Blog Archives

The Crazy Jumping Man of Mars

So I finally got around to watching John Carter. This was supposed to be a HUGE summer blockbuster in 2012 and instead was a critical and financial failure. That said, a few friends insisted that the movie wasn’t that terrible and that I ought to give it a try. 

The movie felt like a mixture of Flash Gordon, Stargate, and prequel-era Star Wars (with a dash of Fringe‘s Observers thrown in). Sort of. Also, our hero leaps around Mars like a flea. A better description would be a flea in a bouncy castle. 

My favorite character is this lizard-dog called Woola that’s just freakin adorable. It sort of has Jabba the Hutt’s face had Jabba been a baby. I know I just used “Jabba the Hutt” and “adorable” in close proximity. It will never happen again.

Anyways, effects-wise, the movie looks really good. Story-wise (and yes, I know this was based on an Edgar Rice Burroughs novel) it’s a little predictable. At the same time, since I know Star Wars and Flash Gordon  and all the adventure serials spawned from the Burroughs novels, I can’t help but wonder what is echoing what?

During one scene, the green Martian Tharks are in some kind of arena to punish Carter and some other Tharks who helped him. The whole scene reminds me of the big arena climax on Geonosis in Attack of the Clones. I half expected a barrage of lightsabers to appear at one point. Did this scene occur in one of Burroughs’ novels? If so, did Lucas base that whole scene after Burroughs or did the moviemakers look to Clones? Chicken or Egg? 

That’s my deep thought for this film which I did mostly enjoy. I don’t think I’ll ever watch it again, but I’m glad I finally got around to it.

Afterthought: Both Ciaran Hinds and James Purefoy are in this movie. Anytime they were near each other, I kept thinking about how Julius Caesar and Mark Antony were going to get the band back together.  I see it as a sign to re-watch Rome





Legolas’ funky eyes and other mysteries of Middle Earth

I went to the movies last night to see The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.  I must say that I greatly enjoyed this installment more than I did its predecessor, An Unexpected Journey. I’m not sure if it’s because we were knee-deep in plotline or because my favorite character, Smaug, was finally around (wonderfully voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch). Regardless, I had a great time watching this film. The spiders were a problem. I hate them and an only take comfort in the fact that at least I didn’t see the movie in 3D where the spiders would have been too close for comfort.

My main beef with the film was that every time Orlando Bloom was on the screen, I would be pulled out of the movie  spell. Have you ever seen The First Wives Club? There’s a scene when Bette Midler, Diane Keaton, and Goldie Hawn are all having drinks after the funeral of a mutual friend. Midler keeps staring at Hawn and finally asks her how much plastic surgery she’s actually had. I felt that way with Bloom in the movie. I kept mentally picking apart everything that didn’t look right with him as Legolas.

I know it’s been 10 years since The Return of the King.  However, it looks like they used come computer technology to either de-age him, or redo his face somehow. His face seems much more filled out that normal.   And his eyes…. Legolas had some kind of crazy, cloudy eyes going on. These were clearly not the same types of lenses they used in Lord of the Rings.  In the LotR films, his eyes are way darker. Or maybe his pupils are just way dilated.  In this movie, he had like crazy Underworld vampire eyes going on. It took so much away, that I couldn’t pay much attention to any of his scenes. Pity…

While we are on the subject of Legolas, why was he in the movie in the first place? WHY did Peter Jackson pull a George Lucas and start tinkering with the story? Adding the elf storyline (and original character of Tauriel–who was pretty cool, btw) felt like a disservice to the original text. Whatever. I’ve voiced my opinion. I still enjoyed the movie.


On a side note that is completely and wholly unrelated:

Bulletproof Monk is on the television right now. It’s not that great of a movie. This was Chow Yun-fat’s follow-up to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Seann William Scott was in the middle of his American Pie bro movie era. He might still be in that era. I’m not sure. I like him and feel he could do more. We’ll see. What makes Bulletproof Monk a noticeable movie to me is that it features a character with the delightful name of Mister Funktastic. The character is some East End street thug who remains shirtless so all can admire his chest tattoo which says…..wait for it…. “MisterFunktastic.” He’s a pointless character, yet the name is so ridiculous that I always stop to watch this movie just to catch his few scenes.



Sap: No longer limited to Christmas trees.

 Halloween’s body isn’t even cold yet, but that hasn’t stopped the retailers and networks from reminding you that December 25 is practically upon us. In fact, why not start celebrating now? Poor Mr. Turkey. He never gets his moment to shine.

I had half hoped that last year’s cheesy holiday movie addiction was a temporary thing. I thought my short-lived summer holiday movie relapse was perhaps a wee setback. Nope. All it took was a Hallmark Channel announcement of marathon movies to get my inner elf leaping and fa-la-la-ing away. I won’t decorate until after the turkey is in my belly and the crazy people go shopping. I won’t put Christmas with the Rat Pack into heavy music rotation until December. But movies?

Movie are fair game, and I’m going to watch them all!!! Mwa-hahahahahahaha….. I’ve already made a significant dent. Here’s a few to watch and/or avoid. Or you can be like me and just watch them all. 

Once Upon a Christmas: Kathy Ireland shows off her KMart collection whilst playing Santa’s “nice” daughter Kristin. Kristin goes to the mortal world to save one family from being on the naughty list. In doing so, she falls in love, saves said family and also saves Christmas from being ruined by her naughty sister, Rudolpha.  This was followed-up by Twice Upon a Christmas which unfortunately, I didn’t get to watch as I had to run errands. I’ll be sure to catch it again. From what I gleaned from the first few minutes, Kristin has lost her memory. Suspense!!!! [Honestly, Once was a ridiculous waste of my time. If you want silly, go for this movie. Otherwise, avoid.]

All I Want for Christmas: Gail O’Grady (why isn’t she in more things??) plays a widowed mother whose well-meaning son enters and wins a toy contest for Chistmas. What does he tell the contest sponsors he wants this year? Answer: a husband for his mom. Yeah.  While all the bigwigs and tv folks play The Bachelor with Ms. O’Grady, love turns out to be closer to home. Maybe even next door.  [Predictable? Of course! Sappy? Si. Kind of sweet and worth watching at least once? Go for it.]

Snow Bride: This movie premiered this past Saturday night. A tabloid reporter chases down the story of a possible engagement for some politician’s son and through a series of mistaken identities and spontaneous traditional family/town events, oh you know the drill…. [The whole “snow bride” part of the story was a stretch and really silly. However, despite the cheese, I kept watching. I had to see it through. Yes the sap flowed, but Patricia Richardson from Home Improvement was in this as well as the most wonderful Tom Lenk (sporting a rather perplexing yet fetching stache).  The heartwarming and humor far outweighed the cheese and sap. Therefore, this one goes on the approved to view list.]

More to come folks….more to come. Consider yourselves warned.


Summer’s End

Wow. I just did a count of all the movies I’ve seen this summer. We’ve hit a new record low, folks. I’ve only seen 3 films. But you know what? I’m totally cool with that.

In the days of yore before I had, you know, bills and a car payment, rent, etc., I would see almost every film released during the summer season. I used to collect the ticket stubs and marvel at their number.

Mind you, this was also when matinée showings were around $3 and evening films were $5-ish. Today’s matinée showing of The World’s End (I’ll get to that in a bit) was $8 freaking dollars!!! WTF!

My overdue point here is that I can no longer afford to go to every release as that really adds up. Instead of marveling at my stub stack, I’d be marveling as how quickly my bank balance plummeted. Ha!

Anyways, things being what they are, I’ve become a little particular when it comes to what I see over the summer months. I check out the releases and make a list of (a) what I’d like to see and then out of that (b) what I must, by all means, see. The rest go straight to the Netflix queue. Needless to say, my queue is a bit crowded right now.

So..what trifecta of films made the grade?

  1. Star Trek Into Darkness
  2. Pacific Rim
  3. The World’s End.

Just looking at that list made me realize that my genre of choice must be science fiction. Again, totally cool with that. Most of my favorite movies fall into that bucket, and really, why else do we go to the movies but to escape? There’s no further escape than sci-fi.

I’ve raved about Pacific Rim already, so you don’t need my thoughts on that. Star Trek? All I need to tell you is this: Cumberbatch. Nuff said. But The World’s End? Ahh…I’ve decided it’s the perfect film to watch for this summer’s end.

The World’s End is the final film of the “Three Flavors of Cornetto” trilogy starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost and directed by Edgar Wright. The other two films are Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz.  TWE follows a group of friends as they attempt to recreate a pub crawl from their youth. During the crawl they discover their hometown has been taken over by aliens. The premise is a little zany but it totally works.

I’m a HUGE Simon Pegg fan so it’s hard for me to find anything wrong with the film other than that it had a bit of a slow start. Aside from that, it was awesome. There were several cameos from folks who were in the other two films as well as a couple from the Pegg/Frost/Wright TV show, Spaced  (if you haven’t seen this, shame on you).

Oh, also this movie was damn funny. I laughed and laughed. People in the theater laughed too. It wasn’t just me!! Anyways, that’s about it. I just wanted to note the few films I saw and say that I’m glad I saw them.

Did you see any stand-out films over the summer? Are you having to be choosy too? Let me know.

Orlando Bloom’s rather tall hair and other oddities

I started typing this about 3/4 of the way through 2011’s The Three Musketeers. Wow. It’s really not very good at all. Honestly, yeah. I keep waiting for it to improve, but it’s not happening.

It’s not bad acting or anything. There is an insanely good cast for this movie. Matthew Macfadyen, Ray Stevenson, and Luke Evans play the titular characters. The fault, instead, lies with the insertion of  a major steampunk element into the classic Dumas tale along with many a cheesy line or two.  Honestly, the plot gets downright zany. The trailer (embedded above) says “not like before.” Ain’t that the truth. Let me list a few items of note:

1. Milla Jovovich as Milady de Winter. She’s like a cat burglar who knows kung fu and the finer points of swordplay.

2. King Louis XIII. Usually he’s portrayed as naive. This version has the inexperienced king as kind of stupid and a bit foppish. I love his little hats! Also, Freddie Fox, who plays the king, has such a resemblance to Vincent Caso, that I kept thinking he was Bladezz from The Guild. 

3. There is a freakin’ flying ship in the movie. It looks like a pirate ship / zeppelin.  No one in the movie thinks this is odd. Everyone’s cool with it. Here’s some perspective for you: Louis XIII ascended the French throne in 1610. This is the same year the bagel was invented. From bagel to flying ship—anything goes!

4. Orlando Bloom’s hair. It’s not so much a coiffure as a structure. It’s rather tall and steals every scene away from him.

5. Christoph Waltz as Cardinal Richelieu. One feels that he’s holding back from laughing and walking off the set. And don’t get me started on Mads Mikkelsen as Captain Rochefort. I can’t tell if he’s trying to be creepy or eccentric. Maybe a little bit of both?  I get the feeling he’s winking at us from behind the eyepatch.

6. Wait, apparently one airship isn’t enough. There is a total aerial naval showdown in the sky. Huh? If it wasn’t so ridiculous, it would be kind of cool.


Now, I will say this. The sword fighting (when there is any) is pretty groovy. The costumes are nice and technicolorrific. Yes, that’s now a word I just made up. Feel free to use it.

Also, Paul W.S. Anderson directed this flick. He’s the same guy who directed all the Resident Evil movies. So I guess as ridiculous as this movie was, it could have been worse.  Richelieu could have set up an army of undead in hopes of stealing the French throne. Now that would have been something to see.

Yes sir, I liked it: InSight

I really don’t like ghosts or ghost stories. Ghostbusters left me traumatized for weeks.  I was convinced that Slimer was going to ooze out of the faucet in the bathroom. I kid you not. Lady in White? Freaked me out. Poltergeist? Viewed the one and only time.

I think my thing about ghosts is that they can’t be killed. You can kill a vampire. You can kill a werewolf. Zombies? Them too. Ghosts? Nope. All you can do is move and hope they don’t follow. For this reason, there are many movies in the ghost/horror genre that I have avoided over the years. I rarely even read ghost stories.


Oddly enough, I recently watched a ghostie-type movie that I enjoyed enough to pause so I could take notes and also to suggest to a couple of people.  This rare gem is titled InSight and stars Sean Patrick Flanery and Natalie Zea.

Zea plays an ER nurse named Kaitlyn. One night a stabbing victim is brought into the hospital. As she flatlines on the stretcher, the victim suddenly opens her eyes and speaks to Kaitlyn, saying “he loved me”—just as the defibrillator is applied. The electrical current zaps Kaitlyn too. Both die, but Kaitlyn is revived after a minute. Also, no one else remembers the girl regaining consciousness.

Pretty much from that point on, Kaitlyn starts seeing visions of the dead girl’s final moments. It’s almost like she’s experiencing memories that aren’t her own. Honestly, the way the spirit of the girl (or her memories at least) keep haunting, Kaitlyn, I was reminded of  Prince Hamlet being led on by the ghost of his father. That sort of all-encompassing thing. You know… That said, Kaitlyn takes it upon herself to solve the murder even if that means getting in the way of Flanery’s police detective who is also investigating. The two eventually team up, and away we go. [Special Note: I love finding ways to work Hamlet into a conversation. This one practically fell into my lap. You’re welcome.]

I’ve had a sweet spot in my heart for Sean Patrick Flanery ever since he appeared on the scene as Young Indiana Jones. I had several episodes of the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles recorded on VHS once upon a time. About a year ago, I decided to rewatch some of these episodes from my adolescent years thinking they’d be just as awesome. Um…no. They are all fairly cheesy. But whatever. I had a great time watching them back in the day, and that’s all that matters. The point is that I’m always happy to see Mr. Flanery working.

I guess the best way to describe the movie is to call it a psychological ghost story. There were a few scary moments, but like Kaitlyn, I was all about finding out who the killer was. From early on, I was sucked into the story and held on for the ride. The movie had a cool noirish feel to it in places. For the most part this seemed to work.

InSight surprised me. I was expecting to watch a procedural murder mystery, and it turned out to be so much more. Just when I thought I had things figured out, another twist would come along, and I’d be back to square one. For that and other reasons, the movie was most enjoyable. I’d suggest it for a nice evening in. Also, Christopher Lloyd has a small role. That’s a bonus on its own.


Fun Fact:  According to, the movie was shot in 15 days. That’s pretty groovy.

Beardless Vikings and Other Strange Tales

I’m going to just come out with it. Blood of Beasts was meh. Actually, it was more like bleh.  I know that’s harsh, but yeah.  Originally, I had decided to give Jane March a second chance seeing as I was very critical of her performance in Grimm’s Snow White.  For her part in BoB, she was okay. The rest of the movie however…

BoB is a rather bland retelling of Beauty and the Beast only it’s set during the good old Viking times of olde. I think it’s Vikings.  None of the men have facial hair(!!!!), but almost all of them have on bad wigs. Baaaad wigs, I tell you!  Also, their waterfront Viking village looks like it may have been plundered from the Ewoks.

The “Beauty” of this story is played by Jane March. She is Freya, the Viking king’s daughter. It’s a tough world for Freya. She’s mourning the loss of her true love Agnar and at the same time, she’s having to deal with being promised to the village’s resident bully, Sven.

The “Beast” would be this bear/wolf man who lives on this distant land that the village men keep trying to reclaim. The costume for this guy does work. It’s like he’s wearing a bear head hoodie of sorts. This gives the appearance that his actual face is coming out of the mouth of a bear. Also, he’s got Darth Maul makeup on, so it’s kind of disturbing—which I gather is what the filmmakers were going for. Kudos!

So at one point, the Viking men do battle with the Beast (or as they refer to him, Odin’s Beast). Sven being the all-around groovy guy that he is, flees in fear and leaves the king to the mercy of the Beast.  Of course Freya bravely travels to the Beast’s lair to beg her father’s release. She strikes a deal with the beast man to take her father’s place, and he accepts. You know the rest of the story.

While I’m glad the filmmakers tried to empower Freya by making her a Viking princess who has her own armor and can totally wield a sword, they failed to take into account one key point. Jane March is a really skinny chick. The armor sort of swallows her, and I have no idea how she’s seeing out of her helmet.

One nice thing in this movie is that the story is split between the goings on at Chez Beast and Viking Village.  Justin Whalin (I know!) plays Eric. He was injured during the initial Beast fight, and feels a lot of guilt for leaving the king behind. He’s also one of the first people to start to stand up to Sven (who has appointed himself mayor of the village people).

Plot pacing, however, does not save this film. Most of the costumes look like they were picked up from Party City. Also,pretty much all the characters are one-dimensional. The king, is a well-meaning idiot. Sven has one setting: tool. March, while way better than she was in Grimm’s Snow White, wasn’t exactly wowing me here. Her character just seemed blah. Also, I think it’s now a proven fact that March cannot conjure up real tears. Whalin’s the best thing in this so….yeah.

The story was so-so. Honestly, I was bored through most of the viewing. It’s a different take on the fairy tale—particularly the ending, so I give the movie points for that. However, I wasn’t a fan of the ending. Points rescinded. It’s worth a watch if you enjoy love stories without the chemistry or if you are a fan of strawberry jam being used for fake blood. Most of the action sequences use the shakey-cam effect. I’ve come to realize from my numerous B-movie viewings, that the shakey-cam is used when the budget won’t allow for well-choreographed action sequences. Enough already! I didn’t enjoy it, but maybe someone else will.


Oh and sidenote: Justin Whalin!  Last I saw you was in Dungeons and Dragons (yeesh). Ye of the promising acting career post TV’s Lois & Clark; where hath you been? Cause you shouldn’t have been here.


Believe it or not, but….I haven’t watched a movie in well over a week. Crazy, right?  I think so. I’ve been busy playing catch-up on Sanctuary (just finishing up Season 3), playing Batman: Arkham Asylum for the PS3 (it’s on loan, so I’m trying to get through it quickly), and prepping for my upcoming vacation.  On top of work and other life activities, movie-watching took a much needed break.

I have a review I’m working on for you. I recently watched Blood of Beasts which um..was a little bloody and there was a beast so they have that in their favor. When I finish the review, it shall be posted. No need to fear missing out on that one. I have more than a few things to say.

Anyways, the point I’m trying to make (and am doing a terrible job at doing so) is that in a couple weeks, I’ll be more than ready for some serious movie-watching, heckling, and reviewing. I hope you will tune in and laugh with me (or at me–whichever). 

Until then, enjoy the intermission music. 

Oz: The Not So Great but Mostly Enjoyable

And darn pretty to look at! The land, I mean. Not the man. Though there is some kind of an appealing rascal look to James Franco. Hmm…

Let me start this off with a few things. First of all, I love, love, love The Wizard of Oz. I know all the songs, and I have a small collection of Christmas ornaments. For Christmas a couple of years ago, I was given the anniversary DVD box set that came with all the promotional material, a watch, and even a copy of the film’s budget. I freaked out.

I think, that even though I know the MGM film with Judy Garland takes liberties with the L. Frank Baum books, there is still something pure about it. It’s as if the film is protected in one of Glinda’s magic bubbles, and all other adaptations can’t seem to connect to it. There have been many attempts, and none have made it. I kind of hoped Oz the Great and Powerful would come the closest or at least be enough of its own movie that we wouldn’t need the connection. In some says, the movie latched on to its predecessor. But in many, many ways, it missed the target.

I didn’t go into Oz  with the highest of expectations, but I had hopes. After all, Sam Raimi was at the helm. He’s a crazy cool director, and I’m a huge fan. While I hoped Raimi’s film would have a little more edge, instead it came across as more of a fairy tale. In my opinion, the movie is more aimed at the kiddies than adults. I felt that everyone in the cast was given direction to overact a bit. If someone was happy, they weren’t happy. They were happy! Characters weren’t sad or angry. They were devastated  or wrathful. I felt that the overacting distracted me from the overall experience.

The story was pretty good, but it took a long time for the film to click into place. That could have been me though. I had been promised a Bruce Campbell cameo (as per tradition in Raimi films) and spent most scenes looking for him to pop up. Also, the motivations of some of the characters seemed odd. Franco’s Oscar Diggs just seemed disconnected from a lot going on around him. I don’t get it. Franco seemed more intense and connected when he spent an entire movie pinned by a rock in a canyon. In Oz, I felt like he was distracted for most of the time as if he wasn’t sure what his lines were or if there was something better going on off set. This wasn’t the case for the whole movie, mind you. Franco had some pretty cool scenes, and I enjoyed those scenes. However, he was really difficult to read for most of the movie.

There were also writing issues. I have a brother, but I rarely, if ever, call him “Brother” when addressing him. Two characters must call each other “sister” more times that not. It got kind of annoying. It’s a nit-picky thing, but it bothered me.

All these grievances aside, there were things I did enjoy. First of all, the movie was gorgeous to look at. A friend of mine saw it in 3D, and said the effects were pretty groovy. Also, Danny Elfman did the music. He’s the best film composer in my book. There were some pretty cool lines in the movie, but I can’t repeat my favorite ones because they contain spoilers. Just take my word for it.  Characters such as Knuck the fanfare player and the China Girl made the movie enjoyable.

Also, I want Finley the monkey. Every close up on this adorable computer animated primate caused me to coo and awww over him. This film was my Oscar prize, so I saw it with Crint. He kept laughing at me whenever I’d melt over the adorable monkey. Seriously folks. He’s soooooo cute.

So yeah. I had fun watching Oz the Great and Powerful, but I don’t think it lived up to what I hoped for it. If I graded movies, I’d give it a B-.  It gets points for good casting (Rachel Weisz’s tricky Evanora and Michelle Williams’ kindly Glinda), visuals (Oz the land was absolutely gorgeous), and music. It gets bonus points for  an adorable monkey and Bruce Campbell.  However, it loses points to questionable casting (Franco and maybe Mila Kunis), overacting, and unpolished writing.

There were many kids in the movie theater when I went. Most were okay, but I overheard two boys on my row ask their adult supervisor if they could go play in the lobby. That’s never a good thing. The little girl who sat a few seats away from me, however, was a like a little version of me. When the lights dimmed and the movie started, she gave a happy little squeal and did a sort of anticipatory dance in her seat. From what I can tell, she was happy when the end credits started rolling. I can only hope that she maintains her excitement for movies and good stories. I’m sure children like her were in Raimi’s mind when he made this movie. If that’s the case, then he definitely succeeded. But for this slightly disappointed adult…I’ll take what I enjoyed from Oz and be happy with that.

Les Trois Couleurs Trilogy

Regular readers of mine know that I have a fascination with B movies. They are also aware that I have a love of all types of films and genres. This weekend, I thought I’d take a break from the mediocre (don’t despair, there’s more to come) and watch some truly wonderful cinema. This weekend, I’ve been watching films from Krzystzof Kieslowski’s Trois Couleurs trilogy.

If you aren’t familiar with these, I highly recommend them. A series of three films, each film is loosely based on the colors of the French flag and the ideals of the French Republic: liberty, equality and fraternity. If you haven’t already guessed, the films are in French (and Polish).  I know some people who can’t stand a subtitled movie. I don’t get it. A film is a film. Just because a film isn’t in English doesn’t make it any less of a film. Have you seen Empire of the Wolves? It’s a really good action/mystery. Loved it. 

Anyways, the order of the films is Blue, White, Red.  Or au français, Bleu, Blanc, Rouge. Blue stars Juliette Binoche (one of my favorite actresses) as the widow of a famous composer. Both her husband and her daughter have died in a car accident of which she is the lone survivor. The movie follows how she copes (or doesn’t cope) with the losses and how she finds herself and is able to carry on life from that point onwards. I don’t describe it well. It’s a very somber and moving film. Binoche’s performance is just superb. I have to be in the right kind of mood to watch this one, but when I do, I’m always moved.

White stars Julie Delphy and  Zbigniew Zamachowski as a recently divorced couple.  The grounds for said divorce are humiliating as Zamachowski’s Karol Karol was unable to perform his husbandly duty so to speak. Following the divorce, he falls to rock bottom. The film follows as he rebuilds his life and devises a plan to not only seek revenge against but also win back his ex. This films plays out with a slightly comedic tone.  I find it to be the weakest of the three, but it’s still enjoyable.

Red is my favorite of the bunch. This film follows the story of student/model Valentine (Irene Jacob) who accidentally hits the dog of a retired judge. She and the judge form a friendship, and she learns that he has been listening in on the phone calls of all his neighbors. Running parallel is the story of Valentine’s neighbor, Auguste who is studying to become a judge himself.  As the movie progresses, the seemingly separate paths of all the characters start intertwining. I don’t know what genre I’d put this movie in. Maybe mystery. It’s also such a wonderful example of good writing and character study.

What’s really cool about the trilogy is that each movie can easily stand on its own. At the same time, they are all loosely connected. Juliette Binoche’s character briefly appears (for about 5 seconds) in White. The main characters of Blue and White  appear briefly in Red.  I hardly ever watch them in order. Now that I think about it, I probably watch them in order of how I rank them. So that would be Red, Blue, White. But whatever. They are all good to watch.

So that’s my artsy-fartsy suggestion for now. I leave you with the Criterion Collection’s “3 reasons” for two of the films (I feel the one for White gives a spoiler or two) and the hopes that one day I will be able to fluently speak French. I keep trying, but alas, I only seem to remember the same sentences which translate as:

  • The monkey is on the branch. He plays banjo and smokes a pipe. (Thank you Eddie Izzard)
  • I work my pencil sharpener in the street.
  • Here is the key.
  • I do not understand.
  • You speak to0 fast for me.
  • Where is the library?
  • Where is the toilet?