Usually November is a huge movie-watching month for me thanks to maxing out on AFI Fest (last year I think I saw upwards of 15-20 films at the festival), but I cut back significantly this year, skipping midnights and not planning more than two programs per day, which also included a number of shorts programs. So I only ended up with six features from the fest, which was a much more manageable number for me this year. I’ve largely used the same brief reviews I posted earlier on Row Three (some slightly condensed, but not much), but you can also read rundowns of the shorts programs over there if you’re so inclined. Then I was typically late getting all this together, and since I watched relatively few films in December as well, decided to throw those into the same post.

What I Loved

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

I saw the 2D version, in 24fps, and I’m glad I did, so I wouldn’t be distracted/thinking about tech things instead of the story itself. I really enjoyed the film, at least as much if not more than the LOTR films. I was worried about the length, given the snappiness of the book, and they’re definitely giving it a more epic feeling than the novel, but it works. The added and adapted stuff from the LOTR appendices fits well, and ties the story closer to LOTR in nice ways, while still keeping some of the lighter, more humorous tone of The Hobbit. The pacing is much better than I expected, with only a bit of padding/repetitiveness toward the beginning causing me any doubts at all. (NOTE: We went back to see the 48fps version later, and I don’t want to get into here, but you can see my reaction specifically to the technical aspects on Letterboxd.)

2012 USA/New Zealand. Director: Peter Jackson. Starring: Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Ian McKellen, Andy Serkis, Cate Blanchett, Christopher Lee, Ian Holm, Elijah Wood, Stephen Fry, Hugo Weaving.
Seen December 15 at The Rave.

Django Unchained

Any new Tarantino movie is automatically near the top of my anticipated list, and this one was no different. It didn’t disappoint. With Christoph Waltz in his meatiest role since, well, Inglourious Bastards, as a bounty hunter joining forces with freed slave Django (Jamie Foxx) to take down some bounty targets and eventually get Django’s wife back, it’s a Southern-style spaghetti western revenge tale that was bound to tickle my fancy. Everyone is having gleeful fun with this, right down to Leonardo diCaprio’s slimy Southern aristocrat. Tarantino doesn’t shy away from the subject either, with some brutality is sometimes quite difficult to watch (though there’s plenty of the cool kind of violence as well), and just wait until you see what role he’s got for Samuel L. Jackson. The whole cast gives it their all, whether heroes or villains, and though there’s plenty of Tarantino’s signature dialogue and scene-making, it also moves rather faster and seems less self-indulgent on the script side than often is the case. I don’t think it’s the masterpiece that Inglourious Bastards is, but it’s a whole lot of fun, and there’s no arguing that.

2012 USA. Director: Quentin Tarantino. Starring: Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo diCaprio, Kerry Washington, Samuel L. Jackson.
Seen December 26 at The Rave.

Wrong

I was a pretty big fan of Quentin Dupieux’s previous film Rubber, and I may have loved Wrong even more, with its full-blown absurdity bolstered by an ever-so-slightly more substantial story. Dolph Springer wakes up one morning to find his beloved dog missing, an event that sends his already spiraling life even more out of control. Other things he’s dealing with: his workplace is constantly raining (yes, inside the office), his coworkers seem very intent that he doesn’t belong there, his neighbor and seemingly only friend leaves suddenly on a driving trip to find himself or something, the girl at the pizza place seems to have developed an obsession with him, and what’s more, the palm tree in his backyard has mysteriously turned into a pine tree. “There shouldn’t be a pine tree here. It doesn’t make sense.” No, it doesn’t, and neither does anything else in the film – except, as true absurdity should, it sort of does, right down to the eventually-revealed reason for the dog’s disappearance. Everything in the film is wrong, from obvious things like it raining indoors and trees randomly changing types to the ways people interact with each other. It’s a perfect storm of the awkward and nonsensical, and thanks to the deadpan script and actors’ perfect timing throughout, it’s absolutely hilarious even as you feel bad for these people who can’t quite manage to get along in any way that even resembles normalcy. It’s definitely getting my vote for funniest film I’ve seen this year, and I think it’s safe to say that Dupieux is perfectly tapped into my sense of humor.

2012 France. Director: Quentin Dupieux. Starring: Jack Plotnick, Eric Judor, Alexis Dziena, Steve Little, William Fichtner, Regan Burns, Mark Burnham.
Seen November 2 at AFI Fest, Chinese Theatres.

Anna Karenina

I went into this knowing next to nothing about the story of Anna Karenina except that it’s about a scandalous affair in 19th century Russia, and Anna’s fate. I’ve never been particularly interested in the story before, as it sounded dreary and depressing (i.e., stereotypically Russian), but I’ve loved every Joe Wright film I’ve seen, and I’ve seen them all except The Soloist. I figured it would at least be a spectacle worth seeing, and I was sure right about that. Between the sets, costumes, score, and camerawork, I was mesmerized for the entire film. I have no idea how close it is to the novel – I hear people complaining that Wright left Tolstoy behind in making the film, but you know what? I don’t care. This is a gorgeous movie that manages to get across its points about a decadent society and its focus on appearances, the contrast between selfish and selfless love, and the gender inequality of the time while never failing to be visually sumptuous. I was worried about the conceit of having everything on a single set, but it worked completely for me – the long takes sometimes taking us from one place to a completely different place without ever cutting are virtuosic and when the film DOES take a break from the stage-bound set, it’s for good thematic reasons. To me, this is possibly Wright’s best adaptation, because it doesn’t feel so stiflingly bound to the book as Atonement, but rather takes flight with Wright’s imagination, and that’s what I want to see in an adaptation – the director’s vision of what the source material could be cinematically.

2012 UK. Director: Joe Wright. Starring: Keira Knightley, Jude Law, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Domhnall Gleeson, Matthew Macfadyen, Alicia Vikander, Kelly Macdonald, Olivia Williams, Emily Watson, Michelle Dockery.
Seen November 18 at Arclight Hollywood.

Les Miserables

I think I may be enough biased towards this story and music that it would’ve been hard for Tom Hooper to screw it up to the point where I wouldn’t like it. I mean, the version I’ve seen the most is the Royal Albert Hall concert version which isn’t even staged, and it still affects me greatly. But the good news is that Hooper didn’t actually screw it up at all. It’s easy to nitpick if you want (they cut out parts of songs and moved them around; they filmed in intense close-up and shallow focus most of the time; not all the singers are as good as the Broadway counterparts, etc etc etc.), but I’d rather not. Russell Crowe is the weak link voice-wise, and it’s noticeable on his two solos, but he’s actually quite good when interacting with the rest of the cast, even while singing. Amanda Seyfried managed to make me care more about Cosette than I ever have before. Anne Hathaway and Eddie Redmayne ran off with the film, making the most of Hooper’s closeups to put pure raw emotion on screen. Samantha Barks brought the same humanity and expansiveness to Eponine that she did on Broadway. The shooting style is aggressively close-up, but intentionally so – it focuses in on the pain of these people, and their joys, and when a wide shot is needed, Hooper uses them. I was fully moved and taken with the story yet again, and I was quite satisfied.

2012 USA. Director: Tom Hooper. Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Eddie Redmayne, Amanda Seyfried, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter.
Seen December 29 at The Rave.

The Driver

I’d heard that Drive (one of my favorite films of 2011) called back to this film especially among its 1970s and 1980s influences, and that’s absolutely true. The character of The Driver is pretty similar – laconic guy who’s an amazing getaway driver but has to get his hands dirty when a job turns out to be a set-up – plus the opening sequence of Drive is clearly modeled on the opening sequence here. The Driver doesn’t have near the stylistic overload that Drive does, but that’s okay – the aesthetics of this film work for it. Most of the car chases (which are fantastic – it’s amazing to me this film isn’t always mentioned in the company of Bullitt, The French Connection, Ronin, etc., when talking about great car chase movies) are done without music, it’s got a pretty toned down visual style, and pretty straight-forward character dynamics. But yeah, it all works, does what it sets out to do, and is quite satisfying.

1978 USA. Director: Walter Hill. Starring: Ryan O’Neal, Isabelle Adjani, Bruce Dern.
Seen December 9 at home.

In Another Country

The last three AFI Fests have all included films from South Korean filmmaker Hong Sang-soo, and it’s a trend I certainly hope continues, because though he’s virtually unknown here aside from avid festival-goers, his films are consistently delightful and refreshing. In Another Country has a framing device of a young Korean girl writing three versions of a story, each involving a Frenchwoman (Isabelle Huppert) visiting the same Korean seaside town; each time she’s a slightly different character in different circumstances, but with many similar experiences. Hong’s previous film The Day He Arrives was also interested in repetition with variation, but In Another Country feels more finished and polished than that film did. It’s also more broadly funny, with Hong exploiting the language barrier for all its worth (all the characters speak English with each other, as neither French nor Korean is a shared language), but never cheaply or meanly. It’s an utterly charming film that uses character interactions and conversations to drive its ever-so-slight plot (or plots), and Hong’s mastery of conversation-driven scripting is second-to-none. Also, having Huppert on board is never a bad thing. She brings a slight melancholy to her three characters, each of whom is in Korea for a different but not necessarily happy reason, and inquiring curiosity about the folk around her. Even though we’re only with each one of her characters for about twenty minutes, it’s impossible not to be drawn right into her story each time. Meanwhile, the Korean actor who plays the lifeguard matches her in charisma, his upbeat cheerfulness and interest in her overcoming the linguistic and cultural barriers between them. Not a whole lot happens in the film beyond a lot of eating, drinking, and conversation, but it’s never less than enthralling.

2012 South Korea. Director: Hong Sang-Soo. Starring: Isabelle Huppert, Kwon Hye Hyo, Jung Yu Mi, So-ri Moon, Moon Sung Keun.
Seen November 4 at AFI Fest, Chinese Theatres.

Rewatches

One Week (1920; rewatched December 25) – Popped this one in to check the transfer on the Buster Keaton Blu-ray set my wonderful husband gave me for Christmas, and it looks gorgeous. Also, the film is hilarious, with Keaton and his new bride trying to set up a proto-Ikea do-it-yourself house.
Shadow of a Doubt (1942; rewatched December 31) – Of all the films in the Hitchcock Blu-ray set, this is the one I most wanted Jonathan to watch, so we did on the last night of the year. Still great, and the crisp B&W fairly pops out of the screen on Blu-ray.
A Muppet Christmas Carol (1992; rewatched December 25) – One of my all-time favorite Christmas movies, and I haven’t had the chance to watch it in a few years, so we made sure to make time for it this Christmas.

Click here to read on!

In this series, I will take a look at a film releasing in theatres this week and recommend an older/classic film either as a double feature companion (if the new release looks to be worth watching) or a substitute (if it looks like the new release is of the skippable variety). If it’s a double feature suggestion, it’ll be titled “Watch This, THEN That” instead, of course, but they’ll all be under the same category for easy navigation. I’ve had this idea percolating in my head for a while, as a way to highlight and talk about both new and older films, since I enjoy both. As far as which new release I pick any given week, that’s up to my whims and which one lends itself best to double-featuring/replacing. Obviously, if you’re interested in a new release I’ve replaced, feel free to treat it as a double-feature suggestion instead.

New Release: Judd Apatow’s This is 40

I’ll admit upfront that I’m not a big Judd Apatow fan, whether he’s directing or only producing. I did enjoy Freaks and Geeks, but I disliked Knocked Up, Anchorman, and Talladega Nights, thought Superbad and Forgetting Sarah Marshall were just okay, and haven’t seen anything from him since then. I was considering checking out This is 40, though, simply because the one part of Knocked Up I did like was the Paul Rudd/Leslie Mann subplot, about a mismatched couple on the brink of marital disaster as they approach middle age. It had a melancholy, a resonance, and a realistic tint to it that I found utterly lacking in the main plot, and I was curious to see if that translate over to a full-length film focused on these characters.

Now, granted, I haven’t seen it, but I’ve kept a close eye on the reactions from other bloggers I trust, and it hasn’t really been encouraging. It seems the same problems I had with Knocked Up (a shrill and mean-spirited undertone in a story that goes for easy, juvenile laughs more often than real emotions) surface here, just as they seem to in the trailer.

So instead, I’ll recommend an older film about a disintegrating marriage, 1967′s Two for the Road.

Watch This Instead: Stanley Donen’s Two for the Road

Albert Finney and Audrey Hepburn play a long-married couple who have gotten to the point where silence and bickering are their two main modes of communication. As they drive to a party to which neither of them really wants to go, they think back about the entirety of their marriage, considering whether it’s worth it to try to keep going or just break it off. These reminiscences are treated as flashbacks, with the conceit that all of the memories take place as the couple is on a trip somewhere (on “the road,” as in the title), and rather than being signaled normal flashback techniques, the transitions are accomplished by a car passing, which turns out to be their car in another era, on another trip. It may sound gimmicky, but it works beautifully, because it basically collapses time in on itself.

You see, every one of these memories, whether it’s the early joy they took in each other’s company as they were falling in love, or the awkward trips taken in tandem with other couples (one time with one of his ex-girlfriends), or the recent, much more trying trips where fighting and standoffishness had become the order of the day, is in some way “the present,” because they’re all still part of who Finney and Hepburn are as individuals and as a couple. That happy young couple is still part of them, as is the resentful middle-aged couple, and the couple that defines themselves against who they might’ve become with other people. It’s a fascinating concept that I haven’t seen used very much, but really gets at the heart of why marriage breakup stories are so heartbreaking – this is a couple that once delighted in each other and now does not. What happened?

The answers aren’t easy, nor simple, just as they never are in real life. The film focuses almost solely on Finney and Hepburn and depends on their ability to convey different ages and relationship stages through dialogue and subtle facial expressions, and they are more than up to the task. This is one of the most adult films I’ve ever seen, and I mean that in the best way possible – a film that treats not only its characters as adults but its audience as well, and gets at the raw emotional truths that underlie any story that purports to depict or explain the dissolution of a marriage. And yet it never feels dry or hard to watch, but is consistently entertaining and enjoyable, even as you ache for the couple in it.

Two for the Road is available on DVD from Netflix, or as a $2.99 rental from Amazon Instant.

My grand plans to get blogging regularly again over here are still working themselves out, but in the meantime, I recorded an episode of the Movie Club Podcast with a bunch of colleagues from Row Three (and a friend from the Director’s Club Podcast), discussing Walter Hill’s 1978 The Driver and John Frankenheimer’s 1986 52 Pick-Up, two thrillers showcasing the sleazy side of Los Angeles. I hadn’t seen either film before, so it was fun to experience them for the first time and chat about them with Kurt, Andrew, Bob, and Jim.

We did it via Google+ Hangouts and recorded it to YouTube, so you can watch the entire podcast embedded below, or you can click over here for an audio-only version. Or just subscribe to the podcast in iTunes. It’s a sporadic podcast, originally meant to be once a month, but it’s been a bit more spread out than that, thanks to everyone’s schedule, with an ever-changing cast from various websites (usually Row Three and Film Junk, though the Film Junk guys were busy this month). The next one is planned for February, discussing divisive metaphysical love stories Mr. Nobody, The Fountain, and Cloud Atlas.

Four months at a whack here, but really, I haven’t been watching all that much, thanks to sleeping almost all of the time and lacking the attention span for more than 30-minute TV shows when I AM awake (see why here). Interestingly, all of my “loved” films this time around are 2012 films. That’s strange and weird to me, especially since I watched a few “unassailable” classics, but I’m being honest about how I felt about them at the time I watched them. Also, there’s a preponderance of new releases anyway since going to the theatre tends to keep me awake and engaged a bit more right now than watching films at home, so I’ve watched fewer films at home than usual.

What I Loved

Cloud Atlas

I’d heard everything from “mind-blowing masterpiece” to “vapid, messy drivel” about this film coming out of TIFF, so I had no idea what to expect when I went into it. As you may have guessed, I’m far closer to the “mind-blowing masterpiece” side of the scale; in fact, as of right now, it’s sitting atop my Top 2012 Films list. I read the book a couple of months ago in preparation, and I’m sure that affected how I received the film – I didn’t actually love the book, largely because I felt like it was more of an exercise in pastiche, more interested in proving David Mitchell’s chops at imitating different styles of writing and less interested in actually making meaningful connections between the different stories. The movie still has the different styles, but less pronounced (because it’s difficult to get such things as “19th century journal” and “epistolary novel” to translate to film stylistically), and the stories are all intercut with each other, a brilliant way to strengthen and highlight the thematic tissue connecting the stories. Putting the music of the Cloud Atlas Sextet front and center lends the film a symphonic quality heightened by the editing to create something that as a whole is greater than the sum of its parts, which is exactly what I was missing from the book. It’s rare to say, even for a non-book-purist like me, but in this case, the movie is easily better than the book – quite a statement especially for a book that many people have long considered unfilmable. Well done.

2012 USA. Directors: Andy & Lana Wachowski & Tom Tykwer. Starring: Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Doona Bae, Jim Sturgess, Ben Whishaw, Keith David, James D’Arcy, Hugh Grant, Susan Sarandon.
Seen October 27 at AMC Burbank 16.

The Master

I came into The Master with some trepidation, since I’m just about the only person on earth who really disliked There Will Be Blood, and I wasn’t sure if PT Anderson could get back on my good side or not. Thankfully, he did, and while I would say I only “really liked” The Master when first leaving the theatre, thinking back on it and talking about it has raised it my estimation a LOT. I might still like Magnolia (see below) a bit better of PTA’s films, but it’s close, and so far The Master is probably the best movie of the year for me. The interplay between Phoenix and Hoffman is incredible – two actors at the top of their game, playing off their very different styles (and very different characters) against each other. Amy Adams holds her own as well, which I didn’t expect. And the jittery camerawork/focus underscores the story – really, the character study – perfectly. Images, lines, contrasts, outbursts, quiet moments – they’ve all come flooding back to me without warning over the weeks since I saw the movie, and that’s what I call a sign of a great film. Great enough I might be willing to give TWBB another chance. We’ll see.

2012 USA. Director: Paul Thomas Anderson. Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams.
Seen September 15 at Arclight Hollywood.

Argo

With Argo, Ben Affleck cements his career as a director even further, proving that while many of us have lost faith with him as an actor, when he’s behind the camera, he can do little wrong. This time he’s in front of the camera as well, which worried me a little (I didn’t see The Town, which also had him as actor-director), but he comes through in both roles. Taking a side story from the Iran Hostage Crisis of six Americans who managed to escape the embassy and hide out in the Canadian ambassador’s house, Affleck plays an extraction expert whose crazy plan to get them out involves a fake movie for which they will be the fake scouting crew in Tehran. The film’s seemingly unwieldy combination of real-life political thriller (which is highly tense and dramatic) and Hollywood show biz story (which has a good deal of comedy) comes together perfectly, while Affleck and Co’s eye for period ’70s detail puts him right up there with Soderbergh. An old-fashioned thrill ride with a great cast.

2012 USA. Director: Ben Affleck. Starring: Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, John Goodman, Alan Arkin, Victor Garber, Tate Donovan, Clea Duvall, Scoot McNairy.
Seen October 13 at AMC Burbank 16.

Looper

This has been my most-anticipated film ever since I first heard about it more than a year ago, thanks to my abiding love for Rian Johnson films (I loved Brick more than The Brothers Bloom, but they’re both really good), Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and time travel. I successfully avoided almost all the marketing for it, so I went in pretty cold, and I’m glad I did. The story is more about Gordon-Levitt’s character development (thanks to the incursion of his future self in the form of Bruce Willis) than time travel itself – in fact, Johnson actually wisely refrains from getting into the nitty-gritty of the time travel, which keeps the focus squarely on the characters, and I liked that. There are a few plot holes if you analyze the time travel too deeply, but I don’t think they ultimately matter in terms of the character-focused story, and the combination of character drama and action flick with just a touch of sci-fi works really well.

2012 USA. Director: Rian Johnson. Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, Jeff Daniels, Paul Dano, Piper Perabo.
Seen September 29 at AMC Burbank.

Premium Rush

Bike messenger Joseph Gordon-Levitt rides his bike around NYC at breakneck speeds, trying to deliver a life-or-death package, avoid the dirty cop trying to catch him, the real bicycle cop he pissed off, and fight a rival bike messenger for the affections of his girlfriend. And it’s pretty much non-stop adrenaline from start to finish. That’s about all you need to know. This is an old-fashioned B-level genre movie, and it hits every note right. Sure, it’s got nothing deep going on, but it doesn’t try to be any more than it is and for 85 minutes of pure fun, this kind of thing is hard to beat for me. And Michael Shannon is awesome in this kind of no-holds-barred role (he’s always awesome, but he’s all kinds of fun when he really lets loose).

2012 USA. Director: David Koepp. Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Michael Shannon, Dania Ramirez, Sean Kennedy.
Seen August 8 at AMC Burbank.

Click here to read on!

Observant readers may have noticed that the last post on The Frame is dated something like three months ago, which essentially means I’ve been on unannounced hiatus for a while. If you follow me on Twitter or Facebook, there’s a good chance you already know my big news, but as I’m starting to get the writing bug again and want to get back into the blog, a bit of an explanation seemed to be in order. My husband Jonathan and I are expecting our first child next March, so the last few months have been spent doing a lot of sleeping and resting as I get used to sharing my body with another person, and the last few weeks have been spent moving into a new apartment with shorter commutes and bigger rooms for all the baby stuff we’ll be acquiring very soon.

Things seem to be settling into more of a routine now, though, and I’m hoping to at least keep up a little better with movie watching and writing than I have been. We found out a few weeks ago that it’s a girl, and we’re pretty stoked to share our love of everything movies with her. (To the question I’m learning is inevitable: yes, we have a name picked out, but we’re keeping it to ourselves for now.) I’m sure as she grows old enough to start watching movies with us, I’ll be posting more about her and the movies we’re watching with her.

Over the past several months and even years, I’ve essentially stopped watching trailers, at least intentionally. I’ll still generally watch them in theatres, but even then there are a few I’ll cover my eyes for and try to tune out as much as possible (two years ago it was Inception, this year it’s Looper). I almost never seek them out to watch online, or even watch them when they’re posted on sites I regularly read or write for. Once in a while I point out that I’m not watching a trailer (the most recent case is the Cloud Atlas trailer, which dropped yesterday), and I’m usually greeted by a couple of responses. One, people assure me that the trailer in question doesn’t give the plot away or really tell much about the story at all. They assume that I’m not watching because I don’t want to be spoiled, which is indeed a major concern these days, as a lot of trailers get waaaaay too detailed in explaining plots. The other response is to tell me how awesome it is, how it made them really excited to see the movie, and how it would probably really appeal to me. This one assumes that I’m not watching out of indifference, and that watching the trailer would excite me about the movie more than I am, which is apparently not much, since I can’t even drum up enough interest to watch a trailer.

Neither of these is really accurate in principle (though, sure, I also don’t watch trailers known to be spoilery or trailers for movies I have zero interest in watching).

Generally, I don’t decide what movies I want to see based on studio marketing. I decide based on who’s involved in making it, primarily the director, to some extent the actors, writers, source material, etc. I decide based on buzz coming from festival and early screenings. I decide based on general critical reaction (I don’t tend to read full reviews before a movie comes out). Once in a while a trailer may whet my appetite for more, but generally by the time trailers come out, I’ve already decided whether or not I’m interested in seeing a movie. Even the exceptions, like Wreck-It Ralph, which I wasn’t interested in until I saw the trailer, I turned the trailer off as soon as I got a glimpse of what it was going to be. Once I’m sold, I don’t want to see any more.

So why am I averse to seeing them? It’s not primarily because I fear they’ll give away key plot points, though there is that fear especially on big Hollywood films. And it’s not primarily because I’m uninterested in the product they’re presenting. It’s primarily because if I want to see a film, I don’t care to have any visuals or dialogue already in my head when I go in to watch the film. Maybe others can put that out of their head when they see a movie, but I can’t. When we get to a scene in the film that was in the trailer, I instantly think “oh, this is that part that was in the trailer; I already know this part.” It’s still probably funny (or moving, or impactful, or whatever), and I still probably laugh (or cry, or feel gutted, or whatever), but for that split second, I’m out of the movie. I’m not thinking about the movie anymore, I’m thinking about the trailer.

Then I mentally check off that scene from the trailer. “Three down, five more to go.” I’m waiting for those other scenes to happen. I know they’ll come up sometime. When will they be? Oh, hey, this line that sounded like it’s all one piece in the trailer is actually cut from two different scenes. That’s interesting, but it takes me out of the movie as I re-orient myself to the movie’s script. Huh, this line reading sounds different than it did in the trailer; they must’ve used a different take for some reason – which do I like better? Hmmm, we’re getting close to the end of the film, and that one shot from the trailer hasn’t happened yet, wonder when it’s going to turn up? Oh, I bet it’s going to be right here at the climax – yep, there it is, okay, that was kind of anti-climactic since I’d already seen that shot. These are all things I actually thought while watching The Avengers for the first time. Now, granted, this isn’t necessarily a huge deal, and it probably isn’t going to ruin any movies for me – I still loved The Avengers. But I really wish I hadn’t watched the trailers first, because I would’ve liked to have experienced those moments fresh in the film. I’m learning from my indiscretions.

The Cloud Atlas trailer is almost six minutes long. Most trailers are around one and a half to two minutes long, so this one is three times longer than most trailers. Three times as much footage, three times as many visuals, three times as many shots that I’d see out of context, and be waiting to see in the movie. I won’t do that to myself. I don’t really understand why people want to see that much of a movie months before it comes out, why people want that imagery in their heads ahead of time instead of seeing it all as a whole, as it was meant to be experienced, but clearly I’m weird about it. Most people want to watch 5-10 minute clips of movies before they come out, something that’s become increasingly common for studios to release within the week or two leading up to release. And that’s fine, but I avoid those like the plague. It’s not a spoiler thing, I just don’t want them in my head, I don’t want to be waiting for them, I don’t want to be wondering when they’ll turn up. A lot of these, granted, are the opening of the film, which isn’t as big an issue (at least you’re not waiting for it to happen, because it’s right at the beginning), but still, that means when I go see the movie, I’d be seeing stuff I already saw for the first five or ten minutes, and I can’t think why I’d want to do that.

So that’s why I rarely watch trailers anymore, especially when it’s for a movie I already want to see. It rarely adds to my anticipation, it often yields distraction and mild disappointment while watching the movie, and it’s simply not worth it. I’m not that hard-core about it, and unless it’s the rare Inception or Looper where I really do want to go in totally blind, I don’t turn away from trailers in theatres. But I’m not going to seek them out or watch them online, so if you ask me “hey, did you see that awesome trailer for xyz,” the answer is probably no. And I probably don’t care to, so don’t try to convince me.

For the record, this is my favorite trailer of all time (regardless of the eventual quality of the movie):

What’s that you say? A film survey/blogathon about those deep dark secrets we all hide about our moviegoing past and present? Yep, Nostra over at MyFilmViews has put together a nifty little quiz that’s making the rounds this week, and I figured I’d throw my own confessions out there, for better or worse.

Which classic movie don’t you like/can’t enjoy and why?

I enjoy most classic movies, at least ones that anybody cares about, so this is kind of a tough one. I would say that I don’t like Citizen Kane or The Godfather or Apocalypse Now AS MUCH as most people do, but I wouldn’t say I don’t like at all. I might go with The African Queen as one that people acclaim and I thought was pretty dull and average, which especially gets to me because I love both Humphrey Bogart and Katharine Hepburn, and I was expecting to like it a lot more than I did.

Which ten classic movies haven’t you seen yet?

I’ll cheat and pull some from my Blind Spots list (which I’m woefully behind on), and fill in to replace the non-classic films on there:
The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)
Pandora’s Box (1929)
A Place in the Sun (1951)
Tokyo Story (1953)
Stalag 17 (1953)
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958)
Wild Strawberries (1958)
Cool Hand Luke (1967)
Solaris (1972)
The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)

Of course, this list is never-ending. :)

Have you ever sneaked into another movie at the cinema?

One time, in terms of actually doing it and watching the whole second movie, and not that long ago, either (I was such a rebel in my late twenties…) – I paid for Kick-Ass and watched it, then snuck into The Losers and watched it all the way through. I’ve walked into the back of theatres at multiplexes and watched a few seconds/minutes of things fairly often, when I get there early for my movie.

Which actor/actress do you think is overrated?

I’m gonna get raked over the coals for this, but Daniel Day-Lewis. I just can’t get into his performances at all; they’re so big and intense they pull me right out of the movie.

From which big director have you never seen any movie (and why)?

I try to hit all the big name ones, but one that’s eluded me so far is Rainer Werner Fassbinder. As far as why…no reason, really, other than the ’70 and ’80s have generally been blind spots for me – I grew up watching classics (1930s-1960s) and then added in current films in the ’90s, so getting to those ’70s and ’80s has been a slower process. Plus, I’ve never really known where to start with him, and I remember having trouble with Netflix putting his movies into perpetual “saved” mode, back when I had DVDs. So yeah. I currently have Ali: Fear Eats the Soul on my Blind Spots list, so hopefully I’ll be able to locate and watch that one this year.

Which movie do you love, but is generally hated?

Hmmm…hated is such a strong word. And so is love. Heh. Most of the movies that immediately spring to mind (Speed Racer, The Fountain, etc) have a lot of supporters as well as all the detractors. Similarly, most of the films I’d consider guilty pleasures (like Bring It On or Mystery Men) fall into the same category for a lot of other people, so I can’t really say they’re hated. I dunno. Speed Racer. :)

Have you ever been “one of those annoying people” at the cinema?

I remember one time when I was like twelve, maybe? My parents and I were on a family trip and we’d stopped at Sun Valley, Idaho. A theatre there played the 1941 movie Sun Valley Serenade with Sonja Henie on a constant loop, pretty much, and being a classic movie addict, I got my parents to go see it. (I also got them to stay an extra couple of days to watch a professional figure skating competition that was about to take place there, but that’s a different addiction.) The film stars John Payne, who was a pretty common leading man in 1940s programmers (his most well-known film is Miracle on 34th Street, as Maureen O’Hara’s love interest). Anyway, he’s a blander doppleganger for Robert Taylor, and since I hadn’t seen Payne in much before, I was fascinated by how much he looked like Taylor, and I loudly whispered such to my mom OVER AND OVER every time he was on-screen (which was often) until my dad finally shushed me out of respect for the two other people in the theatre. I was so chagrined I’ve barely made a peep in any theatre since then.

Did you ever watch a movie, which you knew in advance would be bad, just because a specific actor/actress was in it? Which one and why?

The entire filmography of Milla Jovovich. Why? *points up*

Did you ever not watch a specific movie because it had subtitles?

No. I may have at times delayed watching a subtitled movie in favor of a non-subtitled one depending on mood or attention span, but I’ve always returned to the subtitled one at a better time.

Are there any movies in your collection that you have had for more than five years and never watched?

I’ve had A Beautiful Mind for a very long time and haven’t watched it. I bought it in the wake of its Oscar win, because I was big on watching Oscar-winners at that time, but then sometime between buying it and watching it, I became wholly disenamoured of Ron Howard and didn’t feel like watching it. I still should at some point, I guess.

Which are the worst movies in your collection and why do you still own them?

Geez, for this I’d have to go look at the boxes I never unpacked after my last move, because I left most of the bad movies packed up. One I know for sure is Daredevil. I actually didn’t hate it when I first saw it, and picked it up from Blockbuster used for like $2 or something. I haven’t watched it all the way through since, but I saw some clips on YouTube not long ago and yeah. I don’t know what I was thinking. Anyway, the reason I still have this and several other bad movies is because I tried to sell them to a second-hand shop, and because a lot of them were rental copies before I got them on the cheap, they were too scratched up for the shop to take them. And I hate throwing things away. So there in the boxes they sit.

Do you have any confessions about your movie watching setup at home?

Well, I’m not sure I have the surround sound hooked up right. But I’m too lazy/unknowledgable to fix it. I know one of the speakers is broken because I just have them on top of DVD shelves and one fell off when I was getting everything set up. Beyond that, not really – I’ve got a pretty good set-up, at least until I can afford a projector. :)

Any other confessions you want to make?

Not really. I’ve done enough, I think.

I‘ve kind of slacked off on listening to the music lately; part of that is that Metric’s new album was released in June, and I’ve kind of had it on repeat. The other part is just that I haven’t felt like listening to much else. In any case, I did find a few albums I thought worth mentioning this month in addition to Metric.

Metric – Synthetica

Frankly, there wasn’t much question in my mind that once Metric’s new album came out, it would leap to the top of my favorites for the month – in fact, most likely for the year. Metric is probably my favorite currently-working band, and I’ve never yet been disappointed by any of their releases. Of course, there’s a first time for everything, but this is not that time. Naming their new album Synthetica seems like a natural move – after all, the band is well-known for their throwback use of New Wave-esque synths. But that’s not all that’s going on here; frontwoman/songwriter Emily Haines has constructed an album about the blurring and distinctions between the real and artificial, embodied life and synthetic detachment. Like most of her lyrics, the power behind these is felt rather than explained, and the music, which harkens back to the entirety of the band’s past as well as pushing forward, matches the evocative lyrics beat for beat. An easy front-runner for my favorite of the year.

Click here to read on!