I Did Do Something Productive While On Hiatus

Oh, while I wasn't blogging, I attempted to get behind the camera and make a music video for a school assignment. The song is by my boyfriend, you can check out his new blog here. It was all filmed in the Dandenong Ranges, a really good place for picnics and walking around. Oh and if you like the song, you should definitely check out his band Euthymia, that's some good stuff right there.

My lecturer said it was boring and repetitive but I'd like to know what everyone else thinks. I really didn't think it was that bad, but then again what do I know?

We Need To Talk About Kevin (2011)

It has been a while but I'm back, and hopefully for good. I'll admit I've been lazy. I had contracted writer's block after the very difficult essay writing period and I just couldn't get back into it. It was a tough time for all involved...

Okay, okay, I was up all night playing Skyrim, are you happy now?

Anyway I've seen a few films since my short hiatus and I want to tell you about them all. Some were pretty good (Richard Ayoade's directorial debut Submarine), some not so good (Scream 4, shudder). But let's start off with what I think could possibly do well at the Oscars this year, director Lynne Ramsay's We Need To Talk About Kevin.

We Need To Talk About Kevin is based on the best-selling book by Lionel Shriver. Tilda Swinton is what drives the film, she's a compelling actress and completely believable as the isolated Eva Katchadourian, the mother of Kevin (played by Rock Duer, Jasper Newell and Ezra Miller), a troubled boy who will eventually commit mass-murder at his high school. The film captures the strained relationship between Kevin and Eva, from his birth Eva feels no connection between her and her son and the two fail to bond. We view Kevin as a bad child, but is this just how h

e is, or is it because of the lack of love from Eva.

Red is the predominant colour of the film, from the tomato fight in the first sequence, the red paint thrown across her house and finally the sirens and redflashing lights at the high school where Kevin has completed his killing spree. It ties the film together and allows Ramsay to play with the narrative structure, taking us back and forward through Kevin's upbringing and Eva struggling to cope with her guilt after her son's imprisonment.

And it gets the author's tick of approval, Shriver was apparently really happy with how it turned out. This is a really well-made movie, it looks beautiful and it has a wonderful pace to it, it effortlessly avoids becoming sluggish halfway through. The performances were great although I still have trouble trying to accept that John C. Reilly can occasionally do 'serious'. Ezra Miller's portrayal of the teenage Kevin can be a little over-the-top but it's forgivable, this movie is all about Swinton, who was also a producer.

While it can be a distressing and confronting movie, We Need To Talk About Kevin is definitely worth watching.

The Prince And The Showgirl (1957)

There is nothing more relaxing during the holidays than watching the midday movie in your pyjamas after a big night out (Maybe with the exception of breakfast in bed whilst watching reruns of Friends and dissecting everything that happened on said-night-out with actual friends). However due to the nature of this blog I don't really get to relax while I watch movies anymore, it's all about note-taking and trying to remember the plot so I can regurgitate it back to you in a paragraph or so. Thanks a lot film-dependent, you have ruined my sacred midday movie tradition.

Enough ranting, today I watched The Prince And The Showgirl an old Marilyn Monroe movie about a Prince (Laurence Olivier) who meets showgirl Elsie (Monroe) and tries to seduce her. Using her womanly wiles, Elsie is able to seduce her prince, broker peace in Europe and earn herself some sort medal for her services.

This isn't the best Marilyn Monroe movie I have ever seen, as you can guess she was only there to look pretty and play that same character she had been playing her entire career. But it's still Monroe who steals the show, mainly because she is incredibly beautiful in a white figure-hugging dress doesn't hurt. Our eyes naturally just shift over to her whenever she's in a scene and it's no surprise because there isn't much else about this movie that makes watching it a very pleasant experience.

Laurence Olivier's regent prince is so very annoying and ridiculous and not very handsome at all. I kind of despised him and most of the royal family of the imaginary Carpathia, why Elsie would waste her time with them is a mystery to me. And the plot moves at such a glacial pace, I could go and read War & Peace, come back and they would still be having the same conversation which I still wouldn't understand because the whole thing is so bloody confusing.

While I didn't enjoy The Prince and the Showgirl, Marilyn Monroe aficionados will maybe put up with it for her, depending on how patient they are. I wouldn't recommend it but whether you watch it, is entirely up to you. But in more recent news I hear that the new Michelle Williams movie about Marilyn is going to be set in the time when this movie was being made, hopefully it's not as bad.

Night Of The Living Dead (1968)

So it's Easter time and I thought 'we should deal with a film that really captures the whole Easter spirit and is kind of meaningful...'

And then I thought 'Nah. But I guess in a sick way Night of the Living Dead does have the whole resurrection of the dead thing in common with Easter, thus making it totally appropriate Easter viewing.'

I don't know how many zombie films I've seen, it's probably in the hundreds but Night of the Living Dead is one of the earlier ones (that said, these movies have been around since the 30s), it's the first in George A. Romero's zombie film franchise that has given us such zombie gore gems as Day of the Dead, Dawn of the Dead and the somewhat forgettable Diary of the Dead.

Night of the Living Dead is about a group of people who lock themselves in a farmhouse after the dead begin to comeback to life and start attacking the humans. They have to work together in order to survive the attack, however they don't all get along.

I don't know why but I found these zombies to be HILARIOUS, particularly the random naked one you can see in the trailer. At the beginning of the film they're semi-intelligent, they even resemble normal people. Only halfway through the movie they start to become more like what we have today. I'm sure it was terrifying back in the 60s but unfortunately that has been lost over time. Watching the zombies devour people was funny too, it looks like they're eating a ham bone or something, it's terrible but in a good way.

There's something Alfred Hitchcock-esque about Night of the Living Dead, it kind of reminded me of Psycho, you have the beautiful blonde woman being terrorised and the deliberately loud sound effects that punctuate the usual silence in order to frighten the audience. There isn't much dialogue and it's not particularly good, neither is the acting. They're all just way too hysterical and it gets annoying.

Sometimes it kind of borders on being a bit sexist, the women are portrayed as being completely useless or crazy, especially Barbra (Judith O'Dea) who acts like a complete idiot the whole time. The women seem to lead most of the male characters to their demise as well. What I also found interesting was the character Ben (Duane Jones), a black man who is the hero and has to deal with a very annoying group of white people, as well as group of predominantly white zombies. I'm guessing this would have been quite controversial in the day (particularly the end sequence, but I'm not going to ruin it for you). I'm just glad he wasn't some stereotypical 'black' character who was given a supporting role. It's good to see a black actor at the centre of a film, when you think about what was happening in terms of civil rights at the time.

It's worth watching if you like zombie films, but I wouldn't say it was my all-time favourite. If you're a zombie fan here's a list of all zombie movies for you to work your way through... Good luck

Labyrinth (1986)

I've been feeling quite nostalgic lately and I don't know why. So I chose something I used to watch on a semi-regular basis. Labyrinth is a movie that I remember being on TV all the time when I was a kid. I think I mainly watched it because of David Bowie and his too-cool-for-school eye makeup, that I may or may not have tried to recreate.

Labyrinth is all about Sarah (Jennifer Connelly), a young girl struggling with the responsibilities that come with growing up. One day whilst babysitting her younger brother Tobey, she wishes that the goblins would take him away. And then they do (I'm not sure why she's so surprised by this, I wish goblins would take my little sister away, sigh). Tobey is taken by the incredibly camp goblin king Jared (David Bowie) and held hostage in his castle at the centre of the labyrinth. To rescue him, Sarah must conquer the labyrinth with the help of new friends along the way.

I'm quite fond of a good cult movie, especially one with puppets, musical numbers and some sort of fantasy theme. Jim Henson has an amazing imagination and the detail of this all is absolutely mind-blowing. There are some wicked visuals here, the setting in this fantasy medieval world that you fall in love with.

I guess the best thing about Labyrinth is David Bowie, I mean he IS this movie and it's probably why most people watch it. And he helped with the music, which is a tad lame but still cool enough to be mentioned.

Anyway, I'm sure that at the time the filming techniques used were totally cutting-edge in 1986 but they have dated and look really tacky. You can only laugh at the terrible costumes in the ballroom scene (I don't think I've ever seen that much taffeta, except maybe my parents wedding album). And the acting, I know puppets don't have full facial control, but that's no excuse for the humans in this movie (I'm looking at you, David Bowie). But all this cheesiness makes it loveable, in a childish way. You don't watch Labyrinth expecting it to be on the same level as something by, I don't know, let's say Stanley Kubrick. You're watching it to be entertained, which it does do in its own weird way. It's one of those movies you watch and say 'they don't make 'em like they used to'.

And that's about all I have to say for now. I suppose I'll be here same time, same place tomorrow.

Elephant (2003)

Hello again. Yes it has been I while since I've posted anything, mainly because I'm lazy... sorry about that, it's been a busy few days at chez Michelle. Anyway I'm back on the wagon, ready to start again and we'll start with Gus Van Sant's Elephant, another film brought to me by my cinema studies class.

Also I should mention that if my writing seems a bit, well, all over the place it's only because I've had about 4 cups of coffee in the past 2 hours and to say I'm a little over-caffeinated is a gross understatement. I'll try and be as coherent as possible but I'm not making any promises.

Elephant is part of Van Sant's death trilogy, which also includes Gerry and Last Days. Each film details an incident involving a death that has actually happened. Elephant is about the Columbine high school massacre. It follows the lives of several of the students on the day of the massacre, including one of the gunmen, Alex (Alex Frost).

There is something very ominous about Elephant, the way the camera weaves through the corridors and how the lives of the students loop around each other. The school is like a maze, you find yourself becoming lost just like the teenagers you are watching. The worst part is knowing what's going to happen, you're just waiting for them to open fire. It's not judgemental and it doesn't try to explain or blame anyone. Sometimes horrible things happen and you can't find the logic behind it.

What surprised me most was that the cast consisted mostly of new or non-proffessional actors and how well they put this together. It's completely believable, you feel for outcasts Alex, Eric and Michelle. It wasn't over the top, the death scenes are not done in typical Hollywood fashion (aka the slow-motion fall to the ground and woe-is-me face). The whole film is done in a way both minimal and moving, nothing is overstated.

I loved Elephant, and I hope if you choose to watch it you do too.

Bye for now, not forever

Taxi Driver (1976)

Scorsese is just one of those directors whose movies you have to see because everybody knows about them. Taxi Driver is one of these classics and is one I haven't actually seen before, even though everyone tells me that I have to.

Robert De Niro is Travis Bickle, a mentally unstable Vietnam veteran who returns to New York to work late nights as a cabbie in the seediest parts of the city. One night he meets Iris (Jodie Foster), an underage prostitute who inspires him to take action against the filth of the city while his state of mind continues to deteriorate and he loses his grip on reality.

I think everyone knows this movie for that one line, you know the 'you talkin to me?' line and while that's great and all, there are maybe a hundred other great things about this movie, it's gritty and violent and perfectly captures the decaying mental state of Travis. The ending made me wonder and I'll try not to give it away but it does make you question whether the ending is all in Travis' mind. De Niro is scary, sexually frustrated and so terribly realistic, I can't believe it the same guy in Little Fockers. You see him being repeatedly drawn into this shady world full of pimps and dealers and it only fuels his hatred, but he can't turn away from it. This film just shows an actor and director in their peak and they work so well together, I think I'll have to watch Raging Bull as well, but maybe later.

It's such an angry and masculine film, something Scorsese deals with very well. It depicts this violent side of the city of New York, you can tell Scorsese was influenced by the whole punk rock movement happening there at the time (hence Travis' mohawk).

Fun fact, Scorsese actually had Dustin Hoffman in mind for the part of Travis, but Hoffman thought Scorsese was crazy so he said no. Must really be regretting that now huh.

Until tomorrow xox

Dinner for Schmucks (2010)

I went to my local video rental place the other day, for the first time in about 3 years. Poor Blockbuster, it's changed so much since people started downloading. I felt kind of nostalgic with my video rental card and I decided to get a new release to rent and subsequently review. I chose Jay Roach's Dinner For Schmucks, a movie I found to be sadly disappointing.

When Tim (Paul Rudd) wants to get ahead at his work, his boss invites him to a dinner that has a very interesting game. Each guest has to bring a loser to make fun of, and the person whose guest is the biggest loser wins. Tim brings Barry (Steve Carell), a man whose hobby is making dioramas using dead mice in costumes.

Judging by the promotional poster and dvd case, I thought this would be one hilarious movie, but instead I was just completely disappointed. All of the characters were just so friggin irritating. Half of the time I didn't feel sorry for Barry, he was just too annoying and too much of an idiot, instead of this making me care for him, I just couldn't stand him. This movie felt really mean-spirited and cruel, we're meant to make fun of these so-called 'schmucks' when they're the most interesting part of the film. The dinner is only a small part of the film which is unfortunate because that's where the film is at its funniest.

It does try to make viewers feel sympathetic towards the lead characters, but I couldn't feel sorry for anybody. Everyone in this movie is a schmuck, not just the freaks. Tim's work colleagues are the worst, there is absolutely nothing to like about them. And Tim is a particularly frustrating character because he just goes along with it all and then complains the whole time. He blames others for his issues when really it's his own fault.

It's a shame this movie was so bad, most of the cast have previously done great comedic work, especially David Walliams, Zach Galifianakis and Jemaine Clements. This movie just tries too hard to be funny.

But on the plus side I did find the mice dioramas to be very cute in a modern take on Beatrix Potter kind of way.

So if you decide to go out and rent something, maybe give Dinner For Schmucks a miss

From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)

Today I was a little hungover and I thought I either needed to watch something where I didn't have to think very much, but it had to be good enough to sit through it without falling asleep or being violently ill. Cue Robert Rodriguez' From Dusk Till Dawn.

Two criminals on the run from the law (Young George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino), they decide to jump the border and head to Mexico. But first they have to gather up some hostages so they have human collateral. When they get to Mexico, they take refuge in a nudie bar with some interesting/terrifying inhabitants. And that's where all the fun begins.

Robert Rodriguez has had a history of hits and misses (Sin City: Good, Shark Boy and Lava Girl: Bad, so very bad). I'm glad to say From Dusk Till Dawn is a hit, it has a great cast and hilarious dialogue. It's kind of refreshing to watch this in a world where vampires are have become stupid glittery prettyboys. Where has Nosferatu gone? Where's the fun? Bring them back I say.

Anyway, it's a lot of fun, the gore and the vampire special effects have become a bit tacky but I'm sure this was way scary in its time. The fight sequences are a good mix of humour and action, it's important for the film not to take itself so seriously or else it would be utterly crap.

I particularly like Sex Machine (Tom Savini) and the vampiric mariachi band and Salma Hayek is pretty sexy too as the dancer/vampire Satanica Pandemonium. The cast is full of people you'd know and most of them have featured in more than one of Rodriguez' work.

well now i must sleep/listen to mariachi music

Reader Request: Requiem For A Dream (2000)

So today is the second of the reader requests, and this one was Darren Aronofsky's Requiem for a Dream as requested by Mae. So Mae this one is for you, enjoy and let me know if you agree/disagree/just don't care anymore.

Requiem For A Dream stars Jared Leto (he's that guy from 30 Seconds to Mars) as Harry, a young heroin addict. The movie follow Harry and his mother, girlfriend and friend as they each have to deal with their own addictions. As the addictions become worse, we each character sink to their lowest and their lives spiral out of control.

It is quite shocking, particularly the last 20 minutes and the montage when you see to what state the characters have been reduced to. I love the way Aronofsky keeps changing the ace of the film, it's always changing from this rapid drug-hazed blur, then back to normal again. You can barely keep up with it. It makes you feel really dizzy and sick. The best performance is clearly by Ellen Burstyn as Harry's mother, a woman who becomes addicted to amphetamine diet pills when trying to lose weight. It's sad to see people sabotaging their own lives.

This film is more about the nature of addiction than the drugs themselves. As Harry says early in the film 'Everyone has a fix' and that's true, it's only when we let them get out of control that they become a problem. Now, I'm not advocating a Charlie Sheen-esque drug habit or saying it's ok be a junkie as long as you hide it from everyone else (I look forward to your complaints), but I am saying know your limits and be prepared to live with the consequences.

While I really thought it was an excellent movie, it's so very depressing, you readers seem to love all things morbid, does anyone like cheerful movies like Singing In The Rain anymore?

Now I must go tackle my current addiction (Lee Marvin movies). Cheerio

Young Frankenstein (1974)

I've been covering some really dark and somewhat depressing movies lately and I think it's beginning to get to me. Also tomorrow I'm doing another reader request which will be Requiem for a Dream, although I haven't seen it before, I know it ain't no comedy. So it's time to watch something a little more lighthearted, something to tickle the so-called 'funny-bone'. I decided to watch Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein.

Young Frankenstein is the tale of Dr. Frederick Frankenstein (pronounced Fruhnk-ehn-steen, Gene Wilder) is the grandson of the infamous Dr. Victor von Frankenstein. After trying to avoid living in the shadow of his grandfather his whole life, Frederick inherits the castle in which the original Dr. Frankenstein carried out his well-known experiments. After finding the secret laboratory and the key to bringing a reanimating the dead, Fredrick finds himself trying to recreate the work of his grandfather with quite humorous results.

This is a spoof of all those old-fashioned horror movies we used to love and it i

s hilarious unlike its' modern equivalent (I'm talking about you, Scary Movie franchise). It really is a case of 'they don't make them like they used to' syndrome. The difference between the two is that Young Frankenstein is actually kind of clever, whereas Scary Movie is equal parts popular culture and toilet humour (not that that's not funny, it's just that style has been so over-used). The dialogue is quite witty too, obviously some of it is going to date but the majority of the jokes remain sharp.

It beautifully references the 30s horror movies that it sends up, it has those black and white misty settings and wonderful castles full of cobwebs and European villages that are so common in the films of this genre. While Gene Wilder is terrific as Frederick Frankenstein, it is Igor (Marty Feldman) that easily steals the show and is my favourite character. He's perfectly insane and really hams it up as this bug-eyed lab assistant, you can't help but find him both ridiculous and hilarious.

I'm happy to admit it has dated a little, some of the jokes have become a bit corny and at times it's a little over-acted. But the corny-ness is what makes it so loveable, they're like dad-jokes you know, so bad that they're kind of good in a backwards way.

And that's all folks, see you some time in the near future, most likely tomorrow night

Chopper (2000)

Today in my cinema studies class we watched Andrew Dominik's Chopper. I thought I would kill two birds with one stone and review it as well as do some sort of semi-complicated and thoroughly dry analysis of it. Of course I won't mix the two together or else we'd all fall asleep and I can't possibly have that happen again.

Chopper tells the story of Mark 'Chopper' Read, a convicted criminal turned successful author. This movie essentially details and contrasts his time in prison and in the outside world It's all based on his best-selling book From the Inside which he actually wrote while in jail.

I'm not really a fan of these 'new-age' Australian gangsters. TV series' like Underbelly and all these true crime specials don't really move me in anyway. Who do they think they are? Al Capone during prohibition? They certainly don't dress as sharply as your typical 1920s American gangster, as you can see they don't look anything like this which is a mighty shame...

Now that I've said this I should probably be careful, they'll be out for my blood. If I never blog again, you'll know what happened to me, oh and I expect at least one of you to avenge my death.

In reality Mark 'Chopper' Read is not someone I feel sorry for, he did what he did and there are consequences to that. Eric Bana does a remarkably good job of being Chopper (so good even the real Chopper agrees), he's cruel and paranoid with a real sick sense of humour. I found this movie does tread a very fine line between glorifying and condemning Chopper's actions.

In terms of style and production, it's a great movie. It doesn't dictate to its audience how to feel about certain characters and the blue lighting gives it this detached feeling, there's this coldness to it that makes it hard to attach yourself emotionally to any character. There is one particular drug taking scene that I thought was really well done, the footage speeds up recreating this high we see the characters experiencing.

So not my favourite movie of all time but I think it was worthy of the hype. see you later alligator, bye bye

Reader Request: Mysterious Skin (2004)

So today is the first official reader request, David Araki's Mysterious Skin. I think I should just say beforehand that it does deal with some heavy issues (namely child sexual abuse, sexual violence and paedophile themes) and that it's ok to find yourself uncomfortable, this isn't going to be a film that everyone can enjoy.

So this follows the lives of two boys, both finding their lives changed irreparably by sexual abuse. The first boy, Brian (Brady Corbet) has blacked out the event and is convinced he was abducted by aliens. Neil (Joseph Gordon-Levitt)on the other hand, longs for the relationship he had with his baseball coach, confusing it for love. While Brian is trying to figure out what happened, Neil search for love and finds himself in New York. When the two meet again, they realise that what has shaped them is not what it seemed to be.

Mysterious Skin does deal with issues people might find disturbing and may not be comfortable watching something like this. I completely understand, paedohilia is a horrific thing. But the way it's dealt with in this film is so sensitive and heartbreaking. The director went to great lengths to keep the child actors from being exposed to anything, everything is implied rather than explicitly stated. It's a brave move to tackle such a difficult and sensitive topic and I have to commend Araki for dealing with all in a mature and touching way.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the hero of the film, he is utterly convincing as the self-possessed Neil. The other actors also give believable performances but Gordon-Levitt is the clearly the standout.

And the soundtrack is amazing, it's scored by Harold Budd and Robin Guthrie (of the Cocteau Twins) and features Sigur Ros. It compliments the cinematography and really creates this dreamlike, atmospheric state that softens the harsh reality of the movie.

It is a wonderful film, but it's not something I could watch over and over again.

La Princesse De Montpensier (2010)

As I was saying earlier this week, the Alliance Francaise French Film Festival is closing up soon, tonight in fact. So I went on a little excursion (actually a big one, Balwyn is kind of far from my house) to go see one of the festival's movies on it's closing night. It was amazing how busy it was, I half expected to be the only one there. I chose La Princesse De Montpensier namely because of incredibly attractive Gaspard Ulliel, whom you might know from this ad (directed by Scorsese of course).

Sigh...

Anyway this film follows Marie (Melanie Thierry), a rich young woman who has fallen for Henri (Gaspard), however her father has promised her hand to the Prince of Montpensier (Gregoire Leprince-Ringuet). They marry but soon after she runs into Henri and realises her feelings have only become stronger. It's based on a short story by Madame de La Fayette, a 17th century French writer.

There's only so much you can say about any period drama, particularly one involving romance. I mean everything has kind of been done before, but it's well done here, the costumes are wonderful, the performances aren't always amazing but they're solid and the French setting is beautiful. Everything is shot beautifully, as you'd expect with a film like this. It's all a bit predictable really, but if you like this kind of genre, you'll definitely like La Princesse de Montpensier.

It was a quick one tonight, usually I have more to say but today I'm feeling rather deflated. Tomorrow is the first of what I hope will be many reader requests. And I think I have to say this a million times and I'll say it again... please, please, please if you want to say something/make a suggestion/tell me how crap this is please leave a comment, or alternatively email me at 6956750@student.swin.edu.au. I'm waiting to hear what you think.

Cleopatra (1963)

So today is the scheduled tribute to Liz Taylor and to celebrate her life and illustrious career, I found myself watching Joseph Makiewicz' Cleopatra. It's kind of ironic how this was actually a flop back in the day, now it's become one of the classics. It almost bankrupted 20th Century Fox to make and just made over half of the money back at the box office. The whole thing cost about $44 million to make which was absolutely ridiculous at the time.

Cleopatra, as you've already guessed, is about the life of Egyptian queen Cleopatra. It begins with Caesar (Rex Harrison), coming to Egypt to fix the relationship between joint rulers Cleopatra and her brother Ptolemy (Richard O'Sullivan, who eerily looks like Napoleon Dynamite). Cleopatra seduces Caesar and overthrows her brother to become sole ruler of Egypt. After Caesar is assassinated by his senators, Cleopatra falls in love with Marc Antony (Richard Burton) and together they plan to rule Rome and Egypt.

Ok, first let's be honest, this is not a historically accurate version what happened. It's the Hollywood version, in reality Cleopatra married her brothers, killed her sister and also does some pretty mean things to people she doesn't like very much. Also, the costumes are an incredibly loose interpretation of what people wore in ancient Egypt. They look more like someone from Alexandria 40BC time travelled to the 60s and was inspired to take that look back to Egypt. It's just so colourful and not necessarily in a good way.

Cleopatra is in all ways an epic movie, it took nearly 3 years to make, it goes for over 4 hours (the original cut was 6 hours), you have the Taylor/Burton saga happening at the same time and the large volumes of costumes, sets and extras would have been an epic amount for that time (or even now for that matter). It's on this scale that put's a James Cameron film to shame. It seems to tick off a checklist of what people enjoy, including:

- Several battles

- Romance

- Dramatic death scenes

- 2 big dance scenes (as if one wasn't enough)

The length was a tad annoying, not because it got boring, but because sometimes I have to eat/go to the bathroom/do other homework. There was no way I was going to get the opportunity to see it all in one sitting. I found it very easy to watch, the dialogue was witty and the actors did a great job. Elizabeth Taylor is really the focus of the movie, nobody else has about 100 costume changes or rides into Rome on a giant Sphinx. And she can carry a film like this, she has a grace and elegance that makes her very easy to watch, not to mention a confidence like you'd expect Cleopatra to have. You get this feeling Cleopatra had to live up to the extravagant expectations that people had of her and she doesn't disappoint. Everything about this movie is extravagant.

I also think I want to watch Cecil B. DeMille's Cleopatra, with Vivienne Leigh as the Egyptian queen. I think I'll have to save that for later, too many other topics to cover with so precious little time. Until tomorrow, sleep well.