skip to main |
skip to sidebar
It took three attempts for me to watch this film and properly pay attention to it for this project. But I enjoy this film, so it's odd that I got so distracted. Poorly chosen viewing times I guess.
The plot ties up in a nice little Hollywood bow, which can be infuriating, but I forgive it in this instance, thanks to some subtle surprises in the connections between characters. And child actors who aren't aggressively precocious also help.
It doesn't leave me with much to say about it though. It's a film I enjoy, but not one that I form an emotional resonance with.
Final Thought: Can Ryan Gosling do some more comedies please?
Up Next: The Crow (1994)
The appeal of sports movies baffles me. I don't say that because I don't like them, I say that because it seems that I do like them. I don't actively go out and watch sports matches, but somehow, there is something about sports movies (ones from the 1990s in particular) that can really get me caught up in the film. There's obvious things like wanting the team/player (aka the good guy) to win, and the battle to win is usually very blatantly played out in the championship game or whatever it is that serves as the climax to the film, and the pay off of the good guy winning is satisfied with the definite acknowledgement of a trophy/medal/glory/valuable moral lesson/whatever.
But why do I, someone who doesn't remotely care about actual sports games when they're on TV, care? Good writing and acting is always a contributing factor, but the subject matter is rather removed from my interests. Perhaps I'll have this figured out by the time I watch Remember The Titans.
Recently, I watched the series "Fringe" in its entirety, which stars Joshua Jackson as a mostly concerned and problem solving character. So watching Champions was partly fascinating just to be reminded of just how damn charming he is as an actor. No wonder he was cast. As a child actor, he was pretty great and, cheesy as it is, he gives the film heart.
Final Thought: I don't understand why they thought this film couldn't be called The Mighty Ducks in the UK and Australia...
Up Next: Charade (1963)
Watching Breakfast At Tiffany's makes me wish I had studied the novel at school. I know that the film changes certain plot elements, particularly the ending, but I would be curious to pick apart the book. The films leaves me feeling somewhat similar to how I did when I finished reading "The Catcher In The Rye", except that I loathed that book.
I bought this film because it's one of those classics that I thought I should have. Incidentally, that's the only reason I read "The Catcher In The Rye" at all, because it's labelled a classic and I thought I should. I guess I expected to be more moved by both. In the case of this film though, I didn't leave with a thorough dislike of it. (I really, REALLY don't like "The Catcher In The Rye"). I will admit though that I feel... indifferent. Perhaps it's partly because, gorgeous as Audrey Hepburn was, she does seem a tad miscast as Holly Golightly. The character is superficial and vague, which is hard to believe of Hepburn. I have trouble connecting with narratives where I can't see why I should care about the characters. I think that Breakfast At Tiffany's is a film that I need to watch repeatedly, in order to uncover Holly's substance.
Final Thought: Having grown up listening to Henry Mancini (as mentioned previously), I find the score to this film very familiar and comforting, so I did enjoy that.
Up Next: The Breakfast Club (1985)
