orichalcum: (Default)
Add MemoryShare This Entry
posted by [personal profile] orichalcum at 10:31pm on 14/08/2007 under
So, we were away for the weekend gaming with folks in New Hampshire, which was wonderful, except for the fact that USAirways lost our luggage, caused us to wait for five hours on Friday in Logan airport for it to _not_ arrive, and then, in fact, failed to deliver it until late Monday morning, causing us to be delayed in _leaving_ New Hampshire. I'd rant more at length, but I don't have the energy. I will, however, say that the main thing that took the situation from "this is irritating" to "I'm really glad I'm playing a big tough fighter who does oodles of damage right now, because otherwise I might start destroying actual property" was that the Logan USAirways office dealt with the fact that they lose a lot of people's luggage by refusing to answer the phone. No, they don't have an answering machine or an email address either; they just let it ring and ring, or, sometimes, picked it up and hung up on me. While the national office would quite happily talk to me, they could not get through to their _own_ local luggage office because they wouldn't answer phone calls from their managers. I called 21 times over the course of three days, and not once did I ever talk to someone at Logan successfully. They ignored the frantic message on the computer from their supervisors saying "don't send the luggage out; she's finished her trip and will be back at Logan today."

But seeing folks and gaming with them was awesome, and it was a lovely setting and good food.

Today, in recovery, we went to see

I liked this movie quite a lot. It was sweet, more than anything. Not saccharine, but gently romantic, like a cross between the Princess Bride and the Adventures of Baron Munchausen.

It was a gentleman's movie, and nearly as much a Julian movie as the book was a Julian book, though less poetical. In some ways, that made some of the very adult bits all the more odd; there was a fair amount of sex-related jokes and random fantasy violence.

I liked all the heroic characters and enjoyed all the villains. In my new trend of spotting Questies in movies, I will say that
if someone ever makes a movie about [livejournal.com profile] duskydawn, they should cast Kate Magowan.

Many of the official reviews complained that the plot was too complex and that some characters were miscast. I would vehemently disagree with the first point; if anything, the plot felt too simplified, and you could spot twists and plot points an hour away. As far as the second point, they worked for me, although I feel old seeing Michelle Pfeiffer cast in the "mature woman" role, even if she is 49.

So yeah. It's not great art, I think, but it may well be the movie that has made me happiest all year, and that's no small thing.
Mood:: 'pleased' pleased
location: home
There are 4 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
 
posted by [identity profile] mrmorse.livejournal.com at 04:18am on 15/08/2007
I have a strong desire to have a spoilerific response to your post, but I will honor the spoiler-free label. I sampled the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and absolutely agree with you on both points. I'd go as far as concluding that most reviewers fundamentally don't know what they're talking about.

On the issue of the predictability of the plot, this isn't a plot twist kind of movie. It's a fairy tale, and obeys fairy tale rules. That's not to say that it isn't suspenseful, but if you don't know who the new king will be from the beginning of the movie, you're just not paying attention.

I can't agree with you more about it being the movie that has made me happiest all year. Seeing Stardust made me utterly giddily happy. Seeing it the second time made me utterly giddy from almost before the movie began. I was checking Rotten Tomatoes just before I saw it the second time, and as I was headed out to see it and waiting for it to start, I was working on a righteous rant about how wrong all the critics are. (There may be right critics, but on casual observation the thing that stuck out was how many of them are wrong.) But minutes after the movie began, I was so wrapped up in feeling happy about the movie itself that I just didn't care about the critics any more, and my rant slipped away.

Also, apparently I'm blind when it comes to movie ratings. I have no idea why it's rated PG-13. There's some implied sex, but it's mostly very discreet. And there's some violence, but it is neither particularly graphic nor particularly sustained. And there's no language at all that I noticed. (Unlike the book, which features at least one "naughty" word.)
 
posted by (anonymous) at 05:49pm on 15/08/2007
BTW, thanks so much for lauding this film. I really enjoyed it as well, and basically went because of your praise for it. (I didn't enjoy it as much as you did, I think, but still had a great time.)

--Adam
 
posted by [identity profile] orichalcum.livejournal.com at 05:57pm on 15/08/2007
You're not blind; you just don't have the same narrow view towards sex that the MPAA does. There are at least two instances of extramarital sex, one extremely casual, an unwed pregnancy, open references to homosexuality, and jokes about male genitalia. That hits all of their buttons, pretty much...
 
posted by [identity profile] karakara98.livejournal.com at 02:11pm on 15/08/2007
Send a letter to US Airways and cc the editors of the Boston Globe (and make sure US Airways knows you're doing it)...maybe you can at least get vouchers for a free trip sometime.

April

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
      1 2
 
3 4
 
5
 
6 7 8 9 10 11
 
12 13 14
 
15
 
16 17 18
 
19 20 21 22 23
 
24 25
 
26 27
 
28
 
29
 
30