Film in 2013 | January

Anyone remember me?

I tried, like, five times to write a wrap post for all the movies I watched in 2012 (the button for that list is still in the bar if anyone cares to look; I'll be changing it to the new list soon). But overall, anything I tried to write just became too lengthy & laborious and I ultimately gave up, which is a shame, as I participated in (and failed) the 250 films challenge last year. It seems kinda stupid and useless that I never wrote about it. This year, I won't be doing a numbered challenge but I will continue to record each and every movie that I watch. However, rather than making the mistake of waiting until the end of the year to discuss the movies, I've decided to do an update at the end of the month. These updates may even include new films (but I don't watch them that often) if I find them noteworthy.

Because I watched only eight films this month, I'm going to talk about all of them: the good, the bad, the ugly, etc. And don't forget to leave comments letting me know what you watched this month!

JANUARY 2013 

MODERN TIMES (1936) | Charlie Chaplin, Paulette Goddard | ★★★★★

[Summary] 

I don't think I've mentioned it on here yet, but in the past month, I've become a total Charlie Chaplin junkie. I've finally opened myself up to silents (more on that to come later), and it's all because of Chaplin. I watched City Lights (1931) in December and fell in love. He truly was hilarious, and every performance of his I've seen has resulted in my laughing until my sides were splitting. So, the basic point: I love Charlie Chaplin to bits and pieces. That being said, Modern Times is probably my favorite Chaplin to date. The thing I love about Chaplin is his movies, whilst being ridiculously funny, also have this underlying tone of beauty. The Tramp is imperfection at its greatest perfection; sure, he's a goofball, but there's a childlike humanity to him that creates a lovely morality in each movie. Modern Times is a perfect example: yes, an incredibly hilarious film but also a very moving one. I don't think that the final scene of Modern Times (AND City Lights, while we're on the subject) could fail to make anyone sentimental. I can't say much about this movie that hasn't already been said, but I'll put it to you this way: it truly is all kinds of wonderful, and if you haven't seen it yet, don't be stupid and wait as long as I did. Go watch it now! (If you couldn't tell by the enthusiastic rating - it's definitely a new favorite.)

THE GOLD RUSH (1925) | Charlie Chaplin, Georgia Hale | ★★★★

[Summary] 

Though not as flawless or memorable as Modern Times, The Gold Rush is also a really cute, funny movie. It contains the usual format for Chaplin movies, except this time it's set in Alaska and The Tramp has the hearts for Georgia Hale. Hale didn't have much of a movie career (though I'd say getting to work with Chaplin is an accomplishment to brag about), but like all of Chaplin's leading ladies, is quite beautiful (I feel like silent actresses had the most adorable faces). Anyways, this was a really enjoyable film and if you like Chaplin you'll love this one. A great watch.

ONLY ANGELS HAVE WINGS (1939) | Cary Grant, Jean Arthur, Rita Hayworth | ★★★★

[Summary]

A star studded cast led at the helm by Howard Hawks; not much can really go wrong with this film. The foggy South American setting lends a thrilling environment to the film, and much of the action takes place up in the sky, which gives the movie a tone laden with adventure. All of the major players give great performances; Cary and Jean have wonderful chemistry and Rita, who wasn't yet a star, is enjoyable in her costarring role. 

NO MAN OF HER OWN (1932) | Clark Gable, Carole Lombard | ★★★
[Summary] 

My main reason for watching this movie was because it is the lone collaboration of Gable & Lombard - which is kind of ironic. They were the premiere couple of Golden Age Hollywood, and you would have thought that that studio moguls would've been eager to have them paired up again at some point, especially after getting married. Perhaps if Carole hadn't passed so prematurely. (And Clark was at MGM when Carole wasn't, so I guess it all makes sense.) Anyways, it was on the set of this movie that they met for the first time; but they didn't pull a Lucy-Desi and fall madly in love on the spot. It wasn't until a few years later that they met at a party and the sparks flew. Despite that, their chemistry in this is electric and even more fun because we know what's to come in years later. There is a cute library scene (pictured), where Carole climbs on a ladder to retrieve a book for Clark, and well... the look on his face says it all. (Who doesn't love pre code Hollywood??!!) This is a pretty average film otherwise, and the plot starts to drag towards the end. But it's enjoyable to watch just to see Clark and Carole in their only turn playing across each other, if only for that reason alone.

THE MAGIC CARPET (1951) | Lucille Ball, James Agar | ★★

[Summary]

For Christmas, I received several of Lucy's movies on DVD (because, no matter how bad they are, I want to see them all.) This was one of them. This movie can be noted as the final B movie Lucy made before catapulting to television fame, and there's a interesting story behind it. This was the last film she was obliged to make under contract to Columbia. She was unhappy with Harry Cohn because he had refused to loan her out to Paramount for a role she was being offered in Cecil B. DeMille's The Greatest Show on Earth. He decided to punish her by sticking her with this 'E class' film by the infamous Sam Katzman, expecting her to turn it down. She startled him by agreeing to do the picture.  At the time, she was already pregnant with Lucie Arnaz. The picture was filmed in six days and she collected 85 grand for the film, concluding her contract at Columbia. She made certain that Cohn was not aware of her pregnancy (which would have abruptly ended the contract) until after the movie was completed, in which she called him up on the phone and basically said, "Mr. Cohn, I want you to be the first to know that Desi and I are expecting a baby." Then he called her a bitch. At this point, she had to drop the DeMille film as well, because of her pregnancy. DeMille made a comment to Desi that had all of Hollywood laughing, save the embarrassed Harry Cohn: "Congratulations, Desi. You are the only person in the world to screw Harry Cohn, Columbia Pictures, Paramount, Cecil B. DeMille, and your wife, all at the same time."

HOUR OF THE WOLF (1968) | Max Von Sydow, Liv Ullmann | ★★

[Summary]

It's probably a sin in the film world to criticize the efforts of Ingmar Bergman (God knows that no critic would dare do it), but I'll admit all the while I have yet to become a fan. That being said, it's probably too early in the game for this judgement: I've only seen three of his movies. But all three (Autumn Sonata and Persona are the other two) have been similar in their overly pretentious nature. If you want you can say maybe I'm too 'young' to 'get it', and that's okay with me. If it's any consolation, I don't plan to stop watching Bergman anytime soon (The Seventh Seal, Cries and Whispers, The Wild Strawberries here we come!). Because I have never failed to find one of movies entertaining. Hour of the Wolf is no different from his other escapist dramas, except this one is categorized as a "horror film." Basically, Liv Ullmann and Max Von Sydow talk a lot about the meaning of life in the necessary Bergman setting of a lonely cabin on a Swedish island. Liv reads his diary and is visited by a 176 year old women; Max fantasizes about similar old women (some of whom pull their faces off) men who walk on ceilings, and a naked Ingrid Thulin. Liv Ullmann is a pretty good actress and it's a shame so much of her career was spent making Bergman's pompous propaganda. 

RAINTREE COUNTY (1957) | Elizabeth Taylor, Montgomery Clift, Eva Marie Saint | ★★★

[Summary]

Yet another Gone With the Wind wannabe film, but what drove me to watch it was the excellent cast; besides those pictured above, the cast is joined by the supporting talents of Lee Marvin, Rod Taylor, and Agnes Moorehead. Like any Civil War epic, this movie is also overly long at a three hour time length (Netflix sent it to us on two DVDs). A mostly forgettable film that drags far past its welcome. Something notable about the production is during this filming, Montgomery Clift had his famous car accident while driving home from a party at Elizabeth's house. Elizabeth, her husband at the time, and Rock Hudson traveled to the scene of the accident. She crawled inside the car's back door and relieved Monty of the two front teeth that threatened to choke him. Rock pulled his body from the car and they shielded him from photographers until the ambulance arrived. Most of the film is Monty as he looked after the accident, but there some scenes taken before the incident.

GAME CHANGE (2012) | Julianne Moore, Ed Harris | ★★★★

[Summary]

This movie basically capitalizes on the Republican Party’s choice of choosing Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate in the 2008 election. During the critical sixty days between that pick and Election Night, it demonstrates their original motives that drove their decision (the desire to shake up the campaign; to close the gender gap; bring a fresh face to the ticket so to draw away some of Obama’s attention, etc.) and the preliminary pleasure with their choice which ultimately spirals downward into a string of regrets. (So much so, that the campaign manager, Steve Schmitt, who is among those primarily responsible for picking her, apologizes to McCain on election night: “I’m sorry we chose her.”) Would it be harder for Republicans to like this movie? Okay, yes. But this TV film excellently emphasizes the fact at hand here is that, regardless of party, the compromising of popularity over experience came around to be a decision they regretted, McCain himself admitting that it turned into a campaign he wasn't proud of. Julianne Moore, who has won several awards for this performance, is so effective as Palin - I can't even begin to describe it. It feels as if you are watching Palin herself. Sure, this movie sends Palin into an unflattering light several times (in one scene, she even chucks her Blackberry across the room and in another she has to be explained to that the Queen of England is not the head of state), but Moore plays her so excellently to the extent where there are times where you do sympathize with her. You get the feeling that she is an average person who has placed herself in an extraordinary situation. And even the most ardent Democrat would feel sympathetic for Steve Schmitt and his colleagues who have to prep her for her interviews and the VP debate ("Senator O'Biden?!"). Regardless of your political party, if you concentrate on the overall message of this film, I would encourage you to watch this well produced TV movie. Julianne Moore's performance is near flawless and every detail is intense and entertaining. Definitely one of my favorites of the month. 

Favorite movie of the month | Modern Times (1936)

Favorite performance | Julianne Moore, Game Change (2012)

"It was never uncomplicated... but it was lovely."

Last night I had a rewatching of The Way We Were (1973), and felt inclined to write about it. Even though the year of production is slightly newer than what I'm accustomed to writing about on here, it truly is one of my favorite films. [Warning: there are spoilers.]

The film's appearance on TCM was as one of their Saturday night Essential selections, as chosen by Robert Osborne and the current celebrity programmer, Drew Barrymore. And it really is just that: an essential film. At first glance, it's the kind of movie that may be dismissed as a chick flick or a tearjerker, but that's an unfair judgement, for this movie has more than that lurking under it's surface. It's a beautiful but blunt and sometimes brutal portrait of love; an education for the viewer on why love can't always be easy, or uncomplicated, or enough. The theory that "sometimes love isn't enough" is, in itself, shocking, because we live in a society that idealizes this emotion. Didn't the Beatles sing to us that "love is all you need"? Isn't Valentine's Day, to so many, the pinnacle holiday of the year? But sometimes real life experiences contradict this idea, and The Way We Were paints this contradiction, with the all the bitterness that comes from such a painful reality, perfectly.

It is the story of Hubbell Gardner, portrayed by Robert Redford, and Katie Morosky, played by Barbra Streisand. He is the carefree rich boy who never had to work hard for anything in his life; and she is the Marxist, self proclaimed loudmouth, Jew girl who is overly passionate. The movie begins when Katie runs into Hubbell at a New York affair, circa 1944. Seeing Hubbell having fallen asleep upright in a bar stool, the particular lock of blond hair having fallen across his face, brings back memories to Katie. In a series of flashbacks, we learn their history together, having attended the same college in the 1930s. Their romance never began but the mutual affection is born; despite their polarities and their entirely different crowds, he is attracted to her headstrong qualities and she to his boyish good looks and innate writing skills. When she awakens him in the bar, their relationship begins - they are now real adults, her hair is ironed, but the attractions are all the same - that quickly blossoms into a romance. The film then continues to depict their struggles to stay together that are driven by their opposite personalities and principles. When Hubbell gets a job as a screenwriter, they move to California, but Katie's political protests against the Hollywood blacklist & House of Unamerican Activities jeopardize his career and their marriage.

The movie may use the classic setup of "opposites attract," but it doesn't condone it. There is really no happy ending for Hubbell and Katie: they are too unalike. It is the very things that initially attracted them to each other that eventually drive them apart. The beginning of the movie shows a curly haired Katie, as president of the Young Communists League, making a desperate plea to the university crowd to hear her cause. They jeer her, but the closeups of Hubbell among his laughing friends reveal his admiration for her passion. Whether or not he agrees or cares about what she is saying, it is the way she is saying it, the fervent insistence in her tone, that draws him to her; but later in the movie, it is one of the things that tears them apart.   "You're unhappy unless you do something. Because of me, you're trying to lay out, but that's wrong... wrong for you. Commitment is part of you. Part of what makes you attractive, part of what attracted me to you," he tells her.

It is the same for Katie. The distinctions of his personality, that are so very different from hers, excite her: his easygoing attitude and boyish outlook on life. While she revels in these qualities he has to offer, it is equally frustrating to her. When he insists that she pushes too much, she basically replies by saying she pushes him because she knows how gifted he truly is - as a writer, as a person. His carefree traits create his charm for her, but all the while, she can't understand him. She is a loud person, and cannot agree with Hubbell's tendency to make a joke out of everything, his lack of seriousness; whereas he can't tolerate her expressiveness. In a scene in which they discuss political advocacy, he tells her, "I don't see how you can do it." To this, she, the natural troublemaker, says, "And I don't see how you can't."

It is unfair and complicated paradox: for the same reasons they love each other, they cannot live together. They are split personalities, oil and water, fire and ice. Both are too stubborn in their own personalities to change for the other. There is this idea that a person can change, but can a person really change? No matter how much one may love a person, there are some things that are inborn: they can be wonderful principles or entirely self destructive, but they are there, and it takes hell to change them. And, oftentimes, as this movie tells us, we don't want to change them.

 "Wouldn't it be lovely if we were old?" Katie muses at the end of the movie, when the not too happy ending is near. "We'd have survived all this. Everything would be easy and uncomplicated; the way it was when we were young." She is picturing them as an elderly couple, having weathered the worst of their obstacles, together and content in their old age. Hubbell reminds her that it was never uncomplicated, and to this she says, "It was never uncomplicated... but it was lovely." That's my favorite line of the movie, because to me it summarizes the movie's major theme. It's a bittersweet remembrance of how their relationship from the start was doomed due to their differences, but when they were happy, it was beautiful. This is what drives the whole movie: they strive so hard to be together because of how wonderful is when things are okay, when there aren't any obstacles in their way. 

In the second half of the film, the additional story line of their involvement in the Hollywood blacklist (and the repercussions this has on their marriage) adds another element of substance to this movie. Katie is now pregnant, but in the nine months leading up to the birth of their child, fueled by political angst, their marriage dissolves. "Could you do me a favor," she asks of him. "Could you stay with me until the baby is born?" They have a daughter, but in the hospital room, they are awkward and silent. Katie sits in the bed, tears welling up in her eyes, knowing that it really is the end. Because she is the determined one, the girl who never gives up unless she is forced to, you can see the pain that is being inflicted upon herself for having lost her fight. "Why can't we both win?" she begs at one point in the movie; but Hubbell states the truth when he says as long as they're with each other, they're both going to lose.

The last shot of the film is a few years later, in the 1950s. Katie is picketing in the New York streets for yet another one of her causes, and she spots Hubbell with his new girlfriend. They greet each other with a hug and she invites him over for a drink; Hubbell's girlfriend reminds him they'd better get going, so Katie rushes away. But he goes after her. She brushes the hair out of his face as she always did; he inquires about their daughter, asks her if her new husband is a good father. "Your girl is lovely," she says of his girlfriend. "Won't you bring her over for a drink when you come?" "I can't," he says, and she replies, "I know." They hug, once more, this time slowly, with deep sentiment and resentment of having to let go. They don't speak now, but the embrace is the perfect note to end the movie: it is clear they still love each other, the love is still there, but they have come to understand that they can't live with each other, and their relationship is best left as a memory; the way they were.

I'm a fan of both Redford & Streisand and loved both of their performances. It's not that Hubbell and Katie are always likable characters. In fact, much of the time, they aren't. Katie is over emotional, high strung and a drama queen - it is to her that the tearjerker lines are given. But Hubbell is sometimes so cardboard that you want to shake him by the shoulders. The negatives of these characters which are so, at the same time, reflective of their positives is another interesting aspect of their movies. They are opposites and opposites at extreme ends: they struggle to find stable ground and are eventually incompetent of finding it.

Besides the great performances of their own, respective characters, the chemistry between the two leads is palpable. If it wasn't there, the movie would have fallen apart: why root for this couple to make it when the love doesn't seem worth it? But it does seem genuine, the depth of feeling is there and it's tangible, therefore making it realistic and the major backbone of the movie. The moments of affection are sometimes simple but just as effectively demonstrative: him tying her shoe at an outdoor cafe during their college days (a few years before their romance really begins), or her constant habit of brushing his hair out of his face. 

This isn't to say that it's a perfect movie, because it isn't. The script, penned by Arthur Laurents, is strong throughout most of the film (though is not totally immune to falling into a couple patches of the typical, teary lines). The editing gets jerky and the last half of the movie leaves a bit to be desired at times, sometimes coming across as a hasty breakup of their marriage. But this can be overlooked, because it is just technical aspects that only leave a few snags in a movie that offers a greater overall picture, one that is in a sense, a little bit surreal because it refuses to offer us the ending we want. The performances, the chemistry, the beautiful backdrops of New York City & Los Angeles, all contribute to this effect. It is visually appealing, both in the cinematography and the star power it drips with. And last but certainly not least, there is that song, probably my all time favorite. It's a gorgeous song, one that completes the movie perfectly.

Overall, I love this movie because of the feeling it leaves me with after seeing it. It's not just the tears (because they're definitely there; who doesn't feel their heart breaking in that final scene?) but something a little bit greater than that. Most people wouldn't try to analyze a 1970s romance to death (and I envy those people, I've been sitting here for the past hour, trying to find the right words, lol), but I wanted to point out that there is substance to this movie. I love it partly because it's an honest to goodness tearjearker, but also because of the way it depicts this heartbreak, and the reasons that drive it. (And, hey, I may also go for it because the theme's main couple and major message remind me of these people, who I kinda happen to adore.)

Also: Happy New Year's! 

PS: I know, I actually can't believe I haven't been here for about a month. Excuses to come in the next post. I'll be doing my end of the year wrap up/what's in store for 2013 post within the next week, promise. Also, look at these two!

Biopics and other disasters

Don't worry, I like you all too much to spend this entire post discussing Liz & Dick (especially as this a post I'm writing to derive my blog from a nearly month long oblivion), but I can't tell a lie. I tuned in to watch the "film", and it not only lived up to my expectations of how horrendous it would be,  it surpassed them. 

I think the main reason for the producers casting Lindsay (Insert Explicative Here) Lohan as Elizabeth Taylor - which, when you really think about it, is so ridiculous it makes you want to hit your head against the wall, but then so do many things about Liz & Dick - was for the attention it would garner. It's a pretty easy hook and sinker premise: Lohan, whose name has become sympathetic with the expression "hot mess", to make her "comeback" role as one of the greatest of Hollywood legends in a Lifetime TV movie none the less. It's not that there was ever a doubt in anyone's mind that Lindsay would not screw herself over, but the sheer possibility of a so-bad-it's-good conceivability drew everyone to their television sets while Lifetime plastered side by side photos of Lindsay (in full Taylor drag, violet contacts 'n' all) and Elizabeth on their website to prove their point.

Whatever acting potential Lindsay showed in Mean Girls (and okay, fine, The Parent Trap) totally flies out the window with this, but is that a surprise to anybody? I haven't seen anything she's made since Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, but it appears that her acting rage hasn't widened at all since then (several times whilst watching her play Elizabeth I felt a case of deja vou coming on). One of my Tumblr friends put it best when she said "Lindsay's acting when she was ten < Lindsay's acting now." But like I said, this shouldn't be of news to even the folks at the Lifetime channel, because whatever dormant acting qualities Lindsay may have had at one point (and I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt here), was murdered by her recent years of self abuse. 

Lindsay was a cute kid and a pretty teenager, but her downfall in the past years are presently painful in her appearance - her face, the random marks on her body - in addition to the Botox I'm certain we all know she's had. To be quite frank, Lindsay pretty much bears no resemblance at all to Elizabeth; even when done up in Elizabeth's makeup she looks like she's playing dress up. Lindsay is now at a point where she is just so out of the league to play E-l-i-z-a-b-e-t-h T-a-y-l-o-r, who so many people (me included) consider to be one of the most beautiful women of all time.

All of the above, and never mind that the ink is barely dry on Elizabeth's death certificate - she only passed away about a year and a half ago, and it was only two months following her March 2011 death that Lifetime announced their plans for this movie. (I could be wrong, but hasn't Lindsay been in jail at least two or three times since then?!) One may argue that Lindsay, who has had more than her fair share of paparazzi and invasion of privacy, would be in the perfect boat to play Elizabeth, who lived all her life in the public eye. After all, shouldn't Lindsay of all people be empathic with the camera's flash and glare? And Lohan's own personal battles, some would insist, are not much different than some that Taylor faced - Elizabeth was, after all, checked into the Betty Ford rehab for a period of time for her alcoholism. 

While those may be true, Lindsay is missing a few major factors that make her pretty much the worst candidate to play Elizabeth. Elizabeth had her struggles, but she lived life with a passion that helped her overcome her obstacles to an extent which, unfortunately, it seems Lindsay will never be able to achieve. She was a diva no doubt, but no where near the bitch the Lifetime movie makes her out to be at times. Elizabeth Taylor was a "drama queen", but also an incredibly warm and passionate woman, a loving mother remembered fondly by her children and a spectacular activist for HIV/AIDS. Plus, Lindsay lacks ever bit of the finess and elegance that Elizabeth eluded all her life; which gave her that special glint in her violet eyes that made her seem likable even at the most terrible times, or down to earth even when she sported the Taylor-Burton diamond on her finger.

And finally -

But if Lindsay couldn't be relied on to make this "biopic" enough of a hot mess, you would have to give the second place Razzie to the teleplay's "script." It was non stop cringeworthy lines, dialogue that I know my ten year old cousin could have written better, laced together with jumpy editing and music that made you feel like you were watching an episode of The Babysitters Club from the 90's. I found it increasingly creepy that in all the lovemaking scenes, "Richard" recites Shakespeare to "Elizabeth" ("More, more!" Lindsay insists, trying to be seductive, "I want more."). At one point, she suggests they go out to the pool. "No," he says. "I've got a whole ocean in you." Among other fantastic quips, we see a sign intended for Elizabeth: "Slut on a Hot Tin Roof", a newspaper headline that reads "Cleo-fat-tra", and Richard referring to Elizabeth as "Miss Pudgy Digits." When she breaks into tears, he takes her in his arms and says, "It's okay, I'd love you even if you were as fat as a hippo." (Because nothing rings more Shakespearean than that.) Sobbing, she looks up at him. "I need a ring. A big ring!"(So to put it bluntly, this movie was basically sold - and pretty well - on the pretext of how scorching of a hot mess it could truly be; starting with that goddamn obnoxious title.) 

Perhaps the strangest part is the sequences that seem to take place in a out of body, post-mortem world: Elizabeth & Richard with cigarettes, sitting on chairs which appear to have been placed on an empty, black stage, reflecting back on their marriages much as reality TV stars do in between clips on their shows. The fact that it's not clear whether this is supposed to be Elizabeth and Richard in 1964 or 2012 or in Heaven is legitimately strange enough to really make one question their decision of watching the movie.

Lohan is only twenty-six, but the movie starts when Elizabeth is twenty-nine, and progresses onwards. In reality, Elizabeth, like many women do as they age, began to gain weight. The film makes constant references to this, which I guess would be okay if Lohan actually appeared chubby - but she didn't put on any weight, or nonetheless padding, at all. There are actually a few unbearable clips of Lohan trying to reenact Elizabeth's Academy Award winning performance in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (the role in which Taylor actually gained thirty pounds for), where she is just so obviously skinny in contrast to what Elizabeth genuinely looked like at the time. I think they would have been much better off had they just avoided the subject of Elizabeth's weight entirely, but then again, the writers would have lost out on getting to use romantic terms like "Miss Pudgy Fingers."

Maybe the ultimate highlight of the movie is the end, where Elizabeth's mother tells Lindsay (who is now supposed to be portraying Elizabeth at the age of 53 - wrinkle free and skunk inspired 80s wig intact) that Richard is dead. Lindsay falls straight to the floor, in a "faint" that draws hilarity that should not have existed in such a scene. (Hell, it shouldn't have existed throughout the whole movie, but this scene especially.)

I had never heard of the actor who plays Richard Burton; his name is Grant Bowler and apparently he's done work on the television show True Blood. He actually wasn't that bad, and in comparison to Lindsay, could win an Emmy. (...But my favorite cast member was probably the appearance of Mr. Sheffield from The Nanny; I kept crossing my fingers for Fran Fine to come out and steal the show...) He makes a half decent attempt at Burton's Welsh dialect, whereas Lindsay Lohan doesn't even take a stab at Elizabeth's famous, famous voice. Basically, the best way to put it is when you watch Liz & Dick, you get Lindsay Lohan playing... Lindsay Lohan, in Dina Lohan's 60s castoffs.

The best part of the movie was probably the opening credits, which leads me to believe that the most convincing Lindsay Lohan could ever be as Elizabeth Taylor would be in a Vanity Fair photo shoot, with the advantages of Photoshopping and her mouth shut!

I was over the moon to discover that this movie's executive producer is Larry Thompson, the same genius who created the masterpiece (intended sarcasm) that is Lucy & Desi: Before the Laughter. Which means he is the same man that is responsible for this: 

Similar to Thompson's latest conquest, Lucy & Desi was made just two years after Lucy passed, and takes a tabloid fodder view of their relationship, filled to the brim with cheap lines ("What's so exclusive about sleeping with YOU?!") and excruciating scenes. Lucie Arnaz was so disturbed by it that she nearly threatened to sue. So it seems apparent that Thompson makes his living off waiting for Hollywood legends to die, and going straight into production of the the only "movies" he seems to know how to make.

... In general, I haven't had very good experiences with biopics, but there are definitely examples of how they can be done right. Just as recently, I saw The Aviator (2004). It's a nearly three hour long tribute to the life of Howard Hughes, the brilliant but disturbed aviator & director, directed by Martion Scorcese and starring Leonardo DiCaprio as Hughes, Cate Blanchett as Katharine Hepburn (Hughes's onetime girlfriend), and Kate Beckinsale as Ava Gardner (another female companion of Hughes's.) Big budget, starring some of today's best actors, and directed by Scorcese (need I say more), I found The Aviator to be excellent.

I didn't have all that much interest in the life of Hughes, but what triggered my interest to watch was the Cate Blanchett portrayal of Kate (and also, Kate Beckinsale's Ava). Blanchett won an Oscar for the role, and it's easy to see why. She makes up for any lack of looking Kate with perfection of Kate's clipped New England tone and better yet, full understanding of Kate's legendary personality. The Aviator is actually my first Cate Blanchett movie, and she totally won me over with her performance as Kate. Playing Katharine Hepburn would probably be just about the most agonizing and painful roles to ever get correctly, and Cate came just as about as close to it as you ever could. Beckinsale was also good as Ava, but Cate stole the show - and also, needless to say, DiCaprio's performance as Hughes was also spectacular... it was just Cate that really stuck out for me.

That's how do you do a biopic. 

It's not that I'm not a fan of biopics. I'd be the first one to go out and buy a ticket for the biopic of Lucy & Desi, Elizabeth & Richard, or any other Old Hollywood star for that matter, so long it was done with the proper respect that these stars really deserve. (And hey, it wouldn't be so bad if you could get Scorcese to direct it and throw in some big name stars - that haven't been in jail or rehab in the past five years - too.) Or, perhaps, Hollywood could just let them all rest in peace.

So, that's what I've been up to lately. This is an admittedly lousy post because none of you actually needed a review of Liz & Dick, but I hadn't updated here in forever! (And I was feel kinda sentimental/missing Elizabeth, even though this movie tarnished Lindsay's reputation - even more - than it barely grazed Elizabeth's.) ...Anyways, anyone else want to give their two cents on Liz & Dick, biopics, or anything in general?

P.S.: I've missed you all!!

"If you're a witch, where's your black hat and broom and why are you out when it isn't even Halloween?"

Happy Halloween!

I haven't been around much lately, so I thought I'd stop by and do a quick post wishing you all a happy Halloween! (That, and Bewitched and Elizabeth Montgomery happen to be a couple of my latest obsessions, so what's a better excuse than Halloween to bring them up?) When I was little and trick or treating, Halloween was my all time favorite holiday. It wasn't so much for the candy (though today I've already gone through my fair share of candy that's supposed to be for the trick or treaters), but I loved dressing up. Unfortunately, Halloween in my neighborhood has always been kind of a bummer. We barely get any trick or treaters because all the kids have grown up, and people don't so much bother to put a pumpkin out. And besides, though my area came out of the hurricane pretty much unscathed, I think all the rain put a damper on everyone's Halloween spirit.

Still, I remember fondly when October 31st was the pinnacle of the year, and there was nothing more fun than racing through the crisp autumn air wearing a costume and boasting a plastic pumpkin full of candy. ;)

Forgive my nostalgia, and I'm sorry that I haven't got anything particularly interesting or old movie related today, but I felt like I hadn't posted in a while and I just wanted to keep you all updated that yes, I am alive. (If you are in the mood to read something spectacular, there is a Halloween meme floating around - that I would have done if I knew more about vintage horror movies - and a blogathon about a horror film actor, I believe.) If you'd like, leave me comments and let me know how you all are, what you've been watching lately, and if you have plans to do NaNoWriMo!!?? (Nat talked me into it, I will probably fail due to the errendous amount of schoolwork I'll be burdening, but anyways, my username is: MissLucyRicardo. Feel free to add me.) 

That's it. And don't forget --

Letter to the Stars Blogathon: Submissions!

I'm back! So soon!

...Just to share with you guys today's links for the blogathon. You can check out yesterday's submissions here. If you don't see yours on that post or mine, worry not: you'll be linked over at Natalie's blog  tomorrow.

Thank you guys so much for participating: I can assure you that Marcela, Nat & I are having a blast reading all your letters! :) Anyway, without further ado, here are the entries being shared today... click the photo to visit the article!

THE HOSTS

THE SUBMISSIONS

Remember... you can still write your posts and send your links in to: alettertothestars@hotmail.com

Thanks again, dahhlings. :)