Working Girl rated R for nudity, language, sexual content, and some drug use

I have been wanting to watch this film for quite some time now but for reasons didn't make the effort to see it.  I even went so far as to save it on my Netflix but didn't get round to it.  Finally it came on tv one night and I sat and watched it.  I loved it!

Tess McGill (played by Melanie Griffith) is a frustrated and talented secretary who just wants to be taken seriously and given a chance to show her work so to speak.  She put herself through school and has been trying to land a secretary position with the hopes of working her way up eventually I imagine.  Tess is blessed with beauty and men find her spunk very attractive which might not be so bad except that this seems to make her male bosses feel that they can take advantage of her so to speak.  Thankfully Tess doesn't take any crap from anyone.

Unfortunately this leaves Tess with the situation of her word versus her former bosses words and her former bosses sides are taken essentially.  Tess has one more shot or she's out the door.  On her last shot Tess finds work as the secretary of Katharine Parker (played by Sigourney Weaver).

At first things go well.  Katharine seems to be a cool boss who values her employees and their input.  Tess shares some of her ideas with Katharine under the assumption that Katharine will give her credit because Katharine tells her that she will give Tess credit for good ideas.  Katharine comes back to Tess and tells her that her big idea was refused but encourages Tess to keep trying.

After Katharine is laid up with a broken leg from a skiing accident, Tess works to fulfill Katharine's obligations.  While Tess is working, she finds that Katharine lied to her and is trying to present Tess's ideas as her own.  Tess is devastated and goes home.  When she gets home she finds her boyfriend Mick (played by Alec Baldwin) having sex with a sort of mutual friend Doreen (played by Elizabeth Whitcraft).  Tess leaves the apartment amid Mick's protestations.

Tess determines to see her idea come to fruition but with herself getting the justified credit.  She poses as her boss as far as having her boss's position and makes efforts to connect with the right people to make her idea happen. Along the way she meets Jack Trainer (played by Harrison Ford) who helps her get her idea heard by the people that can make the idea become reality.  While working with together, sparks fly between Jack and Tess.

And so Tess is left with a lot of on her plate.  Does she pursue Jack?  Is she going to get back together with Mick?  What happens when Katharine comes back to work?  What happens if anyone finds out about her deception?

I had heard this story described as a kind of modern Cinderella and I agree.  It is definitely an 80s Cinderella.  The story was very well written and the characters were great.

I loved that Tess had so much spunk.  It was very easy to root for her.  It was also nice to have such an independent minded woman to admire and possibly emulate.  Tess doesn't seem to take things for granted for the most part.  She believes in working for goals and it shows in her actions.  She isn't keen on the lying part even from the beginning.

Jack was definitely the "handsome prince" to Tess's "Cinderella".  He was so adorably in love with Tess from the moment that he saw her.  He was also a really nice guy considering the position of power that he was in.  He also doesn't appear to take things for granted and like Tess believes in hard work.

No Cinderella would be complete without a wicked stepmother.  Although Katharine is a wicked boss rather than stepmother she is delightfully wicked.  Sigourney Weaver played her beautifully.  You understand where the character is coming from i.e. why she does the things that she does and you love to hate her.  I learned after watching this film that the role of Katharine was a highly sought after role and I can appreciate why.

The Witch: A New England Folktale rated R for disturbing violent content and graphic nudity *spoilers*

When I first heard about The Witch:  A New England Folktale there were excited comments that this film was supposed to be the "scariest film of this year".  I immediately felt less interested because I personally don't feel that anything should be described as the "best" of something until it has been experienced.  While it might not have been the filmmakers fault that people immediately started labeling it as "the scariest" I just found it to be off-putting.

I briefly considered seeing this picture in theatres but ultimately changed my mind.  I also considered purchasing the movie without watching it first when it was initially released on dvd but I changed my mind.  I don't regret either decision that I made after watching this picture.

On its surface the plot of this film tells of how a Puritan family is banished out of the plantation due to the father William (played by Ralph Ineson) publicly disagreeing with the Church.  His family include his wife Katherine (played by Kate Dickie), their oldest child and daughter Thomasin (played by Anya Taylor-Joy), their second oldest and oldest son Caleb (played by Harvey Scrimshaw), their two young fraternal twins Mercy (played by Ellie Grainger) and Jonas (played by Lucas Dawson), and their baby Samuel (played by twins Axtun Henry Dube and Athan Conrad Dube).  They have a few animals including a dog, a horse, two nanny goats, and a billy goat named Black Phillip.

After leaving the Plantation, they try homesteading in an area located about a day's ride from the Plantation.  The house is immediately surrounded by fields with a river nearby.  The fields are bordered by dense forest.

Misfortunes start happening pretty quickly after they move to their new home.  The trouble starts when Thomasin takes the baby to play hide and seek near for forest.  While playing the baby disappears.  Mind you, the baby is too young to crawl much less walk away so it is even more frightening and distressing to the family that the missing baby particularly goes missing in this manner.  Thomasin apparently doesn't see or hear anyone or anything take the baby.  The troubles escalate from there.

One of the very great things about this film is the many layers to it.  As I said, on its surface its dealing with a family that is going through terrible misfortunes all due to the pride of the father in his refusal to recant or apologize for his speaking out thus putting his family in this predicament.

It also deals with personal changes in the form of Thomasin going from being a child to being "a woman" by Puritan standards.  She is physically developing to the point where her brother Caleb finds himself physically attracted to her.  Strangely her mother is aware of  this behavior and Thomasin's encouraging the behavior by engaging in somewhat provocative behavior of her own around Caleb.

Then there is the trust between parent and child and how that can be so easily damaged by one word.  While Thomasin was extraordinarily foolish to take her young brother to play near the woods, I'm sure that she wouldn't have deliberately endangered her young sibling or any of her family for that matter.  But because Katherine can't full on blame Thomasin for the loss of the baby she attacks Thomasin in other ways about other things.

There is also the "very real supernatural" events that go on in this picture to contend with.  How much is all in the imagination and how much is really happening?  I have heard some speculate that Thomasin herself is in fact the witch.

This film has a great deal of food for thought.  It seems to be one of those films where the more you watch it, the more details there are to take in.  This film was superbly written.  The acting was brilliant.

Wahab Chaudhry as Black Phillip's voice was one of the best parts because the way that he spoke the words was very much how I would imagine the devil might talk and sound.  His voice had darkness but it was a kind of seductive darkness where the listener knows that the person talking to them is bad and that what the person is saying is bad but the listener finds that they don't care.  The thought of hearing the voice gives me chills.

The "A New England Folktale" portion of the title of this film is very apt.  This film reminded me of some of Nathaniel Hawthorne's short stories.  Robert Eggers did an excellent job capturing the feel of those kinds of stories (that might not have been the intention but either way it was excellent).  If you are unfamiliar with that sort of literature and you are curious I would suggest reading from Nathaniel Hawthorne's short stories or another author from that time period perhaps.

A couple of words of caution.  First off the "horror" is very atmospheric.  The person who initially showed me this film aptly compared it to Stanley Kubrick's The Shining.  So, if you are looking for typical horror or blood and guts, you might be disappointed.  I definitely do not think that this is "the scariest" film of this year or any year for that matter. But it is still a good movie that I think is worth watching.

Second word of caution,  the dialogue of this film is spoken in Puritan English.  As in, if you aren't at least vaguely familiar with Puritan English you might not understand a word that people are saying.  For example they don't say "banished" they say "banishe ed".  "Thee" and "Thou" are frequently used.  I would strongly advise turning on the subtitles when watching this picture both because of the Puritan English and also a goodly amount of the cast is British and Brits notoriously speak in lower volumes than American ears are used to (not a criticism just a fact).

The Conjuring rated R for disturbing violence and terror

I was curious about this film mostly because of the excellent trailer involving the clapping game but also because of the reference to the Warrens.  I was afraid that I would be too scared to watch it much less own it.  Needless to say I was wrong although the film does spook me a bit no matter how much I have watched it.

This film is said to be based off of the true story of the haunting of the Perron family that occurred starting in 1971 in Rhode Island.  This film also touches on (and as far as I can tell basically tells of) the story of the Annabelle doll that occurred in 1968.  So this film is something of a two for one but I digress.

The Perron family consists of Roger Perron (played by Ron Livingston), Carolyn Perron (played by Lili Taylor), and their five daughters:  Andrea (played Shanley Casswell),  Nancy (played by Haley McFarland), Christine (played by Joey King), April (played by Kyla Deaver), and Cindy (played by Mackenzie Foy)  There is also a dog named Sadie (although I haven't heard a reference to Sadie the dog in other things regarding this case so I'm not sure if in fact Sadie was real or just included in the film to add to the drama and suspense).  Immediately after moving into their new home strange things start happening including the poor dog Sadie mysterious being strangled on her chain as she is tied to a chain in the front yard and unusual bruising happening on the Mrs. Perron.  The events quickly escalate into more frightening occurrences including terrifying sounds and sights.  I thought it was well done that at times the audience can't see or hear what the characters are seeing and hearing and it is left to the talent of the actors to convey to the audience by their reactions to events what is going on and how terrifying the sights and sounds are.

Meanwhile Ed Warren (played by Patrick Wilson) and Lorraine Warren (played by Vera Farmiga) are recovering from an exorcism that went wrong for Lorraine Warren.  An attack of sorts happened resulting in Lorraine being physically and emotionally weakened.  Ed is obviously concerned and appears to want Lorraine to recover fully before including her in any investigations.

After the events at the Perron house escalate to the point where both parents are convinced that their house is haunted, Carolyn seeks out the Warrens' help after reading about them and attending a lecture.  The Warrens' agree but they obviously expect that they will find a rational explanation for the haunting.  They find that they are dreadfully mistaken and as such undertake to assist the family in relieving their haunting.  Research that the Warrens' come across shows that the "haunting" is much more severe and spread out than just the house and has affected people and situations for quite some time with the Perrons being only the latest victims.  While the Warrens continue to investigate the haunting they themselves end up being afflicted by the same spirit that is terrorizing the Perrons.

This film is very well done.  It is very well scripted and the actors are all very good.  I particularly loved the portrayal of the Warrens.  When I have heard of the Warrens they are always portrayed as behaving in a cold, scientific manner especially Ed Warren.  Perhaps it is simply that they were being businesslike.  I liked that Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga had very believable chemistry.  I also liked that this film showed the Warrens as first trying to find rational explanations rather than simply assume that places are haunted.  I also liked that there was an effort to properly educate people regarding hauntings and demonic activity.  The scenes where Lorraine witnesses the "attachments" of the demon to the family were particularly striking I thought.

The film had quite a bit of accurate information neatly wrapped in it.  But, as with any Hollywood film, there were liberties taken that I wasn't appreciative of.  I learned of the liberties taken after doing further research.  I find it disappointing when Hollywood takes liberties rather than relying on the actual events to tell the story because I would say eight times out of ten the real story is much more frightening than what Hollywood comes up with.  Further I feel that it takes away from the real story and the real struggles that the real people went through.

All in all a very well done horror film but be aware that there are liberties taken and if you want the full true story you should do research.  This film is rated R for a reason so I wouldn't recommend for people who are easily frightened, who don't like scary movies, or children.

Rango rated PG for language, rude humor, and action

I wasn't interested in this film when I first heard about it.  As such I had decided that I was probably never going to watch it and I was fine with that.  A friend decided to put this film on with the express purpose of showing me the film.

This film tells of a pet chameleon (voiced by Johnny Depp) who is somewhat bored with his life in his aquarium with his fake fish, fake palm tree, and headless/legless doll torso.  He is an actor and he craves more from life.  When his aquarium falls out of the back of the truck that he is traveling in, his "Western" adventure begins, taking him in a quest for  water to the town of Dirt.  In Dirt live an assortment of desert creatures in the form of an old West town.  Shortly after arriving, the chameleon takes on the name Rango and becomes sheriff of Dirt.  When the town water goes missing, Rango leads the posse to retrieve the water and figure out the mysterious goings-on at Dirt.

This film had some funny parts.  Its humor is in the style of Shrek and Igor in that it's funny for both children and adults and the adult humor is subtle enough that children won't notice the double entendre/innuendo.  Rango is also one of those films that you pick up something new each time you watch it, mostly because Rango himself speaks in a low and quick manner that is entertaining.

There were quite a few enjoyable and talented actors voicing characters in this picture.  I am one of those people who takes delight in successfully identifying actors in their voice work (although I confess I am not good at "lightning rounds" of quickly identifying actors based off of snippets of conversation and such).  I happily identified Bill Nighy as Rattlesnake Jake.  Isla Fisher was entertaining as Beans but I had no idea it was her until we watched the end credits. Ray Winstone was also easily recognizable and entertaining as Bad Bill.  I confess that I didn't identify Timothy Olyphant as The Spirit of the West although he did an excellent impression of Clint Eastwood (I hope that was his intention at least).

All in all, very good family movie.  The extra features show extra scenes (although if you watch the "extended" cut you will see all of the extra scenes worked in there) and some insight into the actual creatures that the characters in the film are based on.  If you decide to watch the extra features with children I would advise a warning to little ones especially to not do as the idiot in the extra features regarding the actual creatures does.

I know that the man is supposed to be an expert on these desert animals so I know he isn't truly an idiot.  But still I thought that it was immensely careless and thoughtless on his part as well as the part of the filmmakers of the extra features featurette about the desert animals to not put a disclaimer stating "Don't try this at home."

This imbecile who is supposed to be an expert repeatedly gets within literal striking distance of some potentially dangerous creatures.  At one point he picks up a scorpion with his bare hand.  At another he antagonizes a rattlesnake, a sidewinder, a bobcat, an African monitor lizard, and a Gila monster.  When he is bothering the Gila monster he mentions that he got bit by one once and that it was unpleasant but still neglects to tell people to not do what he is doing.  The only desert creatures that don't seem to be bothered by him are the fennec fox and the red-tailed hawk that he handles.

Perhaps he is assuming (dumbass that he is) that people will automatically refrain from being as stupid as he is being.   Amazingly he doesn't get bit by any of the creatures that he is bothering in this featurette.

As such, since the expert and the filmmakers of the featurette are ridiculously careless about including any kind of warning for children or anyone about avoiding the behavior of the idiot, I would strongly suggest that parents/teachers/whomever might show the extra feature involving the actual animals have a conversation with children about how they shouldn't do what the man on screen is doing.  Or you could simply avoid the special features regarding the actual desert animals.

Words and Pictures rated PG-13 for sexual material including nude sketches, some mature thematic material, and language

Which is more important, words or pictures?  Without words how can thoughts be accurately articulated in a coherent fashion?  Without pictures how can we see the visions and thoughts of others and thereby learn and expand our own imaginations?  Those are some of the questions that this movie asks although I wouldn't say that the questions are asked with "utter gravity".

This film tells of two teachers at a prep school presumably in New England but definitely somewhere in America who meet and engage in a "battle" of words versus pictures that ignites a renewed sense of purpose in their students and themselves.

Clive Owen plays an English teacher named Jack Marcus who goes by the name Mr. Marc to his students.  He is an alcoholic logophile (that means someone who loves words according to dictionary.com) who is also something of a failed writer with a strained relationship with his son.

Juliette Binoche plays Dina Delsanto a cantankerous artist who has come to the school to teach art.  To the audience her attitude is obviously at least partly due to her physical and emotional pain from having rheumatoid arthritis but she keeps her condition as private as possible.  She evidently left the city and her successful art career after her condition progressed to the point where she can't even open bottles sometimes much less pick up a paint brush and paint.  There's a rather pitiful scene where she can't open her medicine so she smashes the bottle open with a meat tenderizer then has to call her sister who lives nearby to help her get undressed because she can't do it herself.

Mr. Marc is initially interested in Delsanto due to her initial prickly response to him.  He gets "righteously indignant" when one of his students tells him about Delsanto's comment that "words are lies".  Granted her words were taken out of context but it doesn't matter.  So begins a "war" in which Mr. Marc and Delsanto exchange words and assign classroom assignments for their classes (they happen to have the same classmates in each of their respective classes).  Along the way sparks fly between them but it is a slow burn that is most satisfying.

As it turns out Mr. Marc is in danger of losing his job due to his alcoholism.  It isn't explained exactly why Mr. Marc is an alcoholic although his alcoholism appears to be a major reason for the distance between himself and his son.  I liked that the film didn't spell out the reason(s) for the alcoholism.

All in all a great film. The characters were believable and sincere.  The story made sense and was well written.  I particularly love that this movie left me with food for thought.  I personally would say words are more important only because there are so many to choose from to express thoughts and feelings.  Still a world without pictures is a very sad thought.

I also liked that this movie points out that many young people currently in elementary through high school are so very comfortable using tablets and smart phones that they don't typically use "traditional" ways of finding out information i.e. books or perhaps even talking to people who are knowledgeable about subjects.  Instead it is easy to simply go to a tablet, computer, or smart phone and google whatever it is you are looking for.

While I admit that it is convenient and I myself enjoy the convenience, I think it was nice to see a film point out that it is more satisfying and more stimulating to read through a book to find information.  Specifically Mr. Marc points out that by looking up words in an encyclopedia, the students were able to come across other words about other subjects and people that they might not have ordinarily come across, thereby possibly inspiring them to continue looking and learning about other things and people.

Captives rated R for strong sex scene, language, and violence

I came across this movie while flipping channels late one night.  I ended up enjoying it so much that I purchased it.

This movie opens with a beautiful young dentist named Rachel (played by Julia Ormond).  Rachel is evidently going through a bitter divorce with her ex husband Simon (played by Peter Capaldi).  While she is dealing with the divorce, she starts working at a London prison.  While at the prison, she meets Philip (played by Tim Roth).  Unlike most of his fellow prisoners that Rachel treats, Philip is calm and quiet.  He seems more polite and guarded.  After he asks and she agrees to a weekend visit, she gets swept up in a romantic relationship with him.  Complications arise both when Rachel finds out more about Philip's past and when a dangerous prisoner named Towler (played by Colin Salmon) finds out about their relationship.

The film is just excellent.  All of the actors were great.  Tim Roth was captivating and so sexy as Philip.  I was surprised at how attractive I found him considering the first time that I really recall seeing him was as the despicable Archie in Rob Roy.  

The story was very well written and had interesting twists.  I confess that I didn't anticipate the ending.  If I had a complaint I would say that I felt that the ending was incomplete but perhaps that was just a case of me wanting more.  When I first saw the film I was younger and as such didn't care for the ending.   As an older adult I realize that the ending is in fact perfect as it is fairly realistic.  

Keith Allen stole scenes as Lenny the Elvis-obsessed prison mate.  

Even the "awesome" jazzy saxophone muzak that plays throughout the film was great.

I must say that the bathroom sex scene between Rachel and Philip was so very sensual, it made bathroom sex look wonderful.  Lots of believable intensity and passion with a touching amount of raw tenderness.  Julia Ormond as Rachel and Tim Roth as Philip had such excellent chemistry from the moment that they first see each other to the end.  

Castle in the Sky rated PG

I was curious about this film as this is one of the many wonderful Studio Ghibli films made by Hayao Miyazaki.  I personally have enjoyed every Hayao Miyazaki film made that I have seen so far so I was really looking forward to this film.  I wasn't disappointed but I also didn't love it enough to consider purchasing it at present.

This beautiful film tells the story of Sheeta (voiced in English by Anna Paquin) and Pazu (voiced in English by James Van Der Beek) and their adventures together.  When the story opens Sheeta is being chased by government agents led by Muska (voiced in English by Mark Hamill) and pirates led by Dola (voiced in English by Cloris Leachman).  Sheeta has a crystal that has "magic effects" including making Sheeta float rather than fall.

She is in fact floating when from the sky when Pazu sees her and saves her from falling down into a mining pit.  Pazu tries to help Sheeta avoid capture while sharing aspects of his life story with her.  While they are traveling he tells her about how his father once saw the floating castle city Laputa and how his father's stories have inspired Pazu to seek out Laputa.

Sheeta is intrigued by his story.  She tells him that she used to live in a far away country where she was raised by her kindly older grandparents.  Her grandmother taught Sheeta spells and cautioned her to keep the crystal safe and secure.  One day the government agents led by Muska came and took her away without explaining why.

And so this film tells of Pazu and Sheeta's efforts to learn about Sheeta's mysterious past, find Laputa, and find happiness together.  It further teaches the lessons that things aren't always as they seem.  "Bad guys" might be good guys.  "A magic floating castle" might be much more.  Technology can be used for good or evil.

As I said, while I enjoyed the film, I didn't love it enough to own it at present.  I confess that I was bothered by Sheeta and they way that the final battle ended.  I felt that it was good but it was bothersome that the final battle "could only be ended one way" when in fact it could have easily played out another way.

This is a great family film.  There isn't disturbing imagery and no language of course.  There appears to be only one "frightening" sequence in the middle of the film that might disturb younger audiences.