Hoff-Man

Went back to uni today for the first "proper" time in several months (well, I've literally been on premises as recently as last week). Was good. Met up with Dennis and Simon for Media Analysis, and Nick for business stuff. Also ran into Chris between classes.

Looks like we'll be straight into some hard work in most subjects shortly, with several assignments etc. due in coming weeks.

The 40 Year-Old Virgin (Take 2)
On second viewing this film comes nowhere near fulfilling the praise I issued it first time around. I don't get why. It was great when I saw it in theatres. Now I honestly believe The Wedding Crashers to be the better movie. The 40 Year-Old Virgin relies on crude humour for it's laughs, and perhaps because they're lazy and not that clever they just aren't funny beyond their first-time "shock value". If you're a virgin to this film, I suggest you watch it. I gave it a B+ before. But if you're going back for round two, might I suggest The Wedding Crashers because even if you've seen it before it just holds up better when any "novelty" has worn off. A strong B-, or 3 out of 5, would be a weak B- or even a strong C+ but I liked it a lot before so I guess maybe a third viewing would be required for me to confidently downgrade it further. Carell is still really awesome in it.

B-

Crash (Take 2 also)
This movie suffered from the same problems as before on second viewing, most notably in that the script cheats in being way too contrivedwith regards to the meetings between characters as a means of characterisation. However, because I was expecting this, I at least wasn't as distracted as I had been watching this movie the first time when I had such thoughts constantly weighing on my mind, and as such liked it a little better this time. After some thought, it's still a B+ movie: really good drama, some well-placed humour, great music (though overused a tad in the third act), solid all-round performances, and overall just a really nicely directed picture. But for the love of God: Ryan Phillipe pulling over Terrence Howard, followed by Phillipe meeting Howard again a day later in extreme circumstances so each can better be "characterised", and then Howard stopping to throw stuff on a burning car as a way to finish his story when it had earlier been Phillipe who had lit the fire (on the same day as their second meeting) is just one story-example of the types of things that lead me to wonder how much people are really willing to let fly them by in their desperate search of something to label a masterpiece so they feel more satisfied at thinking they've seen one.

This movie doesn't leave room for the audience to think for themselves. It tells, with little or no subtlety. And it's far-fetched because, unlike a top-notch web of life drama like Magnolia (the only reason why I compare the two, they are certainly way different), it relies too heavily (read: "lazily") on characters interacting with each other - no matter how contrived their meetings are - to characterise them, as opposed to PT Anderson's success in developing his film through each character's individual stories which occasionally, and only ever on one-occasion per "meeting combination" beyond characters who regularly meet in their lives because of their relationships, intertwining (thus to a believable extent in a town that big).

I respect it on so many levels, and at the same time resent it for its dumbing down of its subject matter and of course, as described above, its subsequent handling of it. A B+ or 4 out of 5 for trying to be something great and to a large extent succeeding; but no way does it enter A-territory due to the significance of its shortcomings. And on principle I can't go higher because of those flaws.

B+

While I'm not quite as harsh as this guy, I agree to some extent. It's worth a read:
Miami Herald commentary

Capote (1st Viewing)
Running out of time to write stuff... um....

The character of Truman Capote reminded me a lot of T.E. Lawrence in Lawrence Of Arabia; not because both are rather effeminate, but because of the way in which as the inner-workings of Capote gradually unravel, becoming more and more complex until the film reaches a point where it has, thanks both to it's screenplay and (in my opinion to a lesser extent) the great performance by Hoff-Man, essentially crafted one of the deepest and most human characters perhaps ever portrayed on-screen. I didn't however feel that the rest of the movie lived up to that though and while I stress that it's definitely better than Walk The Line and was certainly impressive for me in that I didn't mind it being a bio-pic (I hate the conventional "template" way Hollywood normally does them, as observable in both Walk The Line and the structurally-identical and equally shallow Ray) I'm going to have no give it no better than an uber-strong B grade, or 3.5 out of 5.

B. In case you missed it the first time.

Actually I'm doing what Dennis does and shoving grades at the end, in case people want to skim (which is fair enough).

I haven't yet seen Good Night, And Good Luck or Brokeback Mountain, but so far I'm hoping Munich (A-) will take out the top honours at the Oscars in the Best Picture category; and there's enough hugh-profile support over in the States right now for such an upset to be on the cards...