So while Magic Mike held up to a second viewing, this movie did not, alas. Matt fell asleep in the middle and I was not nearly so charmed as the first time. But Charlize Theron’s costumes were still fabulous.
Cost: $3.00
Where: Kennedy School
So while Magic Mike held up to a second viewing, this movie did not, alas. Matt fell asleep in the middle and I was not nearly so charmed as the first time. But Charlize Theron’s costumes were still fabulous.
Cost: $3.00
Where: Kennedy School
So what if your teenage daughter wants to see Magic Mike? I say let her. It has some pretty good messages going for it: drugs are not so great, the main female character is pretty awesome, and in general, stripping is not the best way to make a living, even if you are a guy.
Cost: $7.00
Where: Livingroom Theater
*Yes, I
. Yes, I paid matinee prices again. Yes, it was still good. It’s my vacation, dammit, I can see the same movie twice if I want to.
poster from:
This movie had an equal amount of “gross adolescent boy” in it as all of the gross adolescent boy movies, despite the fact that it starred women. There were things I liked about it: the fact that it portrayed that awkward phase of friendship when your friend moves to a different stage than you; the fact the fat girl wasn’t apologetic about being fat; the fact that I laughed a lot. I am looking forward to the evolution into funny movies with women that does not have gross adolescent boy humor and this is a movie on that evolving pathway.
Cost: free from library
Watched: at home.
I really wanted to like this well-acted, beautifully filmed movie by wonderful director Todd Haynes, but it was very esoteric and I was quite tired, making it hard to pay attention. Plus, I don’t know enough about Bob Dylan’s biography to relate it to what was going on onscreen. So I did not like this, but I really, really wanted to.
Cost: free from Libray
Watched: at home.
Except for my teenaged years when I was amazed and delighted at the opulence of the Street of Dreams,* I have always loved small houses. There is something about a tiny space that is comforting to me. Maybe it is that a small space forces people closer together or that in a small space putting things away is both more
necessary (there are fewer places to kick aside your stuff) and also easier. Also, cleaning is a snap.
**The number system broke down in that tumultuous time after college when the relationships weren’t very solid. Was that two week thing that burned out fast Boyfriend #6? The college boyfriend is Boyfriend #5, though I mostly refer to him as “college boyfriend John” and Matt, the current boyfriend doesn’t have a number. He’s either six or probably 10, I would have to take a careful accounting, which is the last thing I want to do, revisit those relationships.
***This prompts dialogue from the movie Singles:
–“He probably has a ponytail right?”
–“He does not have a ponytail”
–“He’s Mr. Sensitive Ponytail Man.”
–“He’s not Mr. Sensitive Ponytail Man.”
I have to say, the most surprising thing about watching Channing Tatum’s movies is that they have all been quite enjoyable. At this point, I’ve seen 11 of them, and they have been fairly different including romantic comedies, dance movies, dramas, action flicks. He hasn’t been pigeonholed into just one role.
The thing I find odd about Channing Tatum is that in still pictures he looks rather goofy. Here’s his current picture on IMDB. His ears stick out, his neck is too large, he’s sort of flat and dumb looking. His two-dimensional static representation, along with his idiotic name, may be the reason I never saw him in a movie until this July.
picture from: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1475594/
It doesn’t help that movie posters tend to overemphasize his physique as in this poster. With his ears and the focus on his abs, he just looks like a goon, and we all know goons can’t act.
poster from: http://www.impawards.com/2011/eagle.html
But can he? I’ve tried to look past my strange infatuation and I think I can say, yes, he can indeed act. He does do a bit too much of acting with the jaw clench, but I don’t think I would have enjoyed as many movies as I have (even ones I thought I would hate like
The Vow and
Dear John) if he had the acting chops of say, Keanu Reeves. (I love Keanu Reeves, but I heard him described once as attending the “Al Gore School of Acting” and I think that description pretty much hits the nail on the head.)
So yes, Channing Tatum is no Laurence Olivier, but he can certainly carry a movie.
And here’s why. In motion, Channing Tatum is hard to look away from. Something about the way he moves holds the eye. He could be dancing, as in
Step Up.
Or fighting in Haywire.
Or wooing his wife in The Vow.
Whatever he is doing, when he is moving, he commands attention. I think that what Channing Tatum might have is a healthy dose of charisma. That charisma has made for a delightful personal film festival.
Okay, so this movie is incredibly awesome in a sort of throwback spy action flick where you don’t really get what’s going on at first, but if you pay attention the whole thing will be revealed. It is gripping from the very first scene and has a lot of really amazing fight scenes that had me gasping and saying “Oh my!” to an empty house because I watched it by myself. Also, the main character is a gorgeous woman who is very fun to watch.
Cost: 2.00 from Videorama.
Location: at home.
ps. DVD extras are quite interesting. Also, I like both of these posters.
poster from: