Going to see Avatar this week, on a weekday, now that families are back to school and work.
It's not so much that I mind the crowds, but that I feel like I need an escape hatch. Long movies are just too much for the twits. I had a family making fun of the Titanic, especially at the end, and I was livid. I turned around at the end of the movie and let them have it -- but of course, I looked like the bad guy.
Same thing at the Return of the King. Theater was packed, no place to move, and couple sat down behind me and the woman let out a suffering sigh --- "Oh, this is going to be such a looooong movie..."
I should have tried to move right then and there.
They lasted about an hour, and then it was chatter, chatter, every twenty minutes. (As if it was a commercial break at home.) Again, I confronted them, again I walked away thinking it wasn't worth it.
I've tried to avoid the situation ever since. I've moved a couple of times. I actually can usually ignore it during comedies and action flicks -- but drama? Way to pull me out of the moment!
Anyway, we went to see Sherlock Holmes, last week.
For a Sherlock Holmes movies, it was a great Guy Ritchie movie...
I read all the Sherlock Holmes stories as a kid, which was quite the accomplishment at the time -- it had to be a million words, or something. Anyway, it turned me into a bit of a traditionalist. I have a strong image of Holmes, and movies and books usually miss the point. I tried reading a book where he was married --- and that was Just Wrong. Sherlock Holmes would Never marry.
So I went to this movie, saying to myself that it was a Guy Richie movie (I really enjoyed Rockandrolla, and Snatch, and all his others....)
Sure enough, it seemed to be about this greasy English fellow, named Herblock Jones, or something, who could visualize a fight in advance, but couldn't seem to figure out anything else...
Nice action flick.
Yesterday, we went to see The Road, which has to be the most faithful adaptation I've ever seen. It seemed to match the book all the way down the line. McCarthy has such an existentialist approach, that it was slightly jarring to see all the tears....but not out of place.
Linda had the same complaint she always has. "How come the bad guys can band together, but not the good guys?"
The book was a bit of set-piece; logically, it was hard to see a scenario where there would be this number of survivors and that amount of resources.
But in such a set up, IF there was be limited resources -- feeding a kind stranger literally means starving your own kid.
I think he's also saying, in a world where no one can trust anyone else, it's impossible for the good people to coalesce. The bad people can get together and eat other people, so not so much of a problem, as long as you watch your back....
The hope at the ending, just like in the book, is a bit raggedy. I mean, fair enough given all that came before -- it asks faith that something good will happen, even though all the evidence is to the contrary. Like I said, an existentialist setup -- ain't that just like real life?