Showing posts with label 1990. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1990. Show all posts

Thursday, January 20, 2011

#21 - Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (1990)

So, today I had jury duty.  It was very eventful.  I dropped my finals off at school and talked to the sub who was going to administer them, then headed off to the courthouse.  This was the small, city courthouse, as opposed to the country courthouse where they hold all the trials for the more serious crimes.  We waited around for about 30 minutes, reading this helpful little guide to what a jury’s responsibility is and all that, before we were greeted by the district judge and told that there were originally five trials scheduled for today, but four settled ahead of time, so the last one would get going in the next 10 minutes or so.  Thirty minutes later, he came back and told us that the defendant was now an half-hour late and there was a warrant out for his arrest.  And thus, we were dismissed.  I was back at school by about 930.  Whee.

Tonight I have to work at the concession stand for the high school basketball games because a portion of the proceeds goes to the tennis program, which is pretty sweet.  It gives the girls a chance to earn money for their uniforms.  Of course, it also is going to take up over four hours of my time tonight.  This is precious, quality movie and Australian Open viewing time! To this end, I streamed a movie while grading my students’ finals in school today, a very witty comedy called Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.

For the uninitiated, the title characters are incidentals from Shakespeare’s Hamlet who are sent to England to deliver the (supposedly-going-mad) Hamlet to his death, with this death order in a letter.  But it is R and G who themselves are killed instead, as Hamlet switches letters and escapes when the ship is attacked by pirates. 

The movie follows these two characters as a way to almost re-tell the story of Hamlet, from their eyes.  Gary Oldman and Tim Roth play the title characters, whose names are often interchanged in the film, presumably because the characters themselves are nearly always referred to in tandem.  And, unlike in Shakespeare’s play, where the characters themselves are likely assistants of Claudius’s overall corruption within the kingdom, the characters in the movie (based on Tom Stoppard’s play) always just seem to be in the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time.  Despite the fact that they often have thoughtful discussions and repartée,  they seem like outsiders to us, and feel like outsiders themselves.  We know this is true every time they have a discussion as to whether or not they are actually Hamlet’s friends.

This is another one of those movies that is really right up my alley, and it’s one that I should have watched a long time ago when a couple of people told me I’d enjoy it.  But, if I had watched it then, I wouldn’t have had this opportunity to blog about it now.  Furthermore, it’s been off my radar for quite awhile.  Thank you, Netflix, for telling me that I’d enjoy it, so that I could finally remember to watch it.  A real “should-see” for all you Anglophiles out there!

Score: 9/10

Friday, January 14, 2011

#17 - Troll 2 (1990)

Hey all! Blogging from Kalamazoo this weekend, where I'm spending a couple days with my friends Dan and Marianne, because tonight we had a viewing party of one of the most notoriously bad movies of all time: Troll 2. 

Now, you may be thinking, "Well, I can't possibly see this movie because I haven't seen Troll 1." 

You'd be both right and wrong.

You'd be right because you shouldn't see this movie. Not ever.

But you'd be wrong, because you'd have assumed that this was a sequel to a movie called Troll. That doesn't exist.  Also, there are no trolls in the movie.

Troll count = 0.  For all 93 minutes.

This piece of shit has some of the worst acting known to man, and as Dan pointed out, every character is bad in his or her own way.  They all find ways to "shine".

There is the consummate over-acter who longs for the parts where she can be as crazy as can be; there is the monotone "I'm-reading-all-my-lines-straight-off-the-cue-cards" Kirsten Dunst acting style; there is the "worst-high-school-actor-who-inexplicably-gets-all-the-good-parts" chick; there's just so much that could have gone wrong, and it all did.

Of course, we all knew going into it how crappy it is, and our sole intention going into it was to mock it as we did "The Room," but that didn't make this movie any more palatable.  Combine this with the fact that it's supposed to be a rabid anti-vegetarianism cautionary tale (WTF?!) and you have a total lack of, well, anything.

Score: 1.5/10 (With "The Room" being a 1.0/10)
Experience and enjoyment level from watching it with everyone and laughing at it: 10/10