CHASING LIBERTY--YUCK

I got the next Matthew Goode movie from Netflix yesterday.

Director: Andy Cadiff; Writers: Derek Guiley, David Schneiderman

Stars:Mandy Moore, Matthew Goode and Mark Harmon .

I got the feeling the cast were "phoning in" their parts.

This was one of Matthew Goode's earlier films (2004.)

Chasing Liberty was a terrible movie. The actors were totally unconvincing. They looked as bored as I was. The girl was still a teenager, the guy was a bit older and should have been ashamed of himself. The general premise was stupid. It was just not believable. No heart. No intelligence. Dumb, dumb, dumb. I got the feeling they were rushing through the movie. I am also sure that the only people who would like this movie are 12 year old girls. Maybe not.

Wait, the scenery was good. But probably faked. The best parts of the movie were done by stunt people. So much for that. The bungee jumping was cool. And the crowd scene was awesome. That was it for me.

I can understand what Matthew Goode meant when he said in an interview that Leap Year was just Chasing Liberty all over again. (I see that but disagree.)Many of scenes in Leap Year were repeats of scenes in Chasing Liberty . The big difference is, in Chasing Liberty , these scenes were awful. In fact the whole movie Chasing Liberty was awful.

In Leap Year the the script was well written, the acting was more than good especially Matthew Goode and Amy Adams. That movie showed a great deal more heart & sensitivity. The young people were older and took life a bit more seriously. It was a comedy but touching. Believable. (The only bad thing about Leap Year was the editing and cutting. Too bad.)

So if it snows here for four days like the weather channel predicts, I will be snowed in with Chasing Liberty instead of the next Matthew Goode movie on my Netflix queue. WAAAAAAAAAA

Agatha Christie

Click on title "Agatha Christie" to see internet bio and book list

I've been a long time fan of Agatha Christie. I have a library of all her books. I've read all of them and some of them more than once. She wrote a number of mystery novels and short stories (in collections) and a few other stories under a pen name.

I have decided to read my way through her books starting with the mysteries. (Since I have forgotten most of them or gotten them confused in my head. I'm reading the whole library straight through IN THE ORDER they were written (published.)

I finished THE MYSTERIOUS AFFAIR AT STYLES (1920) her first book which introduced Hercule Poirot, her famous private detective.

What I like about Agatha Christie's books is the lack of description; it's kept to a minimum. I just can't stand too much description. I am not a visual person. I am an auditory person and I prefer to read dialog. I actually hear the dialog in my head as if it were really being spoken.

I also like the fact that Poirot and her other crime solving characters think a lot. (I once submitted a story in a contest and received the comment from the critiquer/judge that my characters spent too much time thinking. I disagree. I like characters who think a lot. I once read a novel that was ALL thinking. So there!)

In Christie's novels, besides talking and thinking, there is very little cliff-hanging adventure/action. I don't like those fast paced thrillers (well, maybe Davinci Code.) Not much suspense. I get too nervous if there is too much suspense.

I perfectly enjoy joining Christie's characters in there English country estates and reading about all their family and friends as they help Poirot solve the mystery.

Agatha Christie's mysteries are amazing in that she gives tons of clues to help the reader guess the culprit, as well as lots of red-herrings (false clues to mislead readers.) In some of the books she actually tells who committed the crime, but most of us read right over those and are surprised at the end that she really DID tell us who did it.

And I have never guessed any of them (except the one that had a list of characters in the front which gave descriptions of all of them. So don't read those lists, they tend to give away too much information.)

I love mysteries. My favorite genre. I read every word and never peak at the end. That would be ruining everything for myself.

They are fun books with nothing scary or gross. So join me in reading your way through Agatha's books.

WATCHMEN

Click on title to see IMBd listing

Watchmen was shown on MAX which doesn’t repeat movies as many times as HBO does. I caught Watchmen a few days ago...missed the beginning and most of the end. (Not a good idea.) I finally got to see it from beginning to end. Whew.

Watchmen is based on a graphic novel about “retired” superheroes that come out of retirement to find the person responsible for killing them one by one.

It’s in “cartoon” cinematography but not animated, except for the usual type of FX used to make a movie more “realistic.”

It’s a GOOD movie. I couldn’t get over how good it is. It’s about 3 hours long, so do what you have to do before you sit down to watch it. (I suggest watching it on a premium channel or a DVD rather than seeing it on a channel with commercial breaks.) It’s rated R, mostly for violence and sexuality.

One thing that makes the movie so good (surprise!) it’s dark but it’s FUNNY! There’s so much satire and parody. Many of the characters look like other actors and characters, i.e., Laurie Juniper looks like Xena and Rorschach sounds like a Clint Eastwood’s character. Another word- play: vicious dogs named Fred and Barney (remember The Flintstones?) The sets are another source of humor, i.e.: the restaurant across the street called Gunga Diner (remember Gunga Din the old old movie?)

I won’t point out anymore humor. No spoilers. But keep and eye and ear out. Take a good look at Jon (he’s the big blue guy.)

The movie is a bit gory. This movie is in a category by itself, but it’s worth seeing for the overall fun of it. It’s not for everyone, especially kids or sissies. Feel free to close your eyes if you can’t stand the sight of assorted mayhem.

One more thing. As you know I am watching my way though sweetie Matthew Goode’s movies. In this, he’s blond; in his fight scenes not one strand of hair gets mussed. I knew it was him from his voice and the fact he’s tall and thin. He has an unrecognizable accent, though. Maybe it was done as humor, but it sounded like an Englishman trying to mix American and German accents and coming up with Irish. (As a matter of fact he sounded, near the end, a bit like Declan his Irish character in Leap Year. And I daresay the Irish had a good laugh at his Irish accent.) It was gratifying to hear him get mean and angry. And actually cuss—he called someone a son-of-a-bitch. So Brits can be macho. Way to go!

The Tudors

The series originally seen on Showtime is now showing on BBC America (cable and satellite) with commercial breaks, and I daresay, it's censored for adult content, but not much. It will probably never make it to network TV or PBS.)

The focus of the story is Henry the VIII played by Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, the good-looking British hunk from Match Point (already reviewed.)

I loved it on Showtime but missed a great deal of it. I was glad to see it on BBC on Wednesday nights at a reasonable hour. It’s done with big screen quality in one- hour episodes. You can see the previous episode the hour before the “new” one in case you miss an episode. I believe there are three seasons, but I’m not sure if BBC will carry all of them. It helps to start from Season 1 and Episode 1 when Henry becomes King. (I think you can see them on the internet, too.)

The acting, costumes and sets are super. It’s emotional without being painful. Literary and artistic but comprehensible. Music is period and unobtrusive, but most scenes are done with no musical background. Exceptional television show. British series often are. Try to catch it. It’s worth watching if you can on watch one episode. It’s spell-binding.

I don’t know how true to history the series is, but Jonathan is beyond good. (I’m running out of superlatives. Groan.) GOOD, truly, GOOD.

You get the message now I love movies and “critique” most of them as good (for lack of a better word.) In fact, I don’t think I’d watch a bad movie just to review it. I’m a reviewer not a critic. I think critics enjoy bad-mouthing movies. Not I.

Match Point 2005

Click on title above to see IMDb info about movie


Director: Woody Allen, Writer: Woody Allen
Stars: Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, Scarlett Johansson, Emily Mortimer, and Matthew Goode

Story is about a former tennis pro who falls for a sexy American girl who happens to be involved with his friend and soon-to-be brother-in-law. It takes him into a world he has never know before. Most of the movie is about falling deeper and deeper into that world. Does he ever really get out?

There's not much more I can say about this movie other than pointing to the list of nominations and wins in the film industry. Too many to list here with the acception of the Academy Award nomination for Woody Allen. (See link to these nominations and awards on IMDb.

Previous Woody Allen movies have not been any of my favorite movies--perhaps because of their type of humor. However, this was different (a drama thriller) and one of his best if not his the best. (Woody Allen agreed with this himself. See Wikipedia entry for Match Point.)

This movie was so suspenseful I could hardly stand it. It's impossible to figure out what's going to happen in advance (and I'm usually good at guessing since I'm a writer and have studied various types of writing including screenplays.) I always appreciate a story that keeps me guessing.

Everyone's acting was exceptional. And I got to see my favorite actor Matthew Goode. He's always good. (I don't ever expect to see him do badly in a movie even a bad movie.) Definitely rent and see this one.

See Jonathan Rhys-Myers as Henry the VIII in The Tudors series now being shown on BBC. (as of Jan. 2010.)

Night at the Museum: Battle at the Smithsonian

Click title to see IMDb page for this movie















HBO puts on the same movie a number of times in a month, spreading it out onto all the HBO channels to reach viewers at all times of the day and night.

Recently I have been watching Night at the Museum: Battle at the Smithsonian (2009, Ben Stiller, Hank Azaria, and Amy Adams, Robin Williams,and a large cast of other actors both big and small. (Some were very small--about 2 inches high not to mention the ones in Black and White. (You've got to see it.)

Ben Stiller is Ben Stiller. Sometimes more silly, sometimes less silly as he was in this movie. He's nearly the "straight man" which means setting up the scenes and jokes for the other characters, allowing them to be funny. He's less obnoxious in this movie than in some of his earlier movies. His newer movies seem to have more substance.

I thought the first Night at the Museum was a kid movie and wasn't impressed with it. But I thoroughly enjoyed this sequel. Enough to watch it more than once just for the enjoyment. It's one of the movie sequels that are better than the original.

First of all, the FX graphics and animation were very good. None of it looked goofy or fake. Well, maybe the Einstein bobble heads.

Hank Azaria was the funniest I've ever seen him. In fact, his acting was great. (I really haven't seen him "acting: before, he usually just plays Hank. He's done mostly television but he does well in this movie plus his costumes, the voice--all good. (Bravo, Hank. Hope to see more of that kind of role for you.)

Amy Adams did a great rendition of Amelia Earhart. She did well with speaking like Amelia and only slipped into the "Amy Adams accent" a couple of times. Though, I don't think half* the population would notice. Her clothes looked painted on. (*The men half of the population and some of the women. You know who you are.)

This is a movie worth seeing by kids and adults. Clean fun (whatever that is.)

Catch it on HBO or rent the DVD. (I love Netflix.)

Watchmen

Click title to see IMDb movie info


Oh man. I put Watchmen on my NetFlix queue and then moved it to the end of the list. But tonight I stumbled across it on MAX tonight. Missed the first 40 minutes so I am going to have to watch it again.

All I can say is this is a totally awesome. It's funny though gory. The retired superheros came out of retirement to track down the guy that was killing them off. There were flashback to things that happened when they were superheros in action.

Matthew Goode, again, is unrecognizable, hidden in his character. Blond with an American accent (sort of.) The other actors were unrecognizable, too. The girl in the movie (Malin Akerman) looked so much like Lucy Lawless (who played Xena, Warrior Princess.) Some of the puns, funny dialog, visual jokes are really funny.

One sticks out in my mind. One character asks, "What ever happened to the American Dream?" The other answers, "It came true."

Other tongue-in-cheek humor--the leader of the criminals in prison is a little person, and the Comedian wears a smiley face button (while he was shooting people.)

This movie is not for everyone. Especially not for children. Or squeamish sissies.

But it's a good movie. I say rent it if you like this genre.

Below: Malin Akerman and Matthew Goode (click to enlarge)

Imagine Me and You

As my loyal readers may remember, I fell in love with Leap Year and Matthew Goode's acting. I vowed to watch my way through all of his movies, even those in which he was a supporting actor. I joined NetFlix to expedite that end.

I recently did a review of Matthew Goode's movie Brideshead Revisited and frankly, I wasn't truly impressed with it, nor with Matthew's performance.

Tonight I watched Imagine Me and You (2005) on DVD. I thought it was a romantic comedy. Maybe it's just me being too manic-depressive, but I cried at the end. I realize now that it was a drama with a few laughs in it.

I was happy for the two women falling in love and finding a will and a way to be together. In a romance or a romantic comedy everyone ends up happily-ever-after. But not really this one. It was sad for at least one person. And for me.

It was Matthew Goode's character, Hector. The husband of one of the lead characters. In fact, he himself was one of the leads (is that...tri-stars instead of just co-stars?)

Matthew's performance was overwhelmingly good. Mainly, through his acting, I felt what Hector felt. Once again, in the same way he did in Leap Year, he convinced me that the character was completely real. Goode is a magician as I've said in other posts. He's an amazing actor. He had me in the palm of his hand. He was only 25 or 26 when this was filmed, so think how many more movies he can delight us with in the rest of his career. YES!

This movie was well done so please do watch it. (Even if you cry.) It much more than a comedy/drams It went much deeper than that. (Is that the way with European movies over American? We're spoon-feed movies in America.) And keep watching the start of the credits to see the real end of the movie.

The movie is a study in human nature. Personal. Touching. Believable. The title refers not just to a song, but to the fact that everyone imagines a relationship with a person they admire, including the 11 year old girl.

Both the woman leads in the movie are beautiful. And Matthew is gorgeous. His lovely blue eyes. And sweet smiles of which he has a magnificent repertoire, he a master at subtle but vastly varied facial expression.

I'm going to sign off now. No, not to cry but to watch it again, and as many times as I can before I need to send it back to NetFlix in order to watch the next Matthew Goode movie in my queue.

Incidentally, I told you that I have trouble understanding British accents. In this movie, the young people talk so fast, I found it impossible to listen, read the closed captioning, and watch the beautiful actresses and actor at the same time. That's a very good reason to watch it a time for each aspect.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Oh hell. I wish they would stop putting the end of a movie after the credits start. It's too easy to miss them. So be aware of this and watch it to the real ending. I'm glad I caught it after my second viewing of the movie. You will see a happier Heck. Happier ending for all. I loved Matthew's big smile at the end.

Yes. Good movie. Go for it.

Thanks and appreciation to: Director: Ol Parker, Writer: Ol Parker Stars:Piper Perabo, Lena Headey and Matthew Goode. Rated R. Fox Searchlight Movies.

Sherlock (PBS TV, Masterpiece Theater)

New series on PBS: Sherlock (a 21st century "consulting detective") starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman as Dr. John Watson. EXCELLENT. WONDERFUL. FABULOUS.

I loved the "old" Sherlock, too. But this show is phenomenal.

Cumberbatch is good, fascinating, and strikingly handsome in an exotic way (love that curly hair and blue blue eyes) but Martin Freeman is funny, cute, and a wonderful actor and I adore his Dr. Watson struggling to maintain equilibrium while following along on the radical adventures of the young Sherlock Holmes.

Watch it. It's good.

MORE MORE MORE ! We want more ! Tell BBC and PBS!!!

Brideshead Revisited

I watched the Matthew Goode movie Brideshead Revisited after falling in-love with Matthew, his character Declan and his performance in Leap Year.

First of all, I must say there is no comparison between a comedy and a serious drama, especially if the drama happens to be a rather artistic, British movie, and comedy an America fantasy (which romances happen to be.) American movies might not be the height of artistic endeavor but at least Americans and "Irishmen" know how to show emotions and laugh.

The second thing, I can't get over how different Matthew Goode looks, not just from movie to movie, but scene to scene. Some scenes he looks amazingly exotic, sometimes extremely good looking, in other rather strange with his receding chin, painfully thin physique, and rounded shoulders (are tall people that way because they tried to hide their height when they were growing up?)

Brideshead Revisited is a British movie, indeed, and I think one really has to be British to appreciate it fully. It was a bit dry, if not bland. I was rather disappointed with the lack of emotion (other than the emotions that the characters were feeling but not showing by intent.) Even the sex scene wasn't particularly sexy (at least the British are finally putting sex into their movies.)

The movie was good but not great. Matthew was good but not great. It had a strange flow as if it were a documentary. The scene I liked the most was at the end when Charles comes into the chapel,dips his fingers in the holy water with which, it was revealed, he intended to snuff out the chapel candle. Good for you, Charles, diehard atheist til the end.

Quite frankly, I feel no need to ever see this movie again. I think I will go back to watching Leap Year again and again until I find another Matthew Goode movie (or any movie)I like as much. I think perhaps Matthew'll be better in movies (and even more good-looking) as he gets older.

Another thing I would like to mention. I don't know if the articles on the internet are correct saying that Matthew wasn't happy with his performance in Leap Year, and in fact, didn't like the movie. I find that insulting to the viewers that loved it and/or enjoyed.

Personally, I have something to say about that: "Matthew, you are an actor. To be in the movies you have to be a whore. Not every movie is Shakespeare."

Good and Dead by Jane Langton

Image is from Jane Langton website
.
I just finished reading an early book of Jane Langton's. It is loosely defined as a mystery and Homer Kelley as the sleuth. Good and Dead, about a group of people that all attend the same church.

It's less of a mystery than a study of human nature. Her characters are fascinating with humorous names. They do strange things. They're funny. Funny Ha-Ha, and Funny Strange. The narratives are funny.

And then, Jane's descriptions are rich and poetic. A new way of looking at things. Great metaphors and unique way of looking at things. Her stories are inventive and different. Entertaining and delightful.

It's refreshing to read a book with out a lot of creepy details about death and murder. (A few of the characters in this book die of natural causes.) It's not depressing or gory.

It's fun to read Jane's novels in the order they were written. I read one of the early ones recently (Transcendental Murders) in which Homer meets his wife Mary for the first time. I read the ones where they are a retired couple first, so it was a delight to see how they got together. Homer is a literary scholar and so is Mary. Homer is retired from the District Attorney's office as a law enforcement officer. The theme of the series revolves around people who love and study the New England poets and old American authors.

It's good to read a book from earlier years that doesn't have a lot of technology involved. The library had card files instead of computers to find a book (if you recall what they were.)

None of the characters is calling anyone from a cell phone. In fact, if cell phones had been invented, one of the guys wouldn't have gotten stuck in a snow storm.

So. Get yourself a Jane Langton novel. Enjoy yourself.

Matthew Goode

.
.
.
.
.
SEE WHAT I MEAN ABOUT MATTHEW GOODE NOT EVEN RESEMBLING HIS CHARACTER DECLAN IN LEAP YEAR AT ALL?

Picture one: Declan, Picture 2: Matthew. Picture 3: Even when Matthew is "wearing" his hair and beard like Declan's, he still doesn't look like Declan. Declan was a scruffy, surly Irishman with a broken heart and a grudge. And a rather poor attitude towards life and women, until Anna from Boston came into his life much by accident than desire.

Matthew Goode looks like a young, sweet guy in his pictures. His interviews show a soft spoken, witty man with a British accent.

I am sure Matthew has played characters in other movies where he didn't remotely resemble himself. Like Watchmen for instance. And A Single Man either for that matter.

HOW DOES HE DO THAT?!?

AMAZING.

HE'S MORE OF A MAGICIAN THAN AN ACTOR.

I guess I am one of those women who are attracted to the "bad boys." I prefer Declan to Matthew. No offence intended.

All I can say is thank you to Matthew for creating Declan.

And thanks to the screenwriters. Good script. Good job.

Movies vs. Books

Okay, I admit I am not reading as many books as I used to. I was reading 52 books a year. Average one per week. Except for Diana Gabaldon's which count as three books on my lists. In 2010 I was a bit below that goal. I have a lot of excuses. My grandkids live here...so I'm busy, distracted, interrupted, too tired at night to do anything but fall asleep. I had a serious illness and stroke in 2008 and had to learn how to read again...knew the meanings of the words but read really slow at first. I had open heart surgery and my husband died in 2009. I sit around crying a lot with grief. Going places and doing more, I think. Worrying about getting old. Who me? Never.

So. Watching movies and TV is getting me out of myself for awhile. Does it solve problems or cause them?

Anyway, I read a review someplace about Amy Adams where someone said Amy looked and sounded, in Leap Year, exactly like she did in Enchanted.

WHAT!??!?!

I'm watching Enchanted now and (besides it being a kid movie) Amy Adams isn't even recognizable in Enchanted. Not only doesn't she look and sound the same as Anna in Leap Year, she doesn't even look and sound like Amy Adams.

In Enchanted, I think she sounds and looks more like Brenda in Catch Me If You Can. Except for the braces. I think putting her in Enchanted was akin to casting a grown-up in Wizard of Oz, but okay...

Having mentioned Amy Adams my thoughts jumped right to her costar in Leap Year, Matthew Goode. I realized tonight that I when I said in an earlier blog I have never seen Matthew Goode's other movies, I was wrong. At least I have seen a couple of them. I just never noticed him. First of all, it's that British accent. I simply cannot understand, out of all the accents in the world, the British accent in movies or on TV. At least if I'm in a conversation with a Brit, I can ask them to repeat. I have to rely on closed captioning for British accents. Unfortunately they don't usually have CC on foreign movies (filmed and DVD'd in other than the United States.) And they never have closed captioning in movie theaters. YET.

Anyway, Matthew Goode has had some supporting parts in a few movies and TV shows I have seen. (Inspector Lynley on PBS for one, Match Point.) But he's starred in some artsy movies that I never considered watching. I guess I'll have to go back and try them if even to verify my assertion that he is an amazing actor.

I am sad to say, without that growling, knitted eyebrow look he used in Leap Year, he's really not appealing to me. He's so youthful looking, way too slender, and, what is it? Clean-cut? White-bread? British? And witty to the point of sounding sarcastic. Oh well. It's not like anyone is going to set me up on a blind date with him. (And good since I am old enough to be his mother. In fact, I have kids older than he.)

Regarding Enchanted. Did Amy Adams really do her own singing? (I can't believe she even did her own talking.)

I guess Amy Adams, Matthew Goode (and even Leo Dicaprio) are the lucky ones that will still look 16 when they are 50. Sigh.