I am finally getting around to writing my review of the movie I saw on Saturday: Murder on the Orient Express.
Before I went and saw the film, I read the book in anticipation of it. I thought it was a rare thing that I actually had very little idea of what it was about for such a famous story. I took advantage of that and decided to find out “whodunit” through Agatha Christie’s writing since 99.99% of the time, the book is better than the movie.
I have to say, my assertion was correct in this case, the book was better than the movie since I really enjoyed reading about all the meticulous and seemingly insignificant details and connections that lead to the discovery of the murderer. There was a lot left out in the movie, but I think that it did a very decent job of including as much as possible. Also, the struggle with cinema is that it is difficult to convey inner thoughts without a narrator or having the characters actually speak them out loud.
With that said, however, I still think that the movie did the story justice. It changed a few things up, I couldn’t really say if those changes were for the worse or the better. For example, Hercule Poirot, the detective. Hs personality and persona were altered, which may have upset the purist fans of Christie’s books. He was not the “odd little man” described in the books, but more of a daring, almost dashing gentleman. He was a little strange and had his quirks, but he was definitely altered. (He had the outrageous mustache that he prides himself on thoug, so people could not complain about that.) One could argue that he sort of fit the tone of the movie which was more dramatic than the original novel.
I did notice that a couple things they added sometimes made some of the suspects seem either more guilty or less guilty which took away from the point of the book; because what was frustrating to the investigators was that everybody seemed equally not guilty. I guess having suspicion on one or people is more dramatic in the eyes of some people, but to m., I thought that it was very frustrating to not be able to point a finger at anybody.
On the subject of the overall tone, it was very dramatic. Not that the novel wasn’t dramatic, but I mean to say that certain things were added, characters were altered, situations were changed up in order to change the tension. There were even some action scenes (nothing outrageous or over the top, but still). I believe all these things are to appeal to modern audiences. While I personally am enthralled with simple mystery stories with a lot of thinking and dialogue, some people grow bored with people sitting around and talking about what they saw and heard, no matter how interesting their characters are.
Thus, I am lead into the characters. I was a little disappointed in that department. In the book, the characters all have very distinct personalities with memorable traits, quirks, features, etc. Poirot latches onto each of them and questions them according to their personalities. Their “psychology” is very important to him. In this film however, they’re all sort of bland. Even Mrs. Hubbard who was such a funny and interesting character in the book was toned down. It’s such a shame because they all play such an important role in figuring out who did it. It wasn’t that they weren’t well acted, it’s just that they weren’t as well written as they could’ve been. I was impressed with the star-studded cast though.
I’d say that only Poirot himself was the most interesting. Kenneth Branagh did an excellent job at his interpretation of the observant, ponderous little detective.
The sets, atmosphere, costumes, cinematography, etc. were stunning! One of the prettiest films I’ve seen this year I’d say. The train as it traveled through the mountains was a sight to behold. It really made you want to go for a ride on a train... until someone is murdered that is.
Overall, even though I knew who did it, I still really enjoyed watching it all play out. It was even more fun sitting around people who had no idea what would happen and seeing the shock on their faces and hearing the gasps. Agatha Christie is a master! I highly recommend her books!
Alright, so I went and saw a few different movies over these past months, but I never got around to reviewing them, so I’m just going to smush them all into one post here. Back in September I saw It, last Saturday I saw Thor: Ragnarok, and on Monday I saw Happy Death Day.
To start off... It (2017)
PLOT: After a young boy disappears, seven outcast kids band together to discover the cause: a shape-shifting monster that lives in the sewers feeding off people's fears and preying on children. People can get all judge-y as much as they want that I went and saw an uncensored rated R film, but I’m not going to defend myself against the haters. I have a deep fascination with film art and that’s what I went to go see this film for, not to get my jollies on being rebellious and watching “evil” things.
Anyways, to be honest, I’m pretty sure the movie was rated R for language and not for violence/gore/scary imagery. Those characters were major potty mouths, but TBH, I’ve heard worse things just on YouTube videos. The violence/gore/scary imagery was more of a PG-13 level, so if it had cut down on the language, I think it would’ve been PG-13. So, if language offends you, I wouldn’t recommend this movie to you. If not, I’d say it’s worth a watch.
I’m not typically into scary movies, mostly because the majority of them are “slashers” where the point of the film is to be graphic and gory and the main focus isn’t on the story and characters; the point is to be gross and scary. Sometimes even the lame horror films aren’t even scary, they rely on jump scares and are just gross. There’s actually a lot that goes into being truly scary.
This film was pretty legit though, I was impressed. The characters were interesting and well written, and I was very involved with the plot. The child actors were all extremely talented (it has one of the kids from Stranger Things, if that tells you anything). It had an interesting monster and legitimately scary scenes that didn’t just rely on jump scares (though there were a couple). The script was actually very funny and clever and kept me entertained the whole way through. The effects and music only added to the experience. If you’re into 80’s nostalgia, this movie is full of it. Like a lot of movies, there were a couple of awkward moments, but not so much so to weaken the movie.
In the end, I think I’d give this movie an 8/10.
Next... Thor: Ragnarok
PLOT: Thor finds himself imprisoned on the opposite side of the galaxy from his home of Asgard while his sister, Hela, the goddess of Death wrecks havoc. He must battle in a deadly gladiator-like contest against the Hulk in order to gain his freedom and return to Asgard before it is too late.
I’ve been looking forward to this film for ages. It did not disappoint. I was pretty surprised by how comedic it was. My brother and I were talking about how it was less of an action/fantasy/adventure and more of a comedy/fantasy/adventure.
If I had to rank everything in the movie from the highest to the lowest it would be special effects, comedy, costumes/makeup, acting, and then action sequences.
The visual effects were off the charts. It was a stunning film! Even just still scenes, the “filter” effects gave the screen such a nice glow. The costumes and the sets only added to the tone. I’ve decided while Thor’s long hair is iconic and I do like it, I can get along just fine with his short hair. (And I have to say that Stan Lee’s cameo in this movie is now one of my favorite cameos; definitely up there with the one in The Amazing Spiderman.)
I mentioned before that there was a lot of comedy. I can’t think of very many moments where I wasn’t at least chuckling. I think Marvel is taking advantage of how funny Chris Hemsworth is, that he’s more than just a piece of man-cake. Of course, there was a down-side, there weren’t as many (excuse my French) badass moments as I would’ve liked to see. There were one or two, but where there should’ve been more, they opted out for a joke instead. And while those jokes did make me laugh, I would have liked to see those characters be a total boss too because those moments just get you so pumped! I was getting a really strong Guardians of the Galaxy vibe throughout the film.
As for the action scenes... I wasn’t all that impressed. There was just a lot of smashing and punching and destruction, but not even in an interesting way. I mean, I was pretty bored during Thor’s fight with the Hulk in the arena. It had a lot of potential to be totally cool and fun, but instead it was just kind of meh. And I get it, with Hulk there is a lot of mindless smashing and punching, but it can still be interesting. Like in Avengers: Age of Ultron when Iron Man faces off with the Hulk in his Hulk-buster armor, that was an awesome scene! But alas, this movie had very little to offer in the action department which is why I’ve dubbed it a comedy/fantasy/adventure movie.
As is typical of Thor movies, there is a lot of fantasy, mystical mumbo-jumbo, but it’s not difficult to follow and it’s not that ridiculous. The main focus is on Thor and the Hulk really.
To be honest, this is one of the weaker Marvel movies, but by no means bad. I’ll give it a 7/10.
Lastly... Happy Death Day
PLOT: A self-centered sorority girl, Tree, wakes up on her birthday in the dorm room of a fellow student, Carter. As she goes about her day, she is suddenly and brutally murdered by a mysterious killer in a mask. She wakes up in Carter's room again unharmed. Now, Tree must relive the same day over and over until she figures out who murdered her. I am always intrigued by a good mystery story and this looked like this could be one. And... meh, it sort of was. I mean, I sort of figured out who her killer was, but then it threw me off. I felt like it was trying too hard to be original and then in the end it wasn’t all that special. It was like Groundhog Day with a murder mystery thrown in.
There were a few problems I had with it: 1) When she first figured out who her killer was, I was actually impressed at how original it was because of how random it was and so few horror/mystery stories go that route, but then it was just a red herring and it went the traditional route. So... I wasn’t quite sure how I felt about that. 2) Like in Groundhog Day, she decides to better her life in the process of her repeating day, but then (maybe spoilers), on the one good day, it repeats again and everything is forgotten. I was just really bummed out about that. But then it never let us know if she did everything again and fixed it once the time loop was eventually broken. WHAT HAPPENED!? 3) Pretty much all the scares were jump scares and I was ready for them.
It wasn’t completely awful though. The acting was pretty good. The killer was pretty terrifying. I liked that she died every day no matter what she did, no matter where she went, the killer always found her, it made it pretty scary. It was pretty good at building tension even if a lot of it was paid off with jump scares. There were two scenes in particular that stood out to me that I can’t really discuss without spoiling the movie, but one took place in the hospital towards the end and another took place in a parking garage.
The other day I was trying to explain what exactly “slapstick” was to my roommate and why it was funny and I found myself sort of struggling. Therefore, I decided to sort out my thoughts and write this.
WHAT?
Let me start out by answering the question “what is slapstick?” In its simplest version, slapstick is a form of physical comedy. It is defined by its very exaggerated, almost cartoonish style often combined with injury and/or misfortune in the character(s) behalf. There are rarely serious physical consequences and everything is presented in a harmless and goofy way. Some defining features of slapstick include tripping, pratfalls, hitting, falling, etc. which are focused on more than plot or character development.
a "batacchio" or a "slap stick"
Where did the term come from, some might be wondering? I know I was. The term actually comes from the Italian word “batacchio”-- translated means “slap stick”-- which was used in commedia dell’arte (an early theater in Italy). It is a club-like object of two sticks that when struck produces a loud smacking noise. It allowed actors to "hit" one another repeatedly with great audible effect without causing damage and with minor to no pain.
WHY?
With that definition, slapstick may sound a little stupid to some people. Why should people falling or getting hurt be funny?
I actually read in an article that the humor people find in slapstick is very deeply rooted in our brains. There was a study done on patients who had sustained some sort of head trauma and they were shown a variety of comedy clips. The study showed that many of the patients lost the ability to understand higher humor such as puns and witty dialogue, but almost all found slapstick funny.
But why is slapstick funny?
I’ve been thinking about it a lot and I’ve broken it down. Why do we laugh at other people’s pain?
1) There is a loss of dignity
I personally love seeing self-important people get put in their place. This is often what happens in slapstick: the villains/high-and-mighty are the ones who get the brunt of the beating. The main characters are often clumsy and/or idiotic, but good-natured and they end up getting themselves into trouble with the wrong people through their own foolishness. Because of their innocence, you root for them instead of the mean old miser they have ticked off. Slapstick is often less funny if the main character is not as likable.
It is very funny to see the main character hit the antagonist in the face with a pie, or push them in a muddy puddle, or something. There’s just something immensely satisfying about it because don’t we just want to do something like that to people we know who are like that?
It is still funny to see these things happen to our main characters too through their own stupidity, clumsiness, and/or mischievousness.
From "Duck Soup" starring the Marx Brothers
2) It requires great skill
Through the description of slapstick, one might think that it is easy. Just fall on your butt and everyone will laugh. No. There’s actually a lot of thought and timing that goes into it. If not done properly, it could totally fall flat (pun intended. Ha!)
Plus there are some clever ways of falling. Think about it; if you just fall on your face, that’s all well and good and you might get people to laugh, but if you fall into a puddle or a pile of manure that’s even funnier. Better yet, what if it happens repeatedly?
From "The Pink Panther Strikes Again" starring Peter Sellers
See how he repeatedly falls in the water, but it's different every time
and still funny. I could watch this a thousand times and not get
tired of it.
3) It’s often unexpected
Surprises will often jolt people into laughter. Seeing someone walking down the street then suddenly hit their head on a street sign gets people to laugh. We are surprised and concerned which spurs us into laughter.
From "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World"
From "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy"
This is one of the most ridiculous, unexpected scenes I have ever
witnessed and it got me to laugh so hard. It's not PURELY slapstick,
but it demonstrates my point about the unexpected.
4) It’s not us
There’s at least a small part of us no matter how subconscious it is that laughs at pain because we are relieved it’s not happening to us. We spend our entire lives trying so hard to avoid discomfort and embarrassment that when we see someone else experience it, we are relieved it’s not happening to us.
From "Seinfeld- The Wait Out" (Season 7, Episode 23)
5) It is the product of mayhem
This might be hard to believe, but people actually love mayhem. As much as people love order and organization, people also love to watch things fall apart (as long as they don’t have to clean up afterwards). Why are action movies so popular? Why do people love watching people get into fights? How many people are oddly satisfied by destroying things (whether watching it or doing it yourself?) I know I myself have get a strange pleasure out of crushing of cookies for a dessert or knocking over a block tower. If we were given the chance to demolish a building for construction, would we say no?
The point I’m trying to make is that creating mayhem and destruction goes against what we try to do in our modern life but is hugely attractive for us to witness.
From "The Three Stooges- Three Little Beers"
HISTORY
Slapstick has been used for hundreds of years. Shakespeare himself, the master of words, incorporated it into his plays through chases scenes and beatings.
It grew in popularity in the early 19th century in England as pantomime became a thing and by the 1850’s, it was one of the most popular forms of comedy.
Fred Karno
It was during this time that many comedy legends began to hone their skills at pantomime and music hall sketches. Vaudeville was developed in the United States, discovering many young stars, while one gentleman by the name of Fred Karno formed Fred Karno’s Army in Britain. Fred Karno is credited as the man who originated modern slapstick comedy. His troupe included future stars Charlie Chaplin and Stan Laurel. He also came up with the pie in the face gag.
As silent films came into play, pantomime was the biggest option. While dramatic films were released, comedies were (in my opinion) far more effective because slapstick was already a form of overacting. This is where true comedy legends really began to shine. People still know who Charlie Chaplin is today. While Fred Karno originated slapstick, Charlie Chaplin defined it.
Other stars came out of the silent film era such as Laurel and Hardy, Buster Keaton, and the Keystone Cops.
From "The Rink" starring Charlie Chaplin
Charlie Chaplin
Once sound was introduced into film, slapstick was not deterred and was even improved; using funny sound effects to emphasize the falls, hits, and bumps only added to the silliness. This is where the Three Stooges came in. So, while Fred Karno originated it and Charlie Chaplin defined it, I say the Three Stooges perfected it.
Other stars came out of the early era as well; most famously, the Marx Brothers.
Cartoons are no stranger to slapstick either. I said in the definition that it has a cartoonish style. Cartoons, however, are even more exaggerated. The characters get completely flattened by anvils, they get blackened by a bomb that exploded in their hands, etc.
Warner Brothers started making their Looney Tunes cartoons in the mid-20th century which really defined slapstick in cartoons with their shorts like Bugs Bunny, Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner, Sylvester and Tweety, etc.
Also early on, a very defining slapstick cartoon was created by Hannah-Barbera: Tom and Jerry. This cartoon show really engulfed everything one needed in a slapstick cartoon.
As the years have rolled on, people have continued to make slapstick films. Some have been hilarious, some not so much. In my personal opinion, I think that the older films have a better grasp on why slapstick is funny because they put real thought into it. In later years, people are in the mentality that if someone just gets hit in the crotch or punched in the face, people will laugh. As I said earlier, it’s not necessarily so. It will be so much funnier with the right buildup, the proper delivery, how it is executed, the payoff, the reactions, and other factors.
Some good examples of more modern-day comedians and movies are Mel Brooks, the Farrelly Brothers, Rowan Atkinson, Jim Carrey, and Monty Python.
From "Liar Liar" starring Jim Carrey
In almost every comedy movie/tv show there is at least one character that is predominantly physical. For example, Steve Urkle in Family Matters or Cosmo Kramer in Seinfeld. It’s not to say that these characters don’t have funny lines or anything, but simply through their appearance, mannerisms, and over-the-top behavior and reactions to things make their characters that much funnier. (Notice too, that these are some of the most popular characters on their shows.)
I have always enjoyed slapstick and probably always will. I know that it’s not for everyone, but at least now I have (hopefully) managed to explain WHY a lot of people find it entertaining.
As a female, I am very drawn to the romantic comedy genre (also known as chick flicks). I love the cheesiness, the romance, the “will they, won’t they?”, all the cliches, the misunderstandings, and all that fun stuff. I have never been a fan of romantic dramas (like The Notebook or Titanic or Dear John or things of the like). I like the comedic side of romance, not the drama. I like happily ever afters as opposed to sadness and heartbreak.
I’ve been watching a whole bunch of rom-coms/chick flicks that I’ve never seen before just for the heck of it. I’ve watched the same few over and over again for years, and I’ve heard good things about several others. So, with my free time this week, I binge-watched a whole bunch of new ones.
I won’t lie, some of them weren’t all that great, some were mediocre, and some were freakin’ fantastic! What I look for in rom-coms is real suspense in the romance. Like, even though you know the couple is going to get together (because, let’s face it, they always do), it’s still pretty torturous and suspenseful; whether from the acting, the scenarios, or all of the above. I also enjoy really good comedy, enjoyable plots and scenarios, real conflict, a complete resolution that wasn’t obtained TOO easily, excellent on-screen chemistry between actors, is relatable, cheesy but not TOO cheesy, and has a strong ending.
So, that is what I have been judging these new movies on.
I’ll be giving my mini reviews on each of the movies below (Check out my reviews of my all-time favorite Rom-Coms HERE). Here we go in alphabetical order:
Definitely, Maybe
A daughter asks her father how he and her mother met. He tells her about his love affair with three different women without revealing which one is actually her mother.
This one was sort of average, I thought. That is to say, it had its strong moments and then weak moments. I didn’t really like the ending that much either. The acting was pretty stellar though. I love Ryan Reynolds! And his little girl was super cute. I can’t talk about it all that much without getting spoiler-y, but basically I wasn’t super thrilled with how it turned out. 1) I thought it was super abrupt 2) The buildup was a little drawn out at times. I did think it was a cute idea though, it just had some weak spots. I wish it had felt more like an unreliable narrator since it was supposed to be the dad telling the story (like How I Met Your Mother did). That probably would have improved it greatly. 6/10 Down With Love
In the 1960's, author Barbara Novak writes a best-selling book "Down With Love" which encourages women not to fall in love, to pursue independence and careers in place of serious relationships. This upsets the entire male population including ladies' man magazine writer, Catcher Block, who decides to make her fall in love with him and write an exposee on her as a fraud. Alright, this one had a very promising set-up and was pretty good for the majority of it, but then totally lost it by the third act. It had the stupidest, most outlandish twist and insufferable ending. I was expecting it to be a "liar reveal" story where a character lies throughout most of the narrative, is eventually found out, then the other character(s) mope about it for a time, but then they realize they want the liar in their life after all and they all live happily ever after. This was surprisingly not the case, it was a lot weirder. I honestly would've preferred the cliche because what they did was too ridiculous. I can't discuss it without spoiling it, but... maybe if they hadn't gone SO far with the twist. It was such a huge jump for both characters and it was super out of place. Anyways, it was a good setup and I enjoyed the first 2/3s of it a bit (I would've liked to see Catcher actually falling in love with her a little more instead of being so manipulative). Also, the stylistic choices were very on point. It was homaging 1960s romantic comedies, which to give it credit, it did a very good job; the costumes, the certain type of sexual tension, the obviously fake backdrops, the music, etc. it was a very well-made movie. However, I’ve never been a huge fan of older rom-coms. They’ve always seemed a lot more convoluted and forced than more modern ones. I suppose that’s why I didn’t like this one that much. It was too much like an old rom-com. So props to the movie for doing a good job, it just wasn’t my cup of tea. 5/10.
Fever Pitch
Ben has been a devout Red Sox fan for twenty-three years, but when he starts dating Lindsey, he must choose between her and the team he has loved his entire life.
I was surprised how much I liked this one. I was actually hesitant to watch this one at first because it didn’t sound all that compelling, but my curiosity to see Jimmy Fallon in an acting role overpowered everything else, so I watched it. And, like I said, I really liked it. It was different than a lot of rom-coms I’ve watched because it wasn’t about a couple getting together. It was portraying a couple and their struggles working together. I thought it was fascinating how it portrayed a relationship with ups and downs and compromises. I really liked it. My roommate pointed out how it was difficult to choose a side because both characters had valid points, but then they also had their defects. It was just like a real-life couple. It was also very funny and entertaining. 8/10. How Do You Know
Professional softball player, Lisa, has just been dropped from her team; she begins a relationship with a clueless baseball player Matty while at the same time, she goes on a blind date with a business man, George, who is in trouble with the law for fraud.
This movie was all over the place. It wasn't completely terrible, but it seemed a little unfocused. The fact that Lisa was a softball player who was dropped was barely addressed and was pretty much completely forgotten by the end of the film. There was a lot of focus on George's business failings, which was fine, but it made it seem like he was the main character... which he wasn't. The beginning of the film was setting it up to make Lisa the central focus, but by the end, she was practically a side character. It was all very jumbled. It also did seem to drag on for a little too long. It should've been shortened or some subplots should've been added and/or focused on more. Also, the idea of "how do you know?" wasn't really addressed, which was weird since that was the title of the movie. Only once did Matty bring it up towards the beginning. But, I was still pretty entertained by it and I was actually in suspense for a while about who she would pick. 6/10.
Just Friends
In high school, Chris was friend-zoned by his best friend, Jamie. Ten years later, Chris returns to his hometown as a successful music executive and meets Jamie again, this time determined to win her affections.
I did not like this one hardly at all. When it started, I thought maybe it would get better towards the end... it didn’t. I think I hated it more by the end. The two lead characters had absolutely no chemistry and I was not rooting for them to get together at all. The only reason I wanted them together was because I didn’t want her to end up with the other guy. I wished that the movie had showed them actually be friends and then slowly move out of the friend-zone, but no, it just jumped right in and hardly gave us any background on these two characters’ history. Anyway, the only saving grace was Ryan Reynolds. His facial expressions and reactions to things were hilarious. It was exactly my reaction to some of the weird crap that was going on. I was laughing out loud sometimes at his deadpan delivery and horrified/disgusted reactions. Other than that, I don’t think this movie had much to offer. 4/10. Just Go With It
A plastic surgeon pretends to be married in order to pick up women (pretending to be in a bad marriage in order to get sympathy). One day, he meets the girl of his dreams and decides he wants to settle down... until she finds his fake wedding ring and thinks he is actually married. He recruits his assistant to play his wife in order to convince her that they are divorcing. Complications continue to arise as his assistant's kids get involved and a family trip is planned. I was surprised at how much I really enjoyed this one. I thought it would get under my skin with all the lies and deception like these stories sometimes do, but it actually managed to be really sweet and fun. It was also very funny and had me laughing out loud at parts. It did get a bit raunchy at times, but I wouldn't say it was anything TOO extreme. Adam Sandler and Jennifer Aniston surprisingly had very good chemistry. Points because I was really rooting for them to get together. I was also very impressed that when the ruse was eventually up, it didn't turn into a liar-reveal story. 8/10.
Just Like Heaven
A widowed man moves into an apartment only to find it haunted by the spirit of its previous tenant who insists that she is still alive.
I loved and adored this movie! Holy cow! It sounds like kind of a strange concept, but it was conveyed very well. The two leads pulled it off and I was in suspense the whole time. They had such cute banter and I loved the slight mystery surrounding everything (mystery is always extra points in my book). I have to say, a lot of the time, memory loss is handled poorly in movies and TV, but this one managed to pull it off. I loved all the connections made throughout the film that came into full circle by the end. It was such an adorable flick that I just can’t go into detail about without getting spoiler-y. Basically, it left me feeling all warm and fuzzy by the end. 9/10. Kate and Leopold
An 18th century duke falls through a portal in time, meets a 21st century woman, and they fall in love. I really liked the concept (and Hugh Jackman is a babe), but this movie was just sort of average. It was largely boring for a lot of it. The stuff not involving the duke was pretty dull and not very compelling. Kate was not a super interesting character, but the duke, Leopold was hilarious. Every scene involving him was my favorite. I loved seeing the fantasy that every girl has of meeting a guy with old fashioned manners. But, like I said, it was just sort of average. It wasn't THAT funny or interesting, but just interesting enough. 6/10.
Never Been Kissed
A young, socially-awkward reporter goes undercover at a high school and experiences the horrors of becoming unpopular all over again.
This movie was pretty much everything I expected. It was super cute, but also super awkward. (Not like awkwardly made, just like awkward situations and stuff.) It did hurt my soul sometimes. The secondhand embarrassment is very strong. I mean, I was literally covering my face at times because I couldn’t take it. There’s some stuff in there that if you think about it... it’s kind of weird and creepy, but in this scenario, it’s perfectly fine. Man, if you watch the movie, you’ll understand what I’m talking about. I still really liked it. It was cute and relatable. 7/10 What Happens in Vegas
Down on their luck, Joy and Jack go to Las Vegas to forget their troubles. They wind up meeting and getting married on the same night. The next day, they agree to get an annulment, but after they hit the jackpot at a slot machine, complications arise. The judge at their hearing sentences them to six months of marriage before settling the matter of their money.
I enjoyed this one quite a bit. I was really invested in the characters which I feel a lot of rom-coms lack. It was definitely one of the funnier ones I watched (I enjoy some good slapstick and screwball comedy which this was full of). I think it did a fairly decent job of having the characters actually fall for each other over time instead of it just abruptly happening after disliking one another for the majority of the film (which is the bane of these types of movies). I also enjoyed the battle of the sexes, the quote straight from the film "men and women were not meant to coexist" got me laughing. Even though there were a few things that fell flat, I still enjoyed the film a lot. 7/10.
27 Dresses
Jane has been in 27 weddings, but none have been her own and she is in love with her boss who doesn’t give her the time of day. One day, her little sister comes into town and her boss falls hard for her. Meanwhile, Jane repels the advances of a newspaper columnist who wants to write about her perpetual bridesmaid-ness.
I can’t believe it’s taken me this long to watch this one, but here we are. I liked this one quite a bit. It wasn’t as funny as a lot of the other ones on this list, but it was very cute and extremely relatable. I don’t know what there is to say about it except that. I was in so much pain with the main character as she watched the man she loved get engaged to her little sister. And like I said before, it was very relatable. I felt for the main character. 7/10.
I remember when I was a kid, there was this pullout shelf in our entertainment unit full of what I considered “adult” movies. There were video cassettes of films like The Mask, Runaway Bride, While You Were Sleeping, The Mummy, The Sixth Sense, and many others. All the “kid” films like our Disney movies and stuff were kept in a separate cupboard that was more easily accessible. I actually didn’t know this pullout shelf existed for several years. I was hardly interested in it though. I was perfectly content watching all my own movies. I didn’t much care for live action movies for a long time, much less these weird grown-up ones. I did sometimes like to pull out the shelf and just look at the covers. I don’t really know why; I guess I just thought they were kind of interesting because they were so different from the family-friendly, Disney-esque covers I was used to. Eventually as DVDs became a thing, those were added to the collection as well, but even then, I was still uninterested in these “adult” movies.
There was one DVD that always stood out to me whenever I pulled out the shelf; it had a very blonde woman wearing a shockingly scandalous, bright pink dress, she walked a Chihuahua on a pink leash and had this carefree smile on her face. I didn’t have the slightest idea of what this movie was about, but I had absolutely no interest in seeing it just based on the cover. I hated the pink dress and it looked like some stupid movie about a blonde ditzy fashionista girl getting into trouble. I had absolutely no interest in it whatsoever.
If anyone doesn’t know what the movie was that I was looking at, it was Legally Blonde. Looking back now at my original judgement of the movie is extremely ironic because the whole point of the movie is not to judge a book by its cover.
I freakin’ LOVE AND ADORE this movie! The more I think about it, the more I love it. It is by no means perfect, there are a lot of contrivances and cliches, but holy cow, I love its morals and ethics. I particularly recommend this film for girls who are trying to find their way in life, especially if they just got out of a relationship. However, it is applicable to pretty much everyone, even guys. This movie shows you that there is more to life than finding a significant other, everyone has way more potential than they think, and you don’t have to be what everyone expects you to be.
For those who don’t know the story, I’ll quickly summarize:
Elle Woods is the president of her sorority, Delta Nu, and expecting her long-time boyfriend, Warner, to propose. However, instead he dumps her, explaining that she is not “serious” enough for him since he plans on becoming a lawyer. At first, Elle is heartbroken and depressed, but then she decides to pursue him to Harvard Law School. She enrolls and is accepted in the school where she sticks out like a sore, very pink and blonde, thumb. She faces all kinds of challenges and discriminations in her new school as she struggles to win back her man and simultaneously become a successful law student.
I think this movie is interesting because it takes the average story that’s been told a thousand times (about being misunderstood, being the “ugly duckling”/fish out of water, etc) and putting a twist on it. Usually its an awkward, unattractive person who is judged for their looks and then has to prove everyone wrong by breaking out of their shell and/or displaying their great personality and skills. This movie does that except Elle is extremely not unattractive. She is judged for being too attractive. She is made fun of for being a sorority girl, for not being “smart” enough, for being too perky, for her non-traditional/non-conservative fashion choices, her too perfect figure and blonde hair, and so on. I connect to it on some level. While I am certainly not a sorority girl and super sexy-attractive like Elle, there are struggles that come from being too much of something. People like to tell attractive people they have it easy, but in all honesty, there are struggles that come with it. Also, it’s hard having a label put on you just because your majority group have a bad reputation (ex: sorority girls, white people, etc).
You be you! Elle has absolutely no problem with just being herself. While she does get upset through the film with the discrimination against her, she takes it like a boss and decides to prove everyone wrong. She doesn’t let it tear her down, she let’s it build her up. There are some fish out of water stories where the person has to recreate themselves in order to fit in. This is not the case here. Elle changes her priorities, but not herself. She remains constant throughout and it ends up working.
Another reason Elle is queen is because she is just so nice through the film. She is super perky and excitable like a sorority girl is, but she’s not a vindictive jerk like they are often portrayed. She is super happy, sweet, and selfless. She is nice to everyone, even if they don’t really deserve it-- not that she actively seeks out mean people and is nice to them, but if they’re there. But she’s not a pushover either. She knows exactly how to balance nice with being acquiescent.
This movie is also so quotable and funny. There are some movies that are funny and/or sweet, but don’t have that great of lines. This one is not one of those movies. It’s got a great script.
ELLE: “Exercise gives you endorphins, endorphins make you happy, happy people just don’t shoot their husbands. They just don’t.”
EMMETT: “I can’t believe you called me a butthead. Nobody’s called me a butthead since the ninth grade.”
ELLE: “Maybe not to your face.”
POOL BOY: “Don’t stomp your little last season Prada shoes at me, honey.”
WARNER: “You got into Harvard Law?”
ELLE: “What, like it’s hard?”
MR WOODS: “Oh, sweetheart, you don't need law school. Law school is for people who are boring and ugly and serious. And you, button, are none of those things.”
ELLE: “Whoever said orange was the new pink was seriously disturbed.”
TV: “I love you.”
ELLE: *throws chocolate at it* “LIAR!”
I love that this movie shows that there is more to life than finding a significant other. That is to say, if you want to find your significant other, you need to focus on bettering yourself. Elle was a perfectly fine individual, but then as she followed Warner to Harvard, she discovered she could become even more and decided she didn’t need him in her life and pursued her own goals. Then, so many other things became available to her by doing so (and not to get too spoilery, but if you watch enough chick flicks, you ought to know that there is someone else that comes along. But that’s not the main focus, come on! It’s all about Elle and her awesomeness!).
Legally Blonde: The Musical
I love how everyone is proven wrong in the end. Everything just comes into full circle. All the irony and karma! Yusss!
It doesn’t happen just like that either, it’s a gradual adjustment. And it all starts with a change of mind. It just shows that all that we have to do is change our mindset and adjust our priorities, then we can achieve anything. Seriously, this is an amazing movie!
Reese Witherspoon is great in the role. I have to appraise her performance for a moment. She is by far the most standout part of the movie as the main character.
So, if anyone has not watched this movie, I highly, highly recommend it!
P.S. There is a musical too. I think I like the movie slightly better just because it gets the morals and stuff across better, also Elle is just portrayed as a better character overall. But there are things I appreciate about the musical more too (for example, they gave the character Emmett a bigger part. I always thought his role in the movie was a little too small. Also, awesome music!)
