NEW TO DVD, JUNE 10, 2008

NEW TO DVD TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2008

BUCKET LIST-PG13-Starring Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman-Comedy/Drama. Two terminal cancer ward tenants decide to make a list of things they must do before they kick the bucket (get it? Bucket list?). Of course, given the actors and the genre, I’m sure you can guess they pick some fairly outrageous activities to complete their list. And it looks like they might have thrown in a little sap too. This actually is the box office winner of the week. I’m sure it must be well acted. Rob Reiner directed it, so it’s probably not horrible. I haven’t seen it though, so that’s all I can give you on this one.

JUMPER-PG13 Well, this is what it is. It’s an action movie. It’s a sci-fi movie. Thin on story and dialogue, thick on exploding things. I didn’t want to see this at all. But it happened to be the only thing decent playing at the time, at least of the ones that we hadn’t already seen, and Mike wanted to see it. I was impressed. I say that because I had pretty low expectations. I’m not saying it was a bad movie; I quite enjoyed myself, and that’s good enough for me. (I am easily distracted by shiny things.)There were lots of exploding things, lots of hitting and punching and fighting, and lots of flying through dimensional spaces. Cool. Not cool: the parts where they said things—the parts where the characters had to open their mouth and make noises. That wasn’t so good. Not terrible, just not so good. But the smashing and shiny lights part was great. The special effects were top notch, and the idea behind the story was interesting. The rest was mediocre. I like that word because it makes me think of eggs.

THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL-PG13 for mature thematic elements, sexual content, and some violent images-Starring Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson, and Eric Bana. This is the story of Anne Boleyn and her sister Mary. Now, before I begin, I guess I will qualify by saying my writing contains something that could be considered by some to be SPOILING in nature. In debate, this is a historical movie, and therefore, a spoiler cannot actually exist, since the events portrayed in the movie have already taken place, actually about five hundred years ago. It is difficult to spoil a story to which you have already been made privy. So I will say this: If you have little or no knowledge of Henry VIII, his multiple wives, Anne Boleyn, her sister, and the effects his marriages had on English history, and you would like to learn this information from watching the movie, stop reading….. NOW. On the other hand, if you already know the story, or just don’t care if I fill you in here… feel free to keep reading.
I will begin by giving the movie an unwavering thumbs up. Of the movies this week, regardless of box office revenue, this is the movie to see.
That said, there is a qualifier. There are several types of historical movies. The first type you have undoubtedly seen in Miss Mitchell’s fifth grade history class. You all remember the one portraying Abe Lincoln or the Indians, with the dry actors who appear to be reading from something that more resembles a history book than a script. A little dry. Perhaps the one you slept through? Although terribly boring, poorly acted and hardly a production at all, you must give it credit for being historically accurate (political agendas aside). That is historical film type #1. Historical film type #2 are the ones that are historically accurate, but are embellished a bit to make it a stellar production. These are well produced, well acted, and overall smashing films. They are not necessarily filled with 100 percent truly historical information, but they also do not contain any contradictory information. They just filled in a gap or two where there was a need. For example, they might have embellished a bedroom scene (because who knows what really happened there?) or taken great liberties with some dialogue at a private dinner table between king and queen, or something of the sort. If there is a soliloquy in a historical movie, duh, it was fabricated (no one else was there.. do I have to spell this out for you? Stick with me, now). So, although the historical events were accurate, perhaps they took great liberties and added significant fluff and made a good production out of it. End of type #2. Then there is type #3. This is a good production, and filled with a lot of fluff to make it so, and they might have changed a few teeny weeny things in history that weren’t quite interesting enough or didn’t fit their FLUFF, and so they, for the sake of art, rewrote just a little bit of history. Not that they declared a new winner of the civil war, or denied the Holocaust, or other significant changes that alter the course of human events—just minor changes that do not have an impact on life as we know it today, but changes nonetheless. End of type #3. Then there is type #4. Oh… type #4.. I don’t really call it that. But children might be reading. This type takes more than a few liberties in rewriting history to suit their story. They add some FLUFF. For what purpose, I do not know, because the overall movie sucks. It is about as boring as that fifth grade film described in type #1. If you are going to rewrite history, at least you should have some motive, say, because you wanted to make your story more interesting (still not excusing it, just saying I UNDERSTAND it). So type #4 is both historically inaccurate and intolerably boring. (For a great example, watch TO KILL A KING, about Oliver Cromwell. Never a greater waste of an hour and a half.)
Now, into which type does The Other Boleyn Girl fall? Type #3, I suppose. A few things were historically inaccurate. Minor, not changing anything too terribly significant. However, what they did change were things that caused me to wonder why, at all, they would have changed them. For example, both Mary and Anne were already at court when they met Henry VIII. He didn’t come to their house and see them. Both Mary and Anne had spent significant time in France serving in the Queen’s court before coming to England. Katherine’s family had a strong influence over the Pope, and the Pope actually did deny Henry VIII an annulment. Completely ignoring the Pope’s ruling, Henry married Anne in a private ceremony anyway, because she was already pregnant (yeah, she was a hold out, but she did give in before she was married, as Henry reunited with Katherine several times during Anne’s quest to be Queen). This snub obviously separated England, beginning the reformation. Eventually Henry’s marriage was considered dissolved, because there really was no other choice, and Anne was crowned.
Anne was actually accused of adultery with many men, I think over four, in addition to her brother, after his advisor with a political agenda of his own, convinced Henry to start an “investigation” into Anne’s behavior. She was the last to be executed. She did make a very politician-like speech before execution, just like the movie showed, but her speech was documented word for word, (it was a private beheading) and that is not really what she said (the part about him being a good prince and never there was… that part was close). If you had access to the actual words Anne spoke at the time of her execution, which, by the way, were very telling of her character, why wouldn’t you use that?
They also muddied the ending a bit with the push toward Jane Seymour (who was eventually Queen, although technically never crowned) and the motives behind it. They glossed over the fact that Katherine had just died, reinforcing the fact that the marriage was, without question, over. If Anne met an early fate (after all, she couldn’t produce a son), he would be free to marry Jane. They also hopped, skipped, and jumped over the reference in the movie about Anne and Mary not being true “Howard” girls. Anne and Mary’s family attempted to stay on top for quite some time after the fall of Anne, and eventually Katherine Howard (Anne’s cousin) would also be Queen (and would also be executed for adultery). The maneuvering of the different families through Henry’s wives was truly mesmerizing.
What was interesting to me was that they tried so hard to be accurate in some cases, and yet were so flippantly neglectful in others. For example, it is well documented that Anne was not very pleasing to the eye. She had dark eyes, and dark hair. There are even wives tales about her having a sixth finger and unsightly moles. In the beginning of the movie, there is a dialogue that clearly makes reference to her being the less-fair of the two children. BUT they cast Natalie Portman in the role of Anne, and they certainly don’t go out of their way to make her unattractive or homely. So why even mention the fact that she is not terribly attractive if you aren’t going to attempt to make her look that way?
So it appears I am ripping on the film after giving it a thumbs up. Perhaps. I enjoyed the movie. Portman has come a long way since Star Wars. But I stumbled over some of the inaccuracies, and was dumbfounded about which inaccuracies they chose to include. If I didn’t know the historical events prior to watching the movie, I would be blissfully unaware of these inaccuracies—the film’s only flaw. Of course, I would also be misled.
Kids, let this be a lesson. Never skimp and watch the movie version of a book you are supposed to read for history class!

THE LIST

WITLESS PROTECTION – PG13 for crude and sex-related humor-starring Larry the Cable Guy and Jenny McCarthy. Comedy. An local sheriff stumbles in the middle of an FBI case and saves a woman from her kidnappers. Unknown to him, the kidnappers are actually the men sent to protect her. A battle over the woman ensues, and this is supposed to be quite the adventure. Do you know I’ve never seen anything with Larry the Cable Guy in it? Shocking, isn’t it?

GRAND- Woody Harrelson. Something about poker.

WIENERS- R for crude and sexual humor, nudity and language- Starring Zachary Levi (from CHUCK), Kenan Thompson, Jenny McCarthy, and Darrell Hammond. Comedy. I can’t watch this one. It looks more than kind of raunchy. Perhaps a little Road Trip-ish. I have to give this one some notoriety, though, as Zachary Levi is in it, and after all, he is a myspace friend, and Chuck is one of my favorite shows. (Dear Mr. Levi, please make a cleaner movie next time; I would love to see it. Thanks, JG) Wyatt (Thompson) and Ben (Levi) convince their friend to go cross country in a wiener-mobile, after their friend gets humiliated on the air by a TV doctor. Their mission? Revenge. Along the way they meet odd characters, including sixth grade teacher, played by Jenny McCarthy.