Disturbing movies by Leah Jean
|First of all, Jim, just wish to say that Daryl and I just got thru watching the movie "A History of Violence". Oh man! You were "dead on" ... a very well done movie but disturbing. When it first started, I thought that it was going to be one of those family taken hostage films. And from there on I was wrong in several of my guesses. The acting was "to die for". Yes, Ed Harris made a really good sociopath. But the one that really surprised me was William Hurt. You know, I've gotten kind of bored with his acting over the years because his acting hasn't changed a whole lot with each character he plays. In this movie, he's almost hard to recognize. Sure, you can tell who he is by his facial features. But his eyes and voice were definitely different this time. Viddo Mortenson did some outstanding acting too. The woman and young guy who played his wife and son did very well also. All these parts were very physically and mentally demanding. When it was all done, it was amazing how the characters in this movie were all quite believable. That's what makes this movie really disturbing. It really earns its M rating for violence and sex. Again, like in "Brokeback Mountain" the sometimes rather violent passion is disturbing.
Of course, I had to bug Daryl to go see "The DaVinci Code" because, geez how surprising, I was a big fan of the book. And after all the hoopla about getting mixed critical reviews, we can both say that this movie was very well done! My only complaint is that Tom Hanks is getting a little old for playing hero parts. My biggest "realistic" complaint was that even though there was supposed to be some feeling between him and the heroine, you never really saw it. So much for the romance. But of course, there just wasn't enough time to show what really made the book so fascinating: the wonderful interpretations of historic details. Just like with the Harry Potter films, it is so much better if you've read the book in advance. Then you understand a lot more of what's going on. [I find it best if a book is read about a year or two before the movie comes out. That way you have just enough of a clue to know what is going on ... but don't remember enough detail to keep you from being surprised at plot twists.] Also in this case, reading the book helped prepare you for the religious and political surprises in the plot. I'm sure that's where a lot of people have trouble with this movie. Because the movie doesn't have time to track all of those wonderful historic clues, the religious implications of those clues come across much stronger. I would recommend to anyone with strong religious beliefs to try reading the book first. This movie can be quite disturbing otherwise. And anyone who is strongly Catholic, you will have to keep repeating to yourself (just like they recommended you do for "The Exorcist" film), "It's only a movie. It's only a movie. It's only ...."
Hrumph. It's getting near bedtime again. Hope I don't dream disturbing dreams.