February catch - movies

Spoiler alert!

Thank You For Smoking (2005) is described as "satirical comedy". I saw the attempts for satire, and I kind of got it that it was supposed to be a comedy, but overall the movie was a bit plain for me. The film follows a guy called Nick Naylor, who is a lobbyist for a successful cigarette company. It could have been a decent piece of entertainment, had there not been some annoying factors. Let's see...
Child characters/actors - what's with them? Why in films they are always portrayed as nice and cute, smart, wise beyond their years with articulation skills that would put most of us in shame? When I think back to my childhood or think of some children I have met, they are usually the normal brats with messy hair, who don't know "night nor hat" of the world yet and whose biggest dream is to rob a candy shop (nowadays maybe Apple store?) instead of teaching a lesson to their parents and other surrounding adults.
The typical clichéd divorced US family. The child living with mum and foster dad? Check. Real dad portrayed as not suitable for parenting? Check (--> his profession). Foster dad being "the nice guy" and possessing a generally prestigious profession that can easily keep up a family, such as a heart surgeon or a NASA scientist? Check (I think in this film it was some kind of doctor). The ex-wife still bitter towards the ex-husband even after the divorce which pretty likely was initiated by the female in the first place? Check.
Then there's a scene where the protagonist meets a journalist (of opposite sex, of course, and naturally the sparks start flying right away after some cheesy attempts of flirtation from both sides - much new there), has sex with her, and the following day is genuinely surprised to see things he had said the last night while in bed in newspaper. ??? Really? Really??? He is not some random truck driver but supposedly someone very witty and at ease with words, which are his bread and butter, right, and he thinks there is such a thing as "off record" with a journalist? Oh dear.
Worth a cookie: J.K. Simmons; The MOD-squad (Merchants of Death) - Nick's evil counterparts, an alcohol-lobbyist and a firearms-lobbyist. Their regular dinners would be worth a watch and chuckle, but again, it is a bit too overdone - the alcohol lobbyist portrayed as an alcoholic herself and the firearms dude pulling out selection of weapons from under the table during dinners. We don't see Nick smoking (only empty packages), but I'm afraid that has more to do with some film rating restrictions than anything else.


The Darjeeling Limited (2007) - here's how you make a non-clichéd movie. Director Wes Anderson's greatest strength is definitely his set of characters and the choice of actors - those who have seen The Royal Tenenbaums or The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou will likely enjoy limited Darjeeling as well. Again Anderson uses his "body-actors" Owen Wilson, Anjelica Huston and Bill Murray (the latter, though, gets about 2 minutes screentime in total :) )
It's funny, colourful and witty. Good entertainment. Now I feel like rewatching The Royal Tenenbaums and The Life Aquatic again. Gah.




Toy Story (1995) - oeh. It is difficult to say anything about this one because a) I am clearly not the main target group; b) look at the production year; c) I lack experience with modern computer-animated films (by choice). I watched it with Jan and I know he likes Toy Stories, and that's how this film was good, because of the background information. Like, sometimes you watch something you wouldn't otherwise just because someone certain has said interesting things about it.
The main problem I had was with the animation style (which has nothing to do with the fact that it might be, in this case, be a bit out-dated by now). This particular animation style is way too sterile for me. Even if I watch a cartoon, I want to be able to imagine things in my head, and in my head a little boy's room could not look like that. It is too sterile, the lines are too flowy, too clean. It is difficult to explain and I don't expect I am being understood.
It did provoke my thought, though, in quite a different direction. In the old times, our forebears had no fancy blinking-singing-moving around on its own toys. I remember some stories of how children played with wooden sticks and imagined that those sticks were dolls, or animals. I think it pretty much helps to grow a child and his imagination. With the modern fancy-pancy toys, there's really no room for imagination left, is there. The toy does everything and child is a passive spectator instead of being the active leader of the game. I felt quite depressed about it for a while in the end.