Welcome to Gracie Mae DeLunac's life, via the computer. This is where you'll see updates on my stories and whatnot. I'll post when I can about what new stuff has occurred in my mind, in the world, and whatever goes. Benvenue, everyone!
I watched the video and decided, after sharing on Facebook, that I would go to the youtube video and comment.
My response to the video (Margem Okalwa): I'm glad that I found this today because this is a huge topic for me. I've had personal medical history that caused me to lose my Fallopian Tubes (infection) and have had irregular menses. However, when they took the Tubes, they left the rest of the system because it all looked normal. From that, I have kept the idea of adoption/in vitro fertilization in mind. There are so many kids in the world without parents that can use parents, so I don't have to have genetical offspring if I wanted kids. I am okay with that.
However, my doctor today said that I definitely can't become pregnant even with in vitro due to the irregular menses. Between that, terrible medical history and genes in the family, and the fact that I am comfortable with my life as is (strange work hours, quiet home with me and my husband, spending money, planning trips, etc.), I don't want kids right now. If I do want kids in the future, I will end up adopting. I'm perfectly fine with that but some people still say [since I'm 27 and married] that I should have children. No, thank you, we're good right now. And being an adoptive mother doesn't mean that I would be a horrible mother or not have the "instinct"/patience to deal with kids. It just means that I would not be able to have biological/genetical kids.
Why can't people accept that decision? I don't know. It bugs me, for sure, but my life and my body are my own and this is my decision [albeit partially decided by medical issues]. And I'm fine with that. :-)
I then read some of the responses to the video and found this one. I could not stand what the person said and I had to comment.
My response (Margem Okalwa): "I don't understand what you child free people will gain from not having kids. More money? Probably, but that's a bit materialistic. More quiet? Yeah but I wouldn't call that an exciting life. More trips? You can still plan trips with kids. More time to yourselves? That's a bit selfish, there's always date nights."
There are different situations to child-free homes. Some have to wait until their own offspring get out on their own, whereas some just don't have offspring (by choice or medical issues). Don't group everyone together.
I can't speak for every child-free home but my husband and I are well married and child-free (in "reproductive years", what most say). Reason? Medical issues on both of our sides that block or make reproduction difficult, and family medical history that we do not want to give to others [stress-related medical issues, post-traumatic stress disorder, arthritis, depression, heart issues, diabetes, etc.]. Money? Yes, it is materialistic, but that is keeping the food on the table {sometimes very little}. I would not want to bring a third person into my household and be unable to feed them. Quiet? Yes. Quiet can be good. Especially with PTSD and other stressors. I would not want to put a third person into my household causing more stress to increase the heart issues in my husband's medical history. Trips? Yeah, we could have kids and still plan trips but not "hey, let's just get up and go on a trip tonight" when there is a third human's schedule on the table. Have you ever tried to plan a supper out with three other humans and found that unless you plan it months in advance, not all four of you can go? More time to yourselves? Yeah, I could have kids but after working 12 hour days in the public transportation system dealing with hundreds of passengers, I need to get away from public. I need to get away and have alone time. My husband understands this and I can do what I have to do to de-stress and become amiable again. Last I checked, a little human would not understand that Mommy is leaving the house at weird times, coming back at weird times, sleeping a lot (to stay alert behind the wheel at work), and snapping all the time (because of being unable to declutter the brain). Not all humans can actually be a full-time babysitter [parent] for 27/7, 365 days a year.
Does this mean that I will NEVER have children in my life? No. I love children; I just don't want to be that all-the-time-on-duty mother right now. I'm a wonderful aunt and a wonderful teacher at church, but that's not all-the-time-on-duty.
So please consider the fact that not every child-free home is the same. Anyways, other opinions on the topic? I'm getting off the video page because that one person angered me by grouping all child-free people together and called us selfish and materialistic.
Criteria:
0/5 – No value whatsoever. Absolute waste of time.
1/5 – Barely worth any time.
2/5 – Pathetic but has a bit of something to hold the attention a little.
3/5 – Somewhat kept the attention but could definitely have used more.
4/5 – Good, but not awe-strikingly amazing. Could have maybe used a bit more to the movie.
5/5 – Go see it! Wonderful movie all around – characters, music, theme, storyline, etc.
"The Girl Who Played With Fire" is the second movie in a trilogy based on the Millenium trilogy by Stieg Larsson. This was released in Sweden in September of 2009. This is available on Netflix in Swedish with English subtitles.
Swedish trilogy versus the English-spoken 2011 version of "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo":
* I originally knocked the 2011 movie down for Lisbeth threatening her guardian (make good reports, be abstinant, and do not try to have your stomach tattoo removed or I will put it on your forehead for everyone to see; I'll be watching). However, this movie ("The Girl Who Played With Fire") had that in there.
* The 2011 movie had a fond-connection between Lisbeth and her former guardian, which I found odd but in the "Played with Fire" movie, she was communicating well with her former guardian.
NOTE: I will be editting the other post because of these two tidbits, but not enough to change my rating.
Plotline:
It has been a year since Lisbeth and Blomkvist worked the Vanger case. Lisbeth has been travelling with the money that she ciphoned off of Wennerstrom. She comes back and hooks back up with her girlfriend, who is a bigger character in this movie. Lisbeth checks on her guardian Bjurman and finds that he is visiting tattoo removal sites and not writing glowing reviews, for which she threatens him with his gun (at his home) that if he didn't do what she told him to, she'd kill him. Unfortunately she was not wearing gloves at that point, which comes back to bite her later.
A journalist comes to Millenium and tells them that he and his criminology-studying girlfriend have been researching into sex trafficking, finding a few johns [buying customers] that they could roast in a public article through the Millenium, if Millenium said it would be alright with them. This journalist is given a desk and a 2 month contract with Millenium and just as they are ready to publish the findings, the journalist and his girlfriend are murdered. Blomkvist is the first person to see them dead, as he was going over to get hard copy evidence to bring back to the shop. Of course, that makes him a buffet to other reporters.
At first they do not have anyone to pin it on until they find out that Bjurman was also murdered, in his home, and that Lisbeth's finger prints are on the gun. The police jump at the idea that Lisbeth is the main suspect, considering her past, and start trying to find her. Meanwhile, others are also trying to find her by beating up (and trying to burn) Lisbeth's girlfriend.
While going through the investigation, everyone said that Lisbeth was guilty of the 3 murders but Blomkvist denies it and defends for her. The two of them also find out some important information about the murderers, information that I found slightly shocking, which gives it a bit of a twist at the end.
Music:
I did not notice any specifically.
Character Development:
As this is a sequel, the characters have already been developed. However, Blomkvist also learns about Lisbeth's past and where she has come from [learning that mysterious side of hers]. It helps him understand her better and care more for her sake. In fact, SPOILERS, at the end, it is Blomkvist that comes to the rescue, finding her near dead and calling the ambulance.
Honestly, I liked this one better than the first movie. This one had a bit more of an edge to it than the first in the series. There was one action sequence where a guy was driving down a sidewalk to follow someone who had captured Lisbeth's girlfriend - pretty exciting. :-)
I cannot think of anything else to say about this movie, so rating!
4/5 – Good, but not awe-strikingly amazing. Could have maybe
used a bit more to the movie.
4/5 - I found this movie to be a bit edgy without being too dark. The first one had been much darker than this one, even while telling the story. This one told the story, had a pretty straight plotline (that was easy to understand), and a simple theme [trying to find the true murderer while trying to help a friend].
I would not recommend this one for children, since it is rated R and it does have family fight-to-the-death fights. However, if you watch the first Millenium movie and managed to have a sliver of interest in the characters, you should watch the second movie.
0/5 – No value whatsoever. Absolute waste of time.
1/5 – Barely worth any time.
2/5 – Pathetic but has a bit of something to hold the
attention a little.
3/5 – Somewhat kept the attention but could definitely have
used more.
4/5 – Good, but not awe-strikingly amazing. Could have maybe
used a bit more to the movie.
5/5 – Go see it! Wonderful movie all around – characters,
music, theme, storyline, etc.
"The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" released in the USA in December 2011 is a remake of the Swedish movie "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" released in January 2009, both based on the book written by Stieg Larsson.
Music:
Not much, though the opening was really Bond-like and not really related to the film. Here:
Mind you, this music opening is prettywicked awesome but still, aside seeing the face of Lisbeth (the main character), there really is not much relating to the movie itself. Maybe the book would explain it better?
Aside this opening, and the closing credits, the music was not really noticeable to me.
Harriet Vanger - a gal who disappeared 40 years ago at the age of 16
Henrik Vanger - the guy who wants to know what happened to Harriet Vanger, former CEO of Vanger Company, uncle to Harriet and Martin, employer of Blomkvist
Dirch Frode - a guy who works for Henrik (lawyer?)
Martin Vanger - Harriet's brother, current CEO of Vanger Company
Plotline:
Same as the 2009 movie in the sense that Mikael Blomkvist was charged with libel against Hans-Erik Wennerstrom, Lisbeth Salander researches Blomkvist's life for the security company that she works for, Henrik Vanger and Dirch Frode ask for Blomkvist's help to solve Harriet Vanger's case, and eventually (with Lisbeth) Blomkvist manages to solve the case. {For those that do not know about this movie, a young girl at the age of 16 disappeared from a corporate family named Vanger and their owned island. Forty years later, one family member is still wanting to know what happened to her.}
However, the movies have a few slight details different between them. [SPOILERS]
* Relationships between Lisbeth and others:
-First Social Worker- In the 2009 movie, Lisbeth learned about her social worker's attack through the social worker's company [phone call.] In the 2011 movie, she learned about it because she stopped by his place to spend time with him (once a month) but he was collapsed on the ground potentially due to a stroke. She, later in the movie, ended up visiting with him to tell him that she got a new social worker and that she found someone that would be approved of for a friend.Difference addressed in Swedish movie "The Girl Who Played With Fire" 2009.
-Second Social Worker- In the 2011 movie, Lisbeth tattooed the social worker's stomach but warned the guy that she would kill him if she found him with another girl (willingly or not) or if he did not give her a good review in the monthly review, she would kill him. “Stop visiting tattoo removal websites or I’ll do it again. [Points to his forehead] Right here.” In the 2009 movie, she tattoed the guy's stomach and we did not hear from him again.Difference addressed in Swedish movie "The Girl Who Played With Fire" 2009.
-Mother/Father- In the 2009 movie, Lisbeth visited her mother at the home that her mother was interred at { "I didn't know she had a daughter" said a nurse} and Lisbeth's issue with her father was shown in flashbacks. In the 2011 movie, Lisbeth's mother was not shown and there were no flashbacks dealing with her father.
* Lisbeth's Past:
-The 2009 movie has flashbacks about what happened when she was a kid, dealing with her father, and she was able to talk with her mother ("I'm sorry I didn't find a better father for you.").
- In the 2011 movie, Lisbeth just told Blomkvist what happened, no flare to it. The security company also poo-pooed her past saying “Her
records have been sealed. She’s a ward of the state.She’s had a rough life.”.
* Blomkvist's Life:
- The 2011 movie showed his daughter and showed/talked about his relation with his magazine Millenium co-worker. It also had the daughter, heading to Bible camp, reveal that the numbers in the booklet were Bible references [Leviticus], as compared to Lisbeth revealing it to Blomkvist via email in the 2009 version.
- The 2009 movie just said that he had had relations with his magazine Millenium co-worker; she was not around.
* Lisbeth's Work:
- In the 2011 movie, Lisbeth had already started investigating into Wennerstrom's life before being approached by Blomkvist. In the 2009 movie, we are not told anything about her researching Wennerstrom until the end when she [SPOILERS] steals money from his accounts.
- In the 2011 movie, Lisbeth had already stopped investigating into Blomkvist by the time that he came looking for her. In the 2009 movie, she was still hacked into his computer, which allowed her to help Blomkvist with the Bible references.
There were a near-dozen things that I did not like about the 2011 movie, compared to the 2009 movie.
1. "I need a research assistant," Blomkvist said to Frode. Well, if Lisbeth had the ability to stay hacked into his computer, we would not have had to ask for an assistant because, in the 2009 movie, he had to ask who the emailer was. I prefer the 2009 over this because it gave Blomkvist the look of a competant researcher (without needing to look for help).
2. “I am psychotic” Lisbeth says to the second social worker. I personally think that this phrase undermined her mystery, put her in a box or under a label. Let the audience decide for themselves if she is psychotic.
3. Blomkvist had a stray cat that he took care of at the hut near the Vangers. Thought it was a random detail but the cat was murdered brutally and left in front of Blomkvist's hut, most likely as a warning sign. Kinda like saying "if you do not stop your investigation, we will kill you too". As if the person shooting at him when he is out-and-about [this version he was investigating Gottfried's place and the 2009 version he was going for a morning jog].
4. Adding victims to the plotline - one girl seemed to be added just to recognize the Vanger killer in the photo from the parade. The Vanger killer (at the parade) had a school uniform on, not a blue sweater, and the girl was a classmate from that school. Maybe the others that were not mentioned in the 2009 movie were in the book, but I don't know.
5. The pictures from the parade - Lisbeth had to mention the woman's photos (to see what Harriet saw), whereas in the 2009 movie, Blomkvist figured that out himself. With Lisbeth having to mention the woman photographer behind Harriet, it knocks down Blomkvist even more as a researcher.
6. Past victims - This version had only a quick mention of the incidences and a few photos (not closely seen). I think that the 2009 movie did it better because they actually went out and researched the murders, learning from talking with people from around the murder locations. It is one thing to hear about a murdered woman found in a barn, another to see a flashback and hear the tale about her death.
7. How Blomkvist ended at Martin's place - In the 2009 movie, Blomkvist broke into Harald's place to confront him (because he thought that Harald was the one that had been shooting at him). Since Harald was a kind, old man that had no visitors, that was out of the picture. To get Blomkvist to Martin's place, they had Blomkvist break into Martin's place. There was an unlocked door, since the island was mostly owned by Vangers and since Martin's place was up on a hill, so Blomkvist went in and took a knife in hand in case Martin would attack him. Well, of course Martin comes home and Blomkvist is not able to vacate the premise without Martin seeing it. Martin invites him in for a drink and ends up holding a gun at Blomkvist. Let's go to the basement, through a few badge-only security doors. Ya know, when you get caught being on the suspect's place, get out as soon as you can and don't sit down for drinks, especially if it gets awkward. Oh and drop my knife, if you please, because that's my knife (pretty much is what Martin says). Really? Okay.... Not well planned out for this section of the movie. Unless it was originally that way in the book, I did not like this.
8. Lisbeth was going to kill Martin, after getting permission to do so from Blomkvist, after his car crash but as she was walking over to the vehicle, the vehicle exploded in a firey boom. It is better that she did not have the chance to have the decision to kill him or not, but the 'I have the ability to kill him' emotion was not necessarily a high-quality for her. Then again, maybe she wanted to kill him because he had killed so many women and had tried to kill Blomkvist [protect the sex-friend]. But her asking for permission also upset me because that seemed against her character, having seen her do what she did with the thief earlier and the second social worker. Maybe it was a change of heart for her, but I don't know.
9. "The Rebecca Case" - The cop said that all cops have a Rebecca case, one cold case that they keep returning to so they can see if they can crack it (even though time is passing). Having seen the 2009 movie, I knew that case that he mentioned was BJ, which gave them a hard time to figure out in the 2009 movie. In the 2011 movie, the initials for that murder were RJ for Rebecca.
10. I didn't like where Harriet ended up. It was interesting that she did not live in London, in the 2009 version, but even cooler living in Australia. In the 2011 version, Harriet ended up living in London [both versions having her live under Anita's name, which 2011 says was possible because Anita got married].
11. After the robbery of Wennerstrom's money (and Wennerstrom's death), Lisbeth tries to continue a relationship with Blomkvist but finds him with his co-worker from Millenium magazine. I did not like this because it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth at the end of the movie. This ending made the movie seem final, like there would not be any hope of a further movie (though the book series is 3 books long). In the 2009 version, Blomkvist sees Lisbeth in her costume of her dealings with the Wennerstrom money robbery [via a security camera picture] and he smiles, and she walks away in real life (alone but doing her thing).
There were a few changes in the 2011 version that I liked over the 2009 version.
1. The 2011 movie showed a bit of the cops' original investigation of Harriet's disappearance, including the watercraft and the interrogation of the family.
2. The 2011 movie had an extra photographer of the accident of the bridge, which should have been noted since Harriet's disappearance happened within 24 hours of the accident on the bridge. However, they never show those pictures, as far as I could tell.
3. In the 2009 movie, Martin said that he had had a girl in the basement when he, Blomkvist and a lady had dinner previously (how long ago, I don't know). However, in the 2011 movie, you can actually hear the slight wail during that meal. I liked that because it gave a slight creepy feeling to the house and helped set the mood towards Martin. However, it was a very slight sound and slight conversation about it, so it could be hidden away if one did not pay attention to it.
4. In the 2011 movie, it went into detail about how Harriet got out of Sweden, under Anita's care {with Anita's passport}. That was good to learn about, since they didn't really deal with it much in the 2009 version.
5. In the 2011 movie, it showed Lisbeth researching into and infiltrating Wennerstrom's company, and stealing the money from Wennerstrom. [However, it was bad that Blomkvist did not learn about the stealing, like in the 2009 movie. It just did not give a good ending.]
6. Harriet told how Gottfried had gotten absolutely sloshed with alcohol and bragged to her about the murders he did, the Bible references, etc. This explains why and how she got the information for the murders and references, which the 2009 version does not have.
A few more things that caught my attention [still more SPOILERS]:
•Martin enjoying what he does – “You can’t be a sloppy technician. Can’t drink to excess like he did. This takes discipline. There’s a science with all the details, the planning, the execution, and the clean-up.”
•“It’s hard to believe that the fear of offending is stronger than the fear of pain but you know what? It is.” said by Martin.
•“Satisfying mine requires more talent.” Sexual fulfillment through torturing others and killing others.
I don't know what to say about these three things except that they kinda sounded like a mix between Dexter and a sex fiend of some sort. Science to murders - Dexter; isn't it though?
Rating:
2/5 – Pathetic but has a bit of something to hold the
attention a little.
3/5 – Somewhat kept the attention but could definitely have
used more.
2.5 out of 5 - I think that this movie was pathetic compared to the 2009 version, but it kept attention. It was good but sucked at the same time. Of the two versions, see the 2009 version! The things that they changed for the 2011 version did not improve the movie from the 2009 version and left a few more holes in the "complete movie" feeling, hence the low rate. Blomkvist was not the researcher that he should have been, as a magazine writer, and Lisbeth was not an independent person like she should have been [seemed a bit more of a 2D character than 3D character, pity for the one that had been through a lot instead of letting the character grow].
By itself, I think this would have been a 3/5 star but compared to the 2009 version it is a 2.5/5.
0/5 – No value whatsoever. Absolute waste of time.
1/5 – Barely worth any time.
2/5 – Pathetic but has a bit of something to hold the
attention a little.
3/5 – Somewhat kept the attention but could definitely have
used more.
4/5 – Good, but not awe-strikingly amazing. Could have maybe
used a bit more to the movie.
5/5 – Go see it! Wonderful movie all around – characters,
music, theme, storyline, etc.
Before seeing the 2011 movie "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo", I decided to watch the original movie released in 2009. This series is based on the Millenium book series by Stieg Larsson, a Swedish writer (that passed away in 2004 according to wikipedia).
I tried to watch this movie with subtitles but I could not find it. So I went with a (poorly) dubbed version, since this movie was originally in Swedish.
Anyways, this is a murder-solving drama thriller. At first, I thought it would be more of a "let's investigate into the company" kind of movie but it was changed to something else later.
Plotline:
A journalist from the magazine Millenium named Mikael Blomkvist is charged with libel against one of the big corporate jerks in the area [billionaire industrialist Hans-Erik Wennerström]. He is declared guilty in court, will have to pay a slightly hefty fee, and will have to serve 3 months in prison. The sentence for prison is set in the future.
Someone other than Wennerstrom takes interest in Blomkvist and orders information on him. Turns out that the 'researcher' is a female named Lisbeth Salander, a 24 yr old hacker. Lisbeth gives the interested party information on Blomkvist saying that she thinks Blomkvist was set up, regarding Wennerstrom.
The interested party turns out to be a member of a rich family named Vanger. The former CEO of Vanger Corporation, Henrik Vanger, wants Blomkvist to research into what happened to his niece. Harriet had disappeared 40 years ago when she was roughly 18. When the family noticed that she had disappeared, they had the cops search the island, the area around the island [dragging nets] and whatnot to try to find her. Many told Henrik to give up, that she was not coming back, but he had a suspicion that either she was alive or someone was sending a remembrance to him for her - before she disappeared, she would give him a pressed flower for his birthday every year and these continued to come to him over the 40 years that she had been disappeared.
Blomkvist works on researching the case for Henrik and Lisbeth continues to hack his computer, watching his research. She sends him a message to break the case because she finds it interesting, and he finds out about her through Vanger's lawyer [also finding out about how she hacked his computer].
Through Lisbeth's computing skills and photographic memory and with Blomkvist's persistent researching skills, they come across some very VERY disturbing clues about the case. These clues involve the Nazis in the Vanger family and a very dark past for two of the Vanger men. {SPOILERS} In the end, they find one of the culprits to the case, raping and killing women, and they find Harriet [not dead because she had run away from the raping/killing Vanger man].
Content:
This is a movie NOT for the faint of heart. Seriously.
Lisbeth is forced to perform a blowjob on her guardian [she is on parole for something they did not really discuss in the movie], beaten up in the train station, and raped by her guardian. She also revenges back on the guardian for being a perverted sadistic pig by tattooing his stomach with the words "I'm a sadistic pig, a pervert and a rapist".
Blomkvist is also shot at by a Vanger at one time, whom we assume to be the psychotic Harald Vanger, but probably was a different Vanger. Harald Vanger, later, also tried to shoot Blomkvist in Harald's house for breaking-and-entering.
The women that were dug up in the investigation were tortured, raped, and mutilated. All with Jewish names and their deaths referred to in the Old Testament [if a woman is found approaching an animal (sexually), then both the woman and the animal is to be killed].
Hetero sex between Blomkvist and Salander; homo sex between Salander and a woman.
Action:
There was a good amount of action, but not as 'action-y' as action movies like "Die Hard". One bike-car chase. Most of the plotline was rather intellectual, trying to figure out what happened to Harriet - going through photos, going through letters, going through accounting records.
Rating:
3/5 – Somewhat kept the attention but could definitely have used more.
4/5 – Good, but not awe-strikingly amazing. Could have maybe used a bit more to the movie.
3.5 out of 5
This movie was alright. It kept the attention and the "oh what is going to happen next" was wonderful. However, some of the content was unexpected and far too raw to enjoy. That content was disturbing.
The idea of digging through the wealthy's dirty laundry, and finding the kind of garbage that they found, is intriguing but not to the point of "hey, check out this movie". Sometimes, you should just leave someone else's bad past alone, especially if it is not your own.
Sure, Lisbeth was mysterious but I don't think that it was to the point of "wow, never thought of that" or "check this out!".
I wonder what the 2011 version is like, compared to this, and what the other 2 movies of the trilogy will be like.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, 2009
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1132620/?ref_=nv_sr_2
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, remake 2011
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568346/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
The Girl Who Played With Fire, 2009
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1216487/?ref_=nv_sr_2
The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest, 2009
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1343097/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
The 2011 movie was a remake of the 2009 movie and I figured that since it is a series, I might as well watch all 4. :-) This is going to take a bit. I hope it is on Netflix streaming!
Movie Review for "Albert Nobbs" released December 21, 2011.
Trailer:
Criteria:
0/5 – No value whatsoever. Absolute waste of time.
1/5 – Barely worth any time.
2/5 – Pathetic but has a bit of something to hold the
attention a little.
3/5 – Somewhat kept the attention but could definitely have
used more.
4/5 – Good, but not awe-strikingly amazing. Could have maybe
used a bit more to the movie.
5/5 – Go see it! Wonderful movie all around – characters,
music, theme, storyline, etc.
"Albert Nobbs" is about a waiter named Albert Nobbs in Dublin. However, Albert Nobbs is more than what he appears - he is a she. She (female name never given in the movie) started out as a child out of wedlock and was given to a woman named Mrs. Nobbs to be cared for. When her mother died, the support money and education stopped. Albert had to help support Mrs. Nobbs and ended up buying a hand-me-down suit to work as a waiter for an event nearby. Albert got paid pretty good for the job and so decided to take it up for a living, because it is hard for a woman to get a decent wage job in the late 19th century. It is even hard for a man to get such a job in that time, as we see with another character named Joseph Mackins.
One day, a painter named Mr. Hubert Page comes to help the hotel where Albert works and, through lack of beds, Albert is exposed (to Hubert) to be a female. Albert was wearing a corset to keep her breast from showing and revealing her gender. Hubert then also reveals to Albert that he is a female also [hidden underneath the house painter's clothing].
Hubert tells Albert of the life she lives: a house, a wife, a simple life. Albert then starts to think about it and dreams about such a life, away from being a waiter at the hotel. Albert takes a fancy to one of the staff ladies at the hotel, named Helen Dawes, who has her eyes set on the 'handy man'/boiler-guy Joseph Mackins. Joe tells her to string Albert along, get as much money out of him as she can, and then they could run away to America. She finds Albert strange but never thinks of him as a suitor, though it is shown that Albert would be a better spouse than Joe would be.
SPOILERS:
It comes down to the fact that Joe got Helen pregnant, Joe didn't want to be a father, and Helen just could not let Joe go. Even when Albert proposed and said that he would take care of Helen and the child, Helen still wanted to be with Joe. Helen even said that she did not want to be with Joe anymore, so he left, but she was tempted to chase after him [because he was eye-candy]. And Albert dies without getting her dream of a normal life.
It is pretty sad that a woman would have to go to such extremes to survive the world. True, if it was a man-only kind of job, then I guess the extremes would be taken to get that job. However, the scene from Mulan (1998) comes to mind:
How often would people kill, humiliate, or degrade a woman who is cross-dressing just to survive? How often would people actually be kind like Shang and spare her life? [Mind you, I am not going to get into the topic about cross-dressing for non-survival situations.]
Also available on streaming through Netflix.
Rating:
4/5 – Good, but not awe-strikingly amazing. Could have maybe
used a bit more to the movie.
I find this movie to be a bit hard to swallow but I know that Albert was doing that just to survive. I find it sad that the girl tried to stay with the man who treated her horribly (because he was the child's father) over going with the 'man' who would have treated her properly. [Good guy chasing pretty girl who is chasing a bad boy, kind of thing.]
0/5 – No value whatsoever. Absolute waste of time.
1/5 – Barely worth any time.
2/5 – Pathetic but has a bit of something to hold the
attention a little.
3/5 – Somewhat kept the attention but could definitely have
used more.
4/5 – Good, but not awe-strikingly amazing. Could have maybe
used a bit more to the movie.
5/5 – Go see it! Wonderful movie all around – characters,
music, theme, storyline, etc.
Viewed 5/27/2014.
Finally a family-friendly movie for me to watch! Well, there are a few snags with this movie but that happens in all movies, right? Can't be 100% family-friendly with what is out there unless it is like Barney or Sesame Street, right?
Anyways, this movie came out December 21, 2011. This is an animated movie based on a comic strip. I had never heard of the comic strip or of the characters before this came out, so I had little to go on in that aspect.
The opening credits supposedly tell about what Tintin did previously, catching bad guys and saving artifacts while working on a journalist post. It made no sense at first to me because I hadn't heard of the characters beforehand but, during the movie, it made a lot more sense. I was just glad that the opening credits did not have a "this is what is going to happen" kind of feel/reveal.
Plotline:
A young British journalist (like twenties or thirties?) named Tintin and his white dog Snowy buy a model ship "Triple Mast. Double Deck." of the ship The Unicorn. The captain of the ship was Captain Haddock. Tintin ends up getting tangled in a vengence complex between Haddock's decendant and a pirate named Red Rackham's decendant. Everyone is looking for three copies of the model ship The Unicorn because there is a treasure map (more or less) hidden in the models' masts.
Of course, the models are not in the same place and so Tintin, Snowy, and Captain Haddock need to go on an adventure to go find the third model, while Rackham's decendant is chasing them to get it first.
SPOILERS: It all comes down to a fight between Haddock and Rackham's decendant over the scrolls. The loser goes to jail and the winner gets to go find the treasure. :-)
Character Development:
Everyone stays the same except Captain Haddock. Captain Haddock goes from this blundering fool obsessed with the alcohol bottle to one who is ready to stand up for his inheritance, maybe with a bottle nearby. Closer to the end of the movie, he actually uses some bottles as weapons against Rackham's decendant - launching them at his opponent.
Content:
There is alcohol (and alcohol abuse) and smoking in the movie. But isn't that the life of a pirate or a sea captain, sad though it is?
Also, some "violent" action but nothing graphic and gory.
I found a clip of the original comic show "The Adventures of Tintin". If you are interested, here it is:
Comparing the 2011 movie to this 1991 comic show, I think that they did pretty darn well creating the movie. I think that the movie was better than the show, more character development and all that, but the show was not bad (from what I can see).
I found it interesting that this was a Steven Spielberg [E.T., Saving Private Ryan, etc.], Peter Jackson [Lord of the Rings], and Steven Moffat [Doctor Who] film. I did not see Moffat's name in the credit, though, but he was a help in the screenplay writing.
Between all three of these artists, they came up with a wonderfully moving movie that kept the viewer interested and gave the viewer a sense of wonder. It was well made and also was almost accepted as "real" though it was an animated movie.
Rating:
5/5 – Go see it! Wonderful movie all around – characters,
music, theme, storyline, etc.
4.5 - Pretty darn good movie but not 100% recommended, especially for those that have children. Or if you do have children and want to watch this, I suggest sitting down and talking with them about alcohol and alcohol use/abuse. Other than that, a very good movie. Well made.
0/5 – No value whatsoever. Absolute waste of time.
1/5 – Barely worth any time.
2/5 – Pathetic but has a bit of something to hold the
attention a little.
3/5 – Somewhat kept the attention but could definitely have
used more.
4/5 – Good, but not awe-strikingly amazing. Could have maybe
used a bit more to the movie.
5/5 – Go see it! Wonderful movie all around – characters,
music, theme, storyline, etc.
Plotline:
Let's make this simple and say that the plotline is that the countries of North Korea and South Korea are at war and the President of the USA wants to help gain peace in the area. While he is meeting with the South Korea Minister, terrorists attack and kidnap the President in the safety bunker underneath the White House. Now, the question is how to get the President out of there alive? And can they keep the terrorists from getting all the codes to Cerberus, the self-contained computer system that can trigger or un-trigger nuclear warheads, which would let the USA be vulnerable to nuclear attack or send off USA nuclear attacks? [No, the trailer says nothing about Cerberus because that's just "fluff". But it is kinda part of the main part of the storyline.]
Mike Banning (played by Gerard Butler) was the head of Secret Services to take care of the President but when he was unable to save the First Lady [on a bad December night with icy road conditions and a car tilting off a bridge], he loses his job as the head of the Secret Services. So now he is pushing paperwork in the Department of Treasury. But when the terrorists attack, he grabs his gun and runs towards the White House. Lots of shooting, lots of fighting, and Banning ends up being the last guy standing upright for the USA Secret Services against the terrorists inside the White House. "Olympus has fallen" says one of the SS guys before he dies and the Speaker of the House (played by Morgan Freeman) becomes Acting President while they try to figure out if the President is still alive.
Summary SPOILERS: Banning finds and rescues the President's son Conner and goes to take out the terrorists, whom we find out had someone in the SS and who will go to all extremes to get the codes for Cerberus. Banning saves the President, the Vice President is killed by terrorists, and all terrorists are killed (one way or another) by Banning. Banning gets his job back as head of the SS to protect the President.
Also on streaming through Netflix.
Rate:
5/5 – Go see it! Wonderful movie all around – characters,
music, theme, storyline, etc.
4.5 - Awestriking and wonderful. I might watch it again, but not one of those "must buy" movies. I loved Butler's acting in this movie, but he's always awesome. :-) [But not much to talk about since this is in the category of "Die Hard" with a younger actor.]
0/5 – No value whatsoever. Absolute waste of time.
1/5 – Barely worth any time.
2/5 – Pathetic but has a bit of something to hold the
attention a little.
3/5 – Somewhat kept the attention but could definitely have
used more.
4/5 – Good, but not awe-strikingly amazing. Could have maybe
used a bit more to the movie.
5/5 – Go see it! Wonderful movie all around – characters,
music, theme, storyline, etc.
I watched this movie on Memorial Day morning, finished around eleven or so A.M. It was very difficult to watch, much less get the guts to review it.
"In the Land of Blood and Honey", released December 23, 2011, is about the Bosnia-Herzegovina war in the early/mid nineties. The main male character (Danijel was a Serbian soldier, son of one of the Serbian generals and is also a higher-up leader. The main female character is a Muslim woman (Ajla) who is captured during the Serbian war. Danijel and Ajla had met at a club before the war started and had a wonderful time dancing, but once the war broke out, it was "them versus us" kinda thing. She a Muslim and he a Serb? Not a good combination in the war between Muslims and Serbs. Trust, love, fighting for what is right, etc. is what is brought up in the movie.
Context:
Rated R for the violence of war: soldiers raping captured Muslim women, soldiers beating the captured Muslim women, soldiers killing Muslim men (near their homes, lined up in front of a ditch with a bulldozer to bury them, etc.), soldiers demolishing cities, soldiers killing a toddler due to the child not shutting up [not seen but talked about over the toddler's dead body], etc.
There is also consentual nude sex scenes but it wasn't sensual to the viewer. Made the viewer wonder if the Muslim woman actually was doing it to survive the Serbs.
Character Building:
During the whole movie, there was the relationship between Danijel the Serb and Ajla the Muslim. At first, Ajla didn't trust him but then he stood up for her against the other soldiers. We are given a sense of "I love her" exuding from him but, when another soldier rapes her (while Danijel is out) following Danijel's father's order, Danijel kills the soldier but does not do anything against his father. His father says that Ajla will betray him but the mutual respect between Danijel and Ajal seems to be strong. Danijel goes back to Ajla and ties her up, with a gun in his hand. He asks if he did the wrong thing by trusting her but she says no. They have make-up sex and seem to be alright. He even trusts her to know where he will be after the raid on some NATO troops and Muslim civilians but as he is walking out of the church, the church explodes behind him. He looks up from the ground in front of the church to see Ajla's sister standing nearby. Automatically, he assumes that Ajla told her sister about the church so he confronts her. One would think that the two of them would be able to hash it out and make everything alright between them but that lingering doubt instilled in Danijel by his father, and the brainwashing of the Serbian forces, makes Danijel act contrary to his "I love her" feeling. [SPOILERS: He shoots her dead.] I was surprised that he didn't cry and shoot out his own brains after murdering her, but I guess his character changed from a caring man to a cold man of war.
The other characters also seem to get a bit of a character change due to the war. Some of them became bitter or just struck with grief. Others were doing all they could to survive the atrocity of war. I'm just glad that, though Danijel did not kill himself after her death, he did give himself up and admitted that he was a "Criminal of War". We don't get to hear what happens to him afterwards but that's how it goes.
This was a very depressing movie because it makes one realize that life is not all "fun and games" and that there are wars out there. It might not be nuclear meltdown war, but it is still war. People do not stay the same when there is a matter of life and death on the line. People do not stay the same when it is a "me or them" situation.
But why must soldiers go to the extreme of raping, outright murdering, and whatnot during war?! Or even not during war, why must we be so destructive?
My thought, from "The Fifth Element" (1997), that deals with this idea of war:
"In the Land of Blood and Honey", however, did not have the whole "Love Conquers All" idea. It was more of a "Here's life in the war time. Take it or fuck off" kind of idea.
The trailer is HORRIBLE for this movie. Idealize the romance/love aspect for the trailer and barely touch on it in the movie? Bad judgement for creating the trailer!
This is on streaming through Netflix, if you want to watch this. I watched the full English movie because I did not know the difference but there is a "native language" version of it in the Theatrical Version on Netflix if you are interested [I found that out after I had watched the film].
Rating:
4/5 – Good, but not awe-strikingly amazing. Could have maybe
used a bit more to the movie.
Recommended but I will not watch this again. It is too heavy for me. Much better showing of war than movies like "Pearl Harbor" (2001) because the love was not idealized and the war was raw/unadulterated.
Another review! Now that I've seen "Don" (2006), I was able to view "Don 2" (2011), and that's what I did. That's what this movie review is about: "Don 2". Trailer:
Criteria: 0/5
– No value whatsoever. Absolute waste of time. 1/5
– Barely worth any time. 2/5
– Pathetic but has a bit of something to hold the attention a
little. 3/5
– Somewhat kept the attention but could definitely have used more. 4/5
– Good, but not awe-strikingly amazing. Could have maybe used a bit
more to the movie. 5/5
– Go see it! Wonderful movie all around – characters, music,
theme, storyline, etc. This movie came out December 23, 2011 in India. The languages, similar to the movie it sequels, are Hindi and English. Therefore, I watched this with English subtitles. [NETFLIX HAS THIS, and "Don" (2006) ON STREAMING!!!] Oh where do I start...! I'm going to save this and go back to get a copy of my "Don" (2006) review, since this is the sequel. I'll be right back, though you won't get the sense of the time split. Okay, anyways, "Don 2" was a better movie than "Don", I think. Storyline: It has been 5 years [2006 to 2011, that's right on the money!] since Don dealt with DeSilva/Vardhaan and gained control of the Asian drug empire. He also got away from Roma at that point. Since it is now the past, I might as well say what happened at the end of "Don" (2006).
DON (2006):
DeSilva was a DCP police working against Don and with Vijay [the look alike, same actor]. It turned out that DeSilva was Vardhaan {I quote myself: "We
learn that DeSilva is not who he says he is and that he knows a lot
more about the drug trafficking business than he originally leads the
viewer to believe."}, Don catches DeSilva/Vardhaan for being a drug lord [two of the potential guys to inherit a drug trafficking empire from Boris after the USSR broke up into smaller countries], and we also find out that Vijay is dead. DeSilva had injured Don during a chase and captured him, to which Don said "Do not capture me" as a warning because Don never forgets what his enemy has done. DeSilva finds a look-alike named Vijay and has him undergo surgery to look like Don. As Vijay is recovering, the attendants find that Don dies under care, so there is no backup. Well, it turns out at the end of the movie that we find out that Don was the one who survived, not Vijay, though the movie hinted that Don died. Don managed to switch the two of them while Vijay was recovering from surgery and, while Don/"Vijay" seemed to "be recovering from surgery", "Don"/Vijay died.
Roma was a main figure in the "Don" (2006) movie. Her brother Ramesh had worked for Don but, wanting to get married and have a respectable life, he decided to leave. Don found out and killed him. Kamini, Ramesh's fiancee, tried to help DeSilva and the police catch Don but Don saw through that and killed her too. Roma was distraught so she decided to go and join Don, for her brother's revenge. When Don first met Roma (before the chase that put him out of commission for a bit), Roma tried to kill him with a knife/letter-opener. He said that she was a wild cat and that he liked her. She worked with him, though she kept looking for a chance to kill him. She finds out that DeSilva switched Vijay for Don and that, what we were supposed to think, Vijay is playing as Don. She develops a soft spot for him during the rest of the movie, especially since Don/"Vijay" seems to be kind and doing the best for a young boy named Deepu that Vijay watched over {Deepu's father Jasjit was set up by Vardhaan years ago and was injured, Deepu's mother was killed by Vardhaan when the DCP didn't let him do his robbery task}. Yes, Deepu is reunited with Jasjit thankfully. Anyways, Roma thought that Vijay was being very brave for trying to act as Don just for this kid's sake.
After Don and Jasjit caught DeSilva/Vardhaan for the thing with Jasjit's family and for the drug trafficking and whatnot, they found out that Don was injured so he was to be taken to a hospital. As he about to be taken away, Don says one thing to Roma - "I also like wild cats". Roma realized then that Don was Don, and not Vijay like we were led to believe, but he was out of her reach already.
Anyways, it has been 5 years since that whole situation. Vardhaan has been in jail and Roma has joined the DCP to try catching Don. Don has been her "white whale" and so Roma has put her life on hold to try figuring out how to catch him, though one of her coworkers has a huge crush on her. Don has been trying to get into the European drug trafficking ring but the drug lords do not want that. One of the main leaders, Coogan, has asked the other guys if they should take Don out and they all say yes. So there is a hit set on Don and we see him turn himself in. Turns out he turned himself in to a specific area just to get Vardhaan out of prison for help to make a daring move. They get out of jail and set up the plan to rob a bank [DZB - Deutsche Zentral Bank ] of their dollar printing plates. One of the guys who works in DZB, the Vice President?, made a corrupt deal with Singhania {Don's former boss, Vardhaan's rival} to make a certain person the president of the company. His name is Diwan. So, why not go mess with their lives, use a video to blackmail the guy? Diwan doesn't want to be blackmailed so he gets a hit on Don also. Don convinces the group (Diwan's hit men) to join him to get 5 times the amount of money that Diwan promised. Either that or Don would have to kill them before they could attempt to kill him. Mercenaries are so materialistic, so the guy and his gang go with Don. They get all they need for a bank robbery including a guy to crack the security system, a fire truck (and firefighter outfits), explosives, and whatnot. And then they go to rob the bank. Of course, Vardhaan and the hit guys become wary of Don [Vardhaan told the leader that Don does not care about their safety, he'd rather let them die than get them out alive], and turn on him once they get the plates that they were going for.
SPOILERS: Don (with his genius plan) is able to walk away from the whole situation with the printing plates and a paper of national immunity in Switzerland with Vardhaan back in jail and the hit men dead. His security hacker did what he was told so was able to live and be rich, though at one point the movie wants to convince us that he was doing against Don's will. Roma survived, Diwan was killed, the drug lords that wanted him down were arrested by the police, and now Don can print lots of money without them being a counterfeit {so loaded with cash}. Music: Not as great as "Don" (2006) had but still alright. Enough to give the movie an interesting soundtrack but nothing extraordinary. That's one thing that the 2006 film had over this one, the music. This one was more of a "Ocean's Eleven" kind of movie instead of a 70's film remake, so that might be why there was no real Bollywood type music. There was one that was kinda interesting and kinda awesome but no where near the 2006 film's music.
{Start at 1:50 for the song.}
I could not find the song by itself with English subtitles, so there's part of the song. Of course, this is the title song for the movie, so it is pretty much saying that Don is back. As the line for the movie says, "Get Ready for the Return of the King". :) Context: Not many sexual references or drug references because that was not the plot line. Sure, there were questions about feelings between Roma and Don but that was just "do you care about me" kind of things. Violence, yeah, but that was to be expected with the "let's rob a bank" plot. Watching "Don" (2006) before this definitely made me learn about him before this movie so I was able to predict what he was going to do, which was nice, but the thing with the security-whiz was kinda unexpected for even me. :-) I liked that a lot. It showed that Don is very very smart. Characters did not change during the movie, though they did play into Don's plans. Also, this was a 2 hour 28 minute movie. Not as long as the 2006 movie but a bit long-ish. Not boring at all, though. I must say that Shah Rukh Khan is amazing. He played Don in both the 2006 and the 2011 movie. I have watched a few youtube videos about him and it seems that many people think he is the "King of Bollywood". From my perspective, I know for sure that I look forward to viewing more of his films! Very handsome, very debonair. :-) RATE: 5/5
– Go see it! Wonderful movie all around – characters, music,
theme, storyline, etc.
I liked this movie a LOT. I cannot think of anything wrong with this movie {but I will say that stealing is bad}. Great characters, great action, great genius, great filming. Wonderful film! I might even buy this one on DVD some time in the future to watch again! :-D But, you should watch "Don" (2006) beforehand because it really rides on the information that the 2006 movie gave us.
