![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I saw Rushmore yesterday, and it was pretty rocking. I don't know why it took me so long to watch it, I mean, I love Wes Anderson! I love Jason Schwartzman! There's no way I wouldn't like it. In all, I still think The Royal Tenenbaums is Anderson's best work (although The Darjeeling Limited is close), but this one was just charming. Max Fisher is a precocious and weird 15 year old that falls in love with a first grade teacher - much to hers and and Max's friends chagrin. Jason Schwartzman was wonderful in this - his height helps, but he really looks like a teenager, and Bill Murray gave a solid perfomance, like usual. I don't know, I really liked it, as weird and wacky as it is. Funny and heartbreaking at the same time.
I also saw I Am Legend in the cinema this weekend. I really liked the first half, it was creepy and convincing and Will Smith managed to convey all the insanity that must come with being completely alone. ... And then the last half hour or so happened. I don't know, I think they tried to cram way too much in too short a time, and the zombie vampires or whatever they were just didn't look scary anymore. Too bad, because, like I said, the first part was remarkably good. The thing is, the movie left too much to the imagination - how the plague hit and such is never truly explained, so it was a bit like '...wait, what?' all the time. I have to say, though, the shots of a deserted New York are amazing, and it manages to make open, sunny spaces creepy. The premise is just incredibly intriguing, but I'm a sucker for post-apocalyptic stuff, so it doesn't come as a surprise, lol. Now I have a craving to watch 28 Days Later again, mmm... THE DOG, THOUGH. THE DOG WAS THE BEST PART OF THE WHOLE DAMN MOVIE.
Anyway, I read the book on the same day, and ended up even more confused. There's parts that work better in the book and parts that work better in the movie, but in all, it's hard to believe the movie is based on it, they're way too different. The vampires were so very non-threatening in the book, which wouldn't have worked in film at all. I liked the ending. So didn't like Robert Neville, though. IN HERE, TOO, THE DOG WAS THE BEST PART.
I want a puppy, yes, why do you ask?
I also saw I Am Legend in the cinema this weekend. I really liked the first half, it was creepy and convincing and Will Smith managed to convey all the insanity that must come with being completely alone. ... And then the last half hour or so happened. I don't know, I think they tried to cram way too much in too short a time, and the zombie vampires or whatever they were just didn't look scary anymore. Too bad, because, like I said, the first part was remarkably good. The thing is, the movie left too much to the imagination - how the plague hit and such is never truly explained, so it was a bit like '...wait, what?' all the time. I have to say, though, the shots of a deserted New York are amazing, and it manages to make open, sunny spaces creepy. The premise is just incredibly intriguing, but I'm a sucker for post-apocalyptic stuff, so it doesn't come as a surprise, lol. Now I have a craving to watch 28 Days Later again, mmm... THE DOG, THOUGH. THE DOG WAS THE BEST PART OF THE WHOLE DAMN MOVIE.
Anyway, I read the book on the same day, and ended up even more confused. There's parts that work better in the book and parts that work better in the movie, but in all, it's hard to believe the movie is based on it, they're way too different. The vampires were so very non-threatening in the book, which wouldn't have worked in film at all. I liked the ending. So didn't like Robert Neville, though. IN HERE, TOO, THE DOG WAS THE BEST PART.
I want a puppy, yes, why do you ask?
There are 15 comments on this entry.