Movie Reviews

This time of year if I can force myself to leave our nice, warm couch and head to the cinema it’s usually worth the effort (especially as we’re so selective these days preferring to see the blockbusters with lots of special effects that are always better on a large screen).

“Star Wars”

The day after Christmas my husband and a friend of ours all went to see the latest “Star Wars” flick. Don’t ask me to explain how it fits into the complicated timeline and who is related to whom, because I didn’t take notes the last time my husband explained it to someone. If you’re not a “Star Wars” fan and haven’t seen most of the last few movies, you won’t know the backstory, but you could conceivably enjoy this film on its own. It has comedy, action and even a brief almost romantic moment. Sadly, it’s the last time we’ll see Carrie Fisher as this was her final appearance before her untimely death last year. It will be interesting to see how the writers and producers work around her in future films since she was such an integral part of things. I guess that just leaves R2 D2, C3PO and Chewbacca the only principals from the original films.

“Murder on the Orient Express”

If you’ve read the book or seen any of the previous incarnations of one of Agatha Christie’s best known books, you already know this isn’t a simple Whodunit with one victim and one murderer. Professor Plum didn’t commit murder in the library with a candlestick. The story is a lot more complex, and very tragic. I am one of the few who hasn’t actually read the book or seen any of the previous movies, so it was all new to me.

To the movie’s credit, it has a star-studded cast with the very likeable Kenneth Branaugh playing Hercule Poirot with a fairly decent French accent (best as I can tell anyway). Johnny Depp plays the unfortunate victim, so he only makes a very brief appearance. Everyone is a suspect, even Dame Judi Dench (and she’s a national treasure!). I guarantee you would have to be Sherlock Holmes, or in this case, Hercule Poirot to solve the mystery behind this one.

“Downsizing”

The film opens in a Norwegian lab where some sort of an experiment is being conducted on a white mouse/rat. Next scene: lots of rejoicing because apparently “it” worked. Fast forward several years to a well-filled lecture hall where a short speech is made and then a box brought in. Inside the box is a human 1/10^th the size of a normal human (but without the stereotypical high pitched voice) who explains about the technology and the benefits behind becoming little or “downsizing.” A small black trash bag is produced which allegedly contains several years’ worth of trash from the first little people settlement. Yes, little people produce less waste. That goes without saying. However, the real reason to be small is because their economy is different. Those of us on this side of reality who barely scrape by living paycheck to paycheck might find they’re suddenly millionaires there (not everyone though). Plus, how cool is it seeing a dandelion from underneath? We haven’t had that kind of view since “Honey I Shrunk the Kids.”

The movie addresses the bigger issue of global warming and the effect humans have had on the planet earth, but does it in such a way as to not be overly moralizing or grim, so I much appreciated that.

I liked "Downsizing" because it was interesting, more than a little entertaining, funny, and also a little sad. It's also inspirational as one of the main characters, a Vietnamese dissident, spends her days cleaning wealthy peoples' houses and evenings helping her poor neighbors in the slum she lives in. I have to admit I was surprised to see a slum, but I guess there will always be rich and poor no matter what size you are.