An article on Guillermo del Toro's sketchbook.

I love sketchbooks. I wish I could draw.

The two movies I most want to see right now are Pan's Labyrinth and Children of Men.

Del Toro and Cuaron seem to be hitting on all cylinders. It's exciting when a director hits their stride and you can really look forward to their next work.

But if one's going to do a remake of It's a Wonderful Life, I hope they do something left field and films the version from Jonathan Lethem and Carter Scholz's "Receding Horizon" -- you know, where-in Kafka wrote the screenplay.

The two movies I most want to see right now are Pan's Labyrinth and Children of Men.

CoM was just ridiculously, incredibly good. I saw it with five thousand heterosexual couples and walked out, amongst the entwined arms and kissing noises, thinking, "My god, that was an amazing film." It stuck with me too, mostly in abortive pub conversations with my long-suffering friends who hadn't seen the film, yet were subjected to my cracked out theories and half-formed criticisms. Also, it was the funniest apocalypse movie I've seen in a long time. Intentionally funny, not unintentionally comedy; that award still goes to "The Day After Tomorrow," for the Powers of the Crack.

Pan's Labyrinth was a surprising disappointment in many ways. I found I didn't enjoy it very much at all, and while it was shot breathtakingly beautifully and was in many ways visually stunning, the story was displeasing and I thought it was depressingly unbalanced. Part of that, certainly, was due to how it was marketed and what I thought I was going in there to see. But I really thought it was only a shadow of what it could be. And my god, the gratuitous violence and torture. I still shudder to think.

Pan's Labyrinth was a surprising disappointment in many ways. I found I didn't enjoy it very much at all, and while it was shot breathtakingly beautifully and was in many ways visually stunning, the story was displeasing and I thought it was depressingly unbalanced.

Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. I loved it beyond reason, and have been itching to see it again for months. I also disagree that the violence was gratuitious. I think less graphic, more "fantasy"ish violence would have undercut the story's impact a great deal.

I also love Children of Men, but that's one I've been lucky enough to see twice already.

Well, it wasn't that I wanted the violence to be particularly fantasyish. I just think that it was too much violence, period. While it conveyed the real horror and violence of the civil war, I think it could have been transmitted without, for example, seeing the guy's hand bloodied from his fingernails being removed. Or watching the captain stitch up his own face and than be all surprised that it hurts to drink alcohol. And while I understand that the captain was a character who acted as a corrupted moral centre for the film, and on a larger scale for the country, it was ham-fisted and difficult to watch; I felt no sympathy for him, and mostly was eagerly waiting for him to get off the screen. Unfortunately, he was in almost every damned shot.

I suppose I went in expecting a fantasy, and what I got was a recreated view into a terrible historical reality, with some (far more unbelieveable for the lack of balance between "reality" and her fantasy) out-of-place, though beautiful and intriguing, adventures thrown in.

It really was disappointing for me, because I had looked forward to seeing it, and thought the reviews sounded intriguing.

Now I really want to see it, SA. I like a film that exacts extreme reactions. It makes it so that I'm not disappointed either way. If I really like it, I can say I knew I would because Jessica liked it. If I don't, then I can say that SA was right all along. Hee.

Mom and I took the nephew and niece to A Night at the Museum on Tuesday night, and it was not as bad as I had feared. Definitely not memorable, but it did produce some laughs from me, and the kids loved it (the 13-y.o. niece got a big kick out of the Easter Island moai). The CGI was iffy, at best, but you can tell where they spent their time/money (the T. Rex, especially). Not a bad way to entertain the kids without having your brains leak out of your ears.

I agree, Kathy! It's exactly what you'd expect from such a movie, nothing more and nothing less. Very fun.

So it seems I really need to see Children of Men. I was interested before, but the raves in here have enhanced said interest. Even though I didn't really get the big deal about Y Tu Mamá También.

Also, for those of you in Bitches who have heard me bitch about my uncle, you may find it amusing that the first time I saw the trailer, I thought, "Wow, that looks like it might be really, really good," and my uncle said, "Looks like a flop!"

On rewatch, the plot of Casino Royale makes very, very little sense. Good thing it's so pretty.

(And after listening to an NPR piece by one of ESPN's poker commentators, I just can't take anything in that sequence seriously. Especially when Bond tosses the chip to the dealer at the end -- it didn't occur to me the first time I saw it, but the podcast pointed out that tournament chips don't actually have any cash value. It's just a piece of plastic.)

I just read the book on the plane (while my seatmate was reading an article in, I think? American Cinematographer about the cinematography in the movie), what didn't make sense? Not that I'm saying it made sense; I maintain the stock shorting scheme was particularly inane.

I kind of want to see it again. It was so pretty!