinum Blonde. Eh, some funny lines, but overall, eh.
Middlemarch. Interesting (and awkward, I skimmed parts, intentionally awkward, British authors do know how to write some awkward situations, they just happen to be excruciating to watch). A couple of recognized actors or siblings of actors (of course, I feel like I’ve seen every not-super-famous British actor/actress multiple times, it can be interesting, it can be annoying if you know, Fudge is in everything, that actor IS Fudge in everything). I don’t feel it does the book justice AT ALL. I’m now wanting to reread it again.
Monk. I’ve been hearing about this show/meaning to watch it for ages, and I’ve been going through it with my grandparents. It’s so funny and cute, despite being murder mysteries. Thus far, the mystery element hasn’t been great (and that’s saying a lot, I’ve watched Hallmark mysteries), but at least it hasn’t scared me too much. It’s the characters who are interesting. We started at the beginning which was made in 2002, but which if I didn’t know it, I would have said the 90’s since apparently 90’s styles extended into the early 2000’s (ugh). Apparently, 90’s is resurfacing too, but in cuter ways (scrunchies, I still cringe a little though).
The Story of Us. Adorable
Love, Romance, and Chocolate. Adorable
Hannah’s Law. The has to be one of the dumbest movies Hallmark has ever made. It tried to be a prequel to famous Westerns (just no). And Doc Holliday (see what I mean?) had the worst fake Southern accent I’ve ever heard (also, did such a “courtly” Southern accent, the one he was aiming for, ever exist? I suppose it could’ve, accents have changed so much even in the last 80 years, considering how different people sound in old movies).
The Darkest Hour. I resisted watching this because I wanted a better understanding, but then caved, and asked questions the whole time, and felt that I didn’t get the whole picture/force. I’d prefer to study WWII more in depth. Also, I CANNOT stand historical fiction in movies purporting to display historical fact, and there were a lot of things that didn’t fit in the time period or in the emphasis they gave (the secretary’s role for example and the scene on the train, which was absurdly long). I also though it was a tad melodramatic rather than the appropriate oppressively serious. I’m a bit touchy where the WW’s are concerned, I feel that they’ve been, I don’t know commercialized/glorified/generalized (?) in public consciousness, at least in America and at least the European front (no one in their right mind could glorify the Pacific, but I think it’s been sanitized).
The King’s Speech. This seemed goofy after the above film. Colin Firth wasn’t at a good match for the prince/king (especially compared to the actor in the above), and he’s just not my favorite.
My Man Godfrey. William Powell is brilliant. This is hilarious.
The Big Country. This is definitely more of my style Western, definite moral framework, tons of things to discuss. I wanted to rewatch it again right away, I wish I had.
- Wish Peck could’ve made more of a firm character, I found Heston sexier. Although his standing up to Leech and then that brat Patricia was more of what I wanted, he was too genial about the other things or too quiet or something. The horse thing was foolish (I would say cowardly, he shouldn’t have minded that).
- I appreciate the definite morals but above
- I think Charleston Heston might’ve been the Matthew McConaughey of that period . . . I’ve only seen him in two movies but he’s had a shirtless scene in both.
- Sea Captain? Don’t you filmmakers know that sea captains were as coarse and violent as cowboys, if not worse? Make him an army officer or something, the jokes and jibes and his looks and attitude would’ve made more sense; he was too gentlemanly.
- Don’t understand what McKay and Patricia had, they had no chemistry; pretty obvious that wasn’t going to last. Patricia was a whiny, childish, shallow, vain, selfish, brat only caring for show (which is, gasp, actually cowardice). Not sure why Leech would’ve cared for her either. Patricia and Julie being friends didn’t make sense either.
- Buck is a louse. I also dislike that Leech forced a kiss on Patricia, made him look too much like Buck, but Buck looked like he was going to rape Julie.
- I feel like the feud is never explained, I feel like there needs to be a deeper reason, a woman, a death, or something those men were fighting over.
- I also wasn’t satisfied with the end. What happened to Leech? The main couple just rides off into the sunset without dealing with the wreckage (which granted isn’t their fault, but seems a little callous considering that they are supposed to be the moral characters).
Once again, Hallmark craze (or just laziness) takes over.
Jingle Around the Clock. Cute except for a period of slanderous jumping to conclusions.
A Midnight Kiss. He acted, she was non-human. And the writing/plot was dull.
Winter Castle. Cute.
One Winter Proposal. Cute. This was a sequel and actually ended up good. It won’t beat the first, but it was decent (my only Hallmark sequels previously, that I can remember, were the awful All of My Heart ones)
A Winter Princess. Cute.
Winter Love Story. The girl who plays in this always plays whiny, selfish, bratty, petty idiots. This was no exception.
Snowcoming. The girl in here is an awful actress and the couple had NO chemistry which is too bad since this had the possibility to be good with better acting and writing, the concept was really sweet.
The Shop Around the Corner. I’d been meaning to watch this, but our library didn’t have it; I watched it on Google Play with a $0.99 deal (I watched You’ve Got Mail and now I need to watch In the Good Old Summertime). Um, I adore watching Jimmy Stuart, he is so handsome (until he aged to ancient in his 40’s!), but man, the girl is this is AWFUL. She’s shallow, petty, cruel, doesn’t look his age, she’s not pretty, yet she is absolutely cruel and snotty and bullying to him about his looks and mind and worth. And he still likes her and wants to be with her?! Definitely disappointing.
I’m going to leave off Hallmark so I can do a larger Christmas post of them
The Philadelpia Story. My sister-in-law mentioned how funny this was, so I was rather disappointed. I didn’t find it all that funny. There were a few funny bits, but most of it was boring, and some parts made be angry (e.g. her absolutely horrid father who blames her for his immorality).
Breakfast at Tiffany’s. This was interesting and funny in parts a bit tedious in others. Paul is basically the Ken doll in human form. Okay, not that bad, I found him attractive. But yes, Ken. I think the movies should’ve ended before it did (a bit after her brother dies if not before); Holly ends up looking rather rotten at the end. Skipped Mickey Rooney’s racist scenes.
Some Like it Hot. Funny, and oh, my word, uncomfortable. A couple of not-very-brave and possibly not very bright musicians (well, Joe’s not, Joe was quite clever when he wanted, the lies that boy told to get Sugar to chase him and to kiss him more . . . Jerry on the other hand, Jerry was demented) witness a mass gang machine gun murder (please, not this is NOT what I expected, I thought like one person was shot with like a pistol or something, so just FYI, and this happens twice!!). So these guys (and to heighten the ludicrousness of it, the filmmakers picked the most manly built guys ever, broad shoulders, muscular limbs) dress up like women to escape. And of course they both are interested in the same girl (Marilyn Monroe who is, another warning, dressed or rather undressed rather worse than a tramp . . . if you think modern movies are bad . . . ). . . and are rather creeps. I thought it funny, but not hysterical, not a favorite.
The Lego Batman Movie. Fairly funny (in a super goofy way) at first, then tedious and sanctimonious for the rest.
I’ve sure been hitting my vintage stride. Hallmark has bored me (which is good considering my embarrassing spree over the last years), and I’ve really been needing comfort movies and classic comedies have been hitting the spot, or rather classic movies period, I just prefer the comedies, so I’m going to try to load up on more.
Mr. Deeds Goes to Town. Both sad and boring, but oh, my, young Gary Cooper is stunning. Also, he looks like Jason Isaacs, so so much.
Monkey Business. Absolutely hysterical. Cary Grant is a comedy genius (definitely like him better now that I’ve seen and understood him in his best role type instead of comparing him to the dreamy Gregory Peck or handsome sweetheart Jimmy Stuart or the appealing Peter O’Toole who are my romantic favorites). I definitely want to own this one.
How to Marry a Millionaire. Not as nearly as hilarious, but still fun.
To Have and Have Not. A sort of different version of Casablanca. I liked it slightly better, but rather boring still. Bacall and Bogart together, yes, definitely iconic.
The Big Sleep. This and Dark Passage were my favorites of the Bogart/Bacall pairing. I think that this was the better movie, but I actually think I liked the other better or at the least romance was better in Dark Passage. Bogart is better in this murder mystery stories. He’ll never be a crush or a favorite, but I understand better his iconic status
Key Largo. Boring and too many horrible death of innocents.
Dark Passage. See notes above.
Pearl in Paradise. Eh.
Falling for You. Cute.
Under the Autumn Moon. Eh.
Love in Design. Not one of the better Hallmarks.
To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before. I like some of it better than the book. Peter, for example, he seemed like a nice kid. In the book he seemed like a two-faced player who’d never really change). Laura Jean came across sweeter in the book; she seemed more selfish and mean in the movie. Of course, I’m not crazy about somewhat realistic high-school relationships. Super uncomfortable about some of the stuff that goes on there. And overall, the message/plot/movie is silly.
10 Things I Hate About You. Hilarious and yet so, so sweet in parts.
She’s the Man. We were screaming with laughter, and I was cringing and hiding my eyes at the unbelievable awkwardness. And young Channing Tatum playing soccer. Oh. my. stars.
You Again. This was so funny in parts. But I didn’t like the sappy ending (maybe sour grapes because I don’t like the people who seem to get everything their way, but seriously, it wasn’t satisfactory plot-wise).
Gaslight. Too scary and yet too boring for me.
Designing Woman. This was quite funny. I hadn’t seen Lauren Bacall before, and she looks way different than any pictures I’d seen. She and Gregory Peck don’t match at all in looks. He is fine featured, she is huge featured, and her deep voice takes away from him. Also, I think I prefer him, in shall we say, more gentlemanly roles. I’d still watch again though.
I was trying to find some goal and planning resources and happened across Lavendaire. I love her aesthetic, it is so feminine and soothing; sometimes planning resources can be more hardcore and masculine seeming with bold fonts and colors. I’m absolutely buying her Artist of Life book for next year.
Clips from Friends. I’m not a television person, but since I have a huge diatribe below, I keep this short. I just wanted to watch the highlights after I started looking up Chandler who is definitely my soulmate. I remembered I’d got him when I took a Friends quiz ages back, and I think one my siblings said I was Monica. So I’m like him and should marry him?
The Greatest Showman. Fun for one watch, but the music and some scenes (belong to certain songs) are worth re-watching. But the sound seemed weird, reminiscent of La La Land; to me it sounded like some of the voices were suppressed in comparison to the music. I also didn’t feel that most of the singers were the best chosen (especially Hugh Jackman, ugh, although he wasn’t as bad as in Les Mis because Les Mis weirdly has everything sung/chanted), I want super strong voices, although with what seemed to me the technical suppression, it was hard to tell what full intensity could be. Also, I felt that when I listened to “Rewrite the Stars” Zendaya’s voice was more suppressed than Zach’s. I’ve only heard her in in Disney’s Shake It Up, but for some reason I had the impression her voice was stronger than that. I felt that the actress who played Jenny Lind had the best voice or at least wasn’t suppressed/auto-tuned to the same degree the others were. The inconsistency in voice quality, auto-tuning, and sound balance irritates me in modern musical film (e.g. the ludicrous difference between the soaring voices of Raoul and Christine in Phantom and Gerard Butler’s pitiful “singing” which I was totally judging against Ramin Karimloo, no one could win against him I know, but Butler’s singing was excruciating). I don’t like when huge stars are chosen for essential who cannot sing (Emma Watson, Gerard Butler), but the film-makers will. not. use voice-overs. You will shorten songs (in a iconic musical?!) and auto-tune (again, in an iconic musical?!), but using a real singer’s voice is just too, what? Good of an idea? End of musicals rant.
Black Panther. Rather boring.
27 Dresses. This was fun for one watch but quite shallow.
To Kill a Mockingbird. I missed a bit and as with many older or more serious movies, I need to watch again to soak in everything. I want to re-read the book too.
My sisters found a set of the first four Thin Man movies at Barnes and Noble, so we have been re-watching those and introduced my married sister and her husband to them. Nick and Nora are just a scream sometimes.
I have fallen off watching Hallmark mostly because Mom stopped, thank goodness. I would come home from work with no motivation and will-power and just agree every time she asked. I hope this lasts.
For my third free streaming trial recently, I tried Netflix again. When I had Amazon Prime and Netflix ages ago (maybe at the same time for a short period, I’m not sure), I always thought Netflix had more choices, but I don’t think they do anymore, maybe because they are focusing on their own films and shows. Anyway, definitely not for me either, most of what I would watch was stuff I’d already seen, and I didn’t try to look up old movies (my list is intimidatingly long). I did luck out on Thor.
How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days. Rather like a dirtier Hallmark movie.
13 Going on 30. This was cute although I wish Mark Ruffalo’s (he was so adorkable) character was in it more and there were more romantic scenes.
Part of Doctor Srange. Cumberbatch drew me in, but then I got bored.
Part of Breakfast at Tiffany’s. I wasn’t super inspired to finish and Netflix shut down or shut down on me on my last day. I do want to finish, but I doubt it will be a favorite.
Ken, I mean Paul while handsome, isn’t Peter O’Toole or Gregory Peck, and I prefer Hepburn’s more innocent characters.
Thor Ragnarok. I hated the preview. While by this time, I wasn’t expecting to hate it, I didn’t think I’d like it. These low expectations probably made way for me really enjoying it. I rewatched it in the same week.
Leap Year. I love this movie, but I need to stop watching it for awhile. I’ve watched it three times in the last two years.
I re-watched Sherlock and then rage quite before the fourth season (which I’ve never seen). I’m not besotted with Benedict Cumberbatch like I was when I first watched the first two seasons. I don’t think they are near as clever nor as subtle and understated (yes, I thought they were subtle and understated and refined and all that jazz; I was early twenties and so very un-subtle and awkward myself, I think I can be excused). However, they ARE clever (the first two seasons) in such a quotable way.
Before the third season, I had fun re-watching them and looking at them through cooler adult eyes. I can also understand more (the first two seasons clearly weren’t marketed toward U.S. audiences and although I’d seen many period dramas, I had trouble understanding modern British speech as I suppose they weren’t making an effort to be understood). I understanding why I fell so hard for Sherlock/Cumberbatch (in Doctor Strange, he could draw me, the old magic was still there, but it didn’t last; partially probably because his horrible American accent (not his job at it, just the accent he had)
The third season is as bad as a remember although not quite the shock to my senses it was when I first watched it. Because I’m thoroughly over the lure of the series, and I’m not sure I was quite then or I hadn’t re-watched the first two seasons to awake a bit more to the reality of the drama, meaning the contrast between the first two and the third is not as great, unfortunately, as I thought then. The first and last episode of the third series are truly dreadful in the mediocre, melodramatic, abysmal ludicrousness. I remember reading a blogger describe how in the fourth Pirates Jack is a caricature of himself (how much more so in the fifth then?!), well that describes Sherlock in this season. The second episode has a good bit of a mystery, but not enough.
Despicable Me 2. We did a family pool night Saturday and watched a movie/by in the pool. We were going to watch Captain America: Civil War, but because we were impatient we wanted to start a movie before it was truly dark enough to see the screen properly and choose the animated movie to see better. This was a really fun experience. Then my youngest sisters and Dad almost immediately watched Thor: Ragnarok, inside though.