Kitty's Corner

It's seldom I review movies I haven't seen in the cinema. Mostly because I watch a lot of DVDs, and this blog would end up as a movie blog only if I reviewed all the movies I'm watching. But the other day I bought "Requiem for a Dream" - and several people both here and IRL told me that it was a good and very strong movie - and I was requested to review it.

I watched the movie on Friday night - and after having seen it, I decided to wait a few days with my review. It is indeed a very powerful movie, that leaves both goosebumps and a huge impression of desperation.

For those of you who don't know the movie, it tells the story of four people, connected either through blood or some kind of personal relationship, whether it be family, girlfriend, or business partner. All of the four characters have drugs affect their lives, which eventually take over their lives. The movie documents how for each of the 4 people are effected and eroded by drugs.

The actors played very well - but I feel like pointing out one of the actors, namely Ellen Burstyn, who plays the mother of one of the characters. She got nominated for an Oscar as best actress in 2001, but didn't get it. I'd say she deserved it - she really played a convincing role! (Julia Roberts got the Oscar for her role as Erin Brockovich).

I've wondered what it is that makes this movie so strong, because it is not "just" the stories of the four described persons. The combination of slow and fast motion shots and extreme close-ups influence more than I first realized when I saw it. The film leads the audience down a spiral of addiction until the very end of it, which features a montage of graphically intense scenes and images. I've never watched anything as intense as that - and it took me a while of gazing at the roll-up titles before I turned off my computer.

If you're easily shocked, squeamish, or upset, don't watch it. If you only like movies that take you to a happy place, stay away. There's no happy endings in Requiem for a Dream.

I like happy endings. I like positive movies. I like a lot of things that this movie just don't provide. But I think this movie is important - so even though it might take a long while before I watch it again, I'll give it out of 6.

This Sunday there was half price on all movies in the cinema. I had to take advantage of that, and checked the list of titles they were showing. Unfortunately there wasn't any of the "real big movies" up - but since I love going to the movies, I chose to watch a couple of movies I intended to rent on DVD later.

One of them was "Fame".

Let me say right away that I haven't seen the original Fame, that was made in 1980, so I can't compare the two.

Take thousands of teenagers that are united by the same dream: attending the New York High School of the Performing Arts. Over 10,000 auditions, and only 200 places - the competition is hard from the beginning. Every student thinks that he or she has a special talent and from there the culture reeks with everyone's sweaty desire to accomplish the impossible goal: The desire for fame.

What did I expect? I expected to be entertained, I expected to hear some great music and see some great dancing.

Did I get what I expect? Well, not entirely. I mean, the music was kinda dull - and the acting was really bad, in my opinion. The dancing was great, and I loved the last scene, where the kids graduate with a huge show.

One of the problems with this movie is the character development - or lack thereof. There is so much going on and time passes so fast that you don't really get to see much development of many of the characters. I understand there is only so much time in the movie, but that could have been resolved by reducing the number of "lead" characters from - what? - ten, to maybe half. If you reduced the number of people we had to keep track of, we'd be able to see more how those characters evolve, and care more about them in the end.

Oh yeah, the movie gave lovely Megan Mullally a little comeback. I loved her as Karen Walker in Will and Grace. She didn't do much for me in "Fame" though. But it was nice seeing her again!

All in all Fame was a disappointment - I'm glad I only paid half price for the ticket.

I think I'll check if the local DVD store has the original "Fame" at a fair price. It'd be cool to watch that!

And no - I don't remember any of the lead characters' names.

out of 6.

I went to see a movie I've been waiting to hit the cinemas for a while, namely "The Girl who played with Fire". The film is the second of a trilogy; I reviewed the first film, Men who hate women, earlier this year. I gave it 5 stars out of 6.

The Girl who played with fire takes over where the first film ended. Lisbeth Salander, a small, tattooed, pierced hackergirl suddenly finds herself wanted for 3 murders, that she didn't commit. Some bad guys that are into trafficking and abusing of east European and Russian girls, drug dealing and lots of other scary stuff is paid by some of really bad guys to get rid of her.

Mikael Blomqvist, the journalist whose life she saved in the first movie, is trying to help. He is involved because two of the persons who were murdered was actually journalists, and writing about trafficking for his magazine.

Let me say it like this: People who didn't either read the books or saw the first film doesn't need to spend money on this movie. The plot is too weak, and assumes that you know what the first movie was about. There's not much "catching up" for newcomers. The movie uses way too little time on the interesting subject trafficking can be - it would be easy to spend more time on this topic!

The interaction between the two main characters were almost non existing - and that is a mistake in my opinion. The sullen goth hacker girl looses her charm when she doesn't have the journalist to play up to. And the journalist is just plain boring without her.

out of 6.

(PS. The last part of the trilogy is planned to hit the cinemas in November. I loved the book, but I'm afraid the movie is just as disappointing as this one. )

As some of you might know, I got a new job last year. I've had it for 9 months now, so it's kind of wrong to keep calling it a "new job"! Anyway, when I started there, I had myself a new laptop, a huge motherf*cker of a computer! They call it a multimedia centre - it plays music, CDs, DVDs, and Blu-Ray. It has a built in TV-tuner - so I can watch TV on it also - which I don't.

Anyway - I hardly ever turn on my TV, not even for watching DVDs. I watch them on my "lap"top instead.

So - I went to the DVD store to buy a few movies. I found a couple of interesting ones, and then I suddenly stood by the Blu-Ray shelf, just to check what they had. I've been curious if the format is as good as they claim.

The first one I laid eyes on was "PS. I love you", a romantic movie, that is also on my top 5 list of Movies that made me cry (click link to read the list)...

The difference in price on the DVD and the Blu-Ray was DKK 100 (13.4Eur) - but since I already knew that I absolutely love this movie, I decided to buy it and check out if Blu-Ray is really worth the extra money.

So, that evening I turned on the computer, made sure that there were cold Pepsis in the fridge, and lots of Kleenex nearby. I inserted the BluRay and leaned back - only to find out that the HP QuickPlay needed an update to play the disc.
After what seemed like forever I had the update downloaded and installed. I leaned back one more time, turned up the volume, and let the movie begin.

Okay, let me say right away - the quality is better. Much much better! There's nothing blurry or not sharp at all when you're watching a movie in Blu-Ray format.

The other things I've read should be better with this format is the sound quality. In order to judge that, I'll have to compare directly - which I couldn't because I don't have this movie on DVD. But I doubt it's so evident that I'll be willing to pay extra for it. Remember that I watch it on a computer, there's nothing fancy like surround sound or something like that available for me.

The last thing that should be better, is the access to menus while watching the movie, but I couldn't see any difference in that. Whether it's the HP QuickPlayer's fault or the disc's - I do not know. But fact is that it looked exactly like when I am playing a DVD.

There was one thing, that weighed heavily on the negative side of the scale. It wasn't possible to "speed up" the movie. I could only jump from chapter to chapter, I couldn't press the "fast forward"-button. And that's a huge minus in my book!

So - all in all - I'll keep buying my movies on DVD while it's still an option. That means I can buy more for the same amount of money. :yay: