Invictus

I usually don’t like sports films. I find them predictable. It’s obvious from the start who’s going to win the match/game/contest. If it wasn’t, then why make a movie in the first place?

Then I saw “Invictus” and promptly changed my mind.

“Invictus” isn’t a story about rugby – and that’s good, because I know nothing about rugby. It’s not even a political statement – although it certainly could be construed as one. “Invictus” is a story about a county that wasn’t ready to embrace change, until they were given a reason.

Directed by Clint Eastwood, and superbly acted by Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela and Matt Damon as Team Captain Francois Pienaar, “Invictus” details the quest of the South African rugby team to capture the World Cup in the mid 1990s, right after Mandela’s election and the end of apartheid. Within the boundaries of a “sports film”, Eastwood once again crafts a simple story on a grand scale transcending cliché to make an extremely moving film. The only slight misstep is the ending – the last match is necessary for dramatic purposes, but far too long for someone who has no clue how the game progresses.

Even though I don’t like sports films, I love sports. I’ll watch just about anything – baseball, football, tennis, even an NBA game. The more sports I watch, the more I realize that in today’s era, athletes (at least the ones that I hear about) aren’t loyal to anything but the Almighty Dollar. And don’t even get me started on the illegal activities of athletes. So I can’t really relate to an idea of a nation supporting one team.

We do have our national Olympic team. But most people (myself included) don’t know about these athletes and don’t care. I usually don’t watch the winter Olympics, as I don’t watch most of those sports. And the summer games are even worse. You have the same professional athletes you watch regularly competing on an international stage, which most do anyway daily. It just doesn’t make sense.

Now combine that with politics (and let me climb on my own soapbox). About a year ago, America was united by promise. A year later, it seems that people are becoming disillusioned. People wanted immediate change in a place where putting a band-aid on a hemorrhage just won’t work. And the racist population (and more than one “news” network) continues to make slurs and allegations to micromanage something that will take years to undo. Be patient people – it took us over a decade to get here; it’ll certainly take more than a year to dig out.

Why do I do my Oscar quirk annually? Because I’m neurotic of course, but also because every now and then I force myself to watch something I wouldn’t normally watch, and end up beyond pleasantly surprised in the bargain. I hope the Academy will think so as well.

“Invictus” – Rated PG-13, 134 minutes (*** ½)

A Culinary Masterpiece - in my kitchen and out!

Given the fact that Golden Globe nominations came out this week (among others), the Oscar hunt is now underway. I am, of course, behind. As I write this, there is a blizzard – always a good time to catch up on cleaning, writing, reading and of course film. Did I mention that I haven’t finished my Christmas baking yet either? As a way to cross numerous things off my list simultaneously, I watched my first film of the week – “Julie and Julia”.

Not only did it motivate me to bake, it also made me realize that it’s pretty freaky to see yourself in your idiocy and neuroses portrayed onscreen (and I don’t mean Meryl Streep).

“Julie and Julia” is a combination of two true stories – one from Julia Child, the reknown chef, and the other of Julie Powell, a lost married woman from Queens who gets it in her head that it’d be a great idea to cook herself through Mrs. Child’s French cookbook within one year and then share her story via her blog.

I know that Meryl Streep has gotten numerous accolades for her portrayal of Child, and I guess they’re well-deserved. The problem I have is that this is Meryl Streep. Does anyone really expect anything OTHER than her nailing the mannerisms, diction, etc perfectly? Can’t say I’m even close to being shocked.

Maybe it’s because it’s Amy Adams’ Julie Powell’s story which is new to me that made me like her character. Or the fact that Julie’s quest for culinary mastery is quite similar to my own Oscar Quest which I embark on annually (and usually finish, thank you very much). Or maybe it’s just because Amy Adams is so darn cute (as a friend tells me often). For all of those reasons, I think that “Julie and Julia” is one of the best films I’ve seen this year. This is quite a switch, because when this film was released in theaters I had almost no interest in it, and felt I could wait until the DVD release.

In addition to Streep and Adams, the other actor in this film is fantastic. Stanley Tucci plays Paul, Julia’s husband. I have no idea what their actual story was, as I didn’t read any of the source material, but he comes across as a loving, supportive, nurturing husband who would love his wife no matter what. I find that extremely refreshing to see onscreen.

I usually don’t notice the editing within a film unless it is a device within the story itself. That’s exactly what happens here. The juxtaposition of these two stories shows how closely these two align – regardless of where or when the stories are set. This concept is also underscored by the screenplay.

Every once in a while it’s nice to get a cinematic surprise. Here’s hoping that the endless dozens of cookies I have yet to bake are just as effective.

PS - Not long after I watched this film, I got my "501 Must See Movies" and notated that I had 269 left to see. We'll see if that actually goes anywhere! =)

"Julie and Julia" - Rated PG-13, 123 minutes, ***1/2

A hodgepodge of good films - you just have to look a bit.

This week’s slate consists of three very different films – 1 theatrical and 2 DVD releases – all of which are worth seeing.

First up is “Brothers”. This remake of a Danish film stars Natalie Portman, Tobey Maguire and Jake Gylenhaal. Maguire plays Sam, who goes off to fight in Iraq, only to be taken prisoner and held as a POW. On the home front his wife Grace (Portman) is informed that he died in action. As life starts to go on, her brother-in-law Tommy (Gylenhaal) discovers that he may indeed be a family man – in his brother’s family. When Sam returns home from the dead, all bets are off. What could have been a woman’s melodrama unexpectedly has some substance, primarily due to the performances of Maguire and Portman. Maguire channels a pair of Nicholson performances – “The Shining” and “A Few Good Men”. Portman is her usual solid self as the glue who holds everything together. The other good performance here is Sam Shepard, playing Sam and Tommy’s father. He’s great at playing an ass. For some reason I cannot explain or understand, the last third of this film is extremely affecting – I found myself in tears. I recommend the film, but I recommend more that you bring tissues.

Next up is “Cheri”. I’ve never hidden my adoration of Michelle Pfeiffer. I think she’s one of the best actresses of this generation, and I respect her and her work greatly. I hope to look that good at her age. This film is a period piece, a flip side to her “Dangerous Liasons” performance. She is the older woman (a courtesan, actually) who becomes enamored with a much younger man. As the relationship progresses, we see how maturity doesn’t have a thing to do with age. In addition to Pfeiffer, there’s also support from Kathy Bates as another courtesan. The direction by Stephen Frears is also fantastic. The last minute and a half is a closeup of Pfeiffer’s face (similar to the ending of “Wolf”), and she’s got quite a bit of aging makeup on. Not many actresses would be brave enough to even try the shot, but Pfeiffer just radiates.

Finally is “World’s Greatest Dad”. In light of all the heat that Robin Williams is getting regarding his latest Disney fiasco, it’s a shame that people didn’t really see this EXTREMELY dark satire, directed by Bobcat Goldthwait. At times extremely funny, at times disconcerting, and always right on the nose, Williams plays Lance, a high school teacher with no life who suddenly becomes a celebrity when his son commits suicide. What could be extremely dark ends up revealing something about us as a culture relating to celebrity as its effects. It might not sound good, but trust me, it is.

That’s all I’ve got for this week. Catch me next week when who KNOWS what I’ll end up seeing (although I can guarantee it WON’T be “Avatar”).

Films That Suck.

I concede that I’m a sucker for box office hype. Be it good or bad, if people are talking about a film I’m usually interested. I’m even enough of a total dork to predict the Oscar nods AND pick the Razzie “winners” as well.

So this week’s topic is films that suck – literally and figuratively.

First on the slate is the box office juggernaut “The Twilight Saga: New Moon”. Before you ask, yes I have read the books and NM is my hands down favorite. I went to see this on a Saturday at 11:00 AM with some female friends from work. I also admit that while snickering at the suburbanites marking out at the sight of Jacob shirtless or Edward’s glittering, I thought the film was great. It was faithful to the book, told a great story, ended on a decent stop, and left me eagerly anticipating “Eclipse”.

I watched “Twilight” the week of NM’s release, and it’s pretty obvious the difference between a studio not having money and dumping LOADS of money. The effects were much better in this film. I also thought that it’s more character driven. It’s more about Bella than anything else, which is fine by me. Also for the record, I’m neither Team Edward nor Team Jacob – I’m Team Bella, something that I’m surprised they haven’t thought of yet. For those that claim this is a teen film, try again. My audience was firmly in my age bracket, thank goodness.

Next is the alleged Oscar darling “Precious: (long title I don’t want to type)”. Each year has one Best Pic nominee I hate with a passion – I’ve gotten this year’s entry out early. This film was just stupid. I don’t care what celebrity endorses it this is NOT a good film. Story – nonexistent. Acting – Sadly lacking. Gimmick casting – check, and still stupid. I understand that there are many Preciouses in the world. But if you need to have this film tell you that, perhaps you need to read some more newspapers or pay closer attention. This film is either understandable or interesting. There’s NO back story – no motivation for any of the characters. The film is as disjointed as Precious’ ridiculous daydreams.

I could go off on a Dennis Milleresque Rant here, but for this film to be an Oscar front runner is just wrong. I will play the race card here – if this girl wasn’t African American, this film would be on Lifetime (which is exactly where it should be in my opinion). I have a friend who is African American who told me that the accolades of this film are “white people guilt”. I wholeheartedly agree with her. People keep saying that the lead actress did a great job. She may have, but most of the time I couldn’t understand what she was saying. There’s no connection anywhere – not between the characters, and certainly not with the audience. In fact, this review is also as all over the place as the film.

But, you know, it does follow one of the newer Oscar “rules” – films with illiterate women score BIG. So I’m sure that the film will mop up all the awards. Too bad it’s getting the wrong ones, because I’d clearly give this a Razzie nod instead.

“The Twilight Saga: New Moon”, PG-13, 130 minutes, ***
“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”, R, 110 minutes , blank

A "Serious" Oscar Contender

I type this on the day before Thanksgiving. Cinematically, I’m always grateful for directors who challenge me, not just present a situation and then guide me (or worse, force feed me) how I’m supposed to react.

Such is the case with the Coen Brothers’ latest effort, “A Serious Man”. I’m still reacting – a week later.

The Coen’s last Oscar-winning film was “No Country for Old Men”. That film shows the true personification of evil, as portrayed by Oscar-Winner Javier Bardem. I contend it’s more about fate, how actions have consequences, and that things in life can literally turn on the flip of a coin.

The new film, while semi-autobiographical, also reinforces the concept of fate. But it also accentuates the consequences of inaction. The protagonist, Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg, in an Oscar-worthy performance), basically watches his life pass him by. He’s a professor at a university, and his life seems to fly as high over his head as his lesson fly over his students’.

As the film progresses, Larry is presented a series of temptations and moral dilemmas, which he either downplays or ignores altogether. But in the world of the Coen Brothers, ignorance is far from bliss. All things must be accounted for, as Larry watches his family (the entire supporing cast is fantastic), his job, and his life spin completely out of control, all the while bewailing “I didn’t do anything”.

The main criticism most people have about this film is what I’ll call the “hard stop”. Just like the end of “Old Country”, the end comes abruptly and with little warning. Part of me felt ripped off, because I’d invested a good deal of my thoughts and time into these characters, something which I normally don’t need to do when watching a film.

Then I thought some more, and realized that the ending can go multiple ways. Although I happen to have my own opinion as to how the action would follow, I might be wrong. This is a film that demands discussion – I wish I knew more people who had seen it to discuss it with. I left the theater feeling energized, refreshed and curious. I’m glad I didn’t see it as part of a double (which was my original plan), because I think not allowing it to breathe would have wrecked it.

Like it or not, this is a film that you can’t help but react to. It’s nice to finally see a film that doesn’t manipulate my feelings, but allows them to all be justified. The Coens may not exactly have a wide audience – and most moviegoers probably wouldn’t have the patience for this film. That’s a shame. Because in the world of the Coens, the very last thing you can say about them is that they “don’t do anything”. It’s too bad that more directors and writers, even in this Oscar season, can’t be the same.

“A Serious Man”, Rated R, 105 minutes (***1/2)

"Up" sinks under the hype.

Last year, Pixar put out “Wall-E”. It was greatly praised, and flirted with Oscar. I didn’t see it theatrically; I waited until DVD. Surprising, I found it every entertaining and movie. I also thought it had an Important Message, and I even have a copy in my library.

This year’s Pixar film, “Up”, has been uniformly praised by critics and moviegoers. It’s allegedly one of the best films of the year. I didn’t see this in a theater either, as I thought it looked stupid. But, given the Oscar Expansion, I decided to rent it, hoping lighting would strike twice.

Here is a list of what “Up” is:
1. It’s moving. I cried through most of it.
2. It contains some family-friendly characters.
3. It is well animated and vibrantly colorful.
4. It has a moral (not message, moral), even if I disagree with it.

Here is what “Up” is not:
1. It is NOT a great film.
2. It is NOT worthy of a Best Picture Oscar (although it will get the nod, I’m sure)
3. IT IS NOT A CHILDREN’S FILM.

If you examine Pixar’s films, there is definitely a trend. “Toy Story” and “Finding Nemo” are classics. My personal favorite is “Monsters, Inc.”. But with their latest efforts, it’s becoming more and more evident to me that Pixar is flipping the script (or jumping the shark, as the case may be).

What happened? They started out with kid-friendly stories, exploring universal themes, like friendship. These stories were well-written, with a nostalgic adult pull for adults, while still fresh enough to entertain children. They should be praised for that (and are, ad nauseum).

But now we’re getting into the territory of non kid-friendly themes. People will say that “Up” is really about friendship between an old man and a young boy. But I also see the Disney head rearing in there – we’ve got lost/absent parents (a true Disney hallmark). For example, the whole reason Russell gets into this in the first place is just to see his dad.

But even worse than that, there’s FAR too much talk about death. Personally, I wouldn’t want to explain to my six year old what a nursing/”retirement” home is, or why someone wouldn’t want to go there. Or why older people have a tendency to accumulate stuff and live in the past. Or dwell on unfulfilled dreams.

Looking at the film from an adult perspective, I can understand why people liked it. There’s comfort in a love lost. It’s always reaffirming to know that our memories live on, even if our things don’t. And it’s always great to feel loved and appreciated – regardless of the source.

In my opinion, “Up” sinks under all the hype, making it a real downer. It’s one of the most depressing films I’ve seen in a long time – or maybe that’s just me being my usual jaded, adult self.

"Up", Rated PG, 96 minutes (**)

Apologies and Anticipation

Dear Audience - I must apologize this week. I haven’t seen much, and what I did see wasn’t impressive. First things first – the only film I watched this week was the remake of “The Taking of Pelham 123”. It should be really done 1-2-3, because this film is just basic - basically boring. Directed by Tony Scott, Denzel Washington and John Travolta walk through a film lacking characters, suspense, drama, effects, or development. At times, I felt like I was waiting for the train/ending – and waiting – and waiting. Travolta again channels his much better “Face/Off” performance, and Denzel is reduced to playing Every Man. Tony Scott illustrates the haphazard camera shots normally attributed to the Michael Bay school of filming.

There are two reasons why I didn’t really watch much this week. The first is that I’ve been a bit under the weather (and no, I do NOT have the swine flu – just a simple head cold). The second has to do with the fact that cinematic storytelling is quite dead right now. Never has this been clearer to me than Sunday night, or technically Monday Morning.

I couldn’t sleep Sunday night. I have no idea why. I figured that since I couldn’t sleep I would watch the finale of my favorite show “Mad Men” that night, instead of waiting to on demand it Monday morning. I miss the original run time and the replay to watch football, so I stayed up until 2:30 watching the replay. It was worth every minute.

For me, this show is seven-layer taco dip. Detailed storytelling, an investment in a group of characters revealed over time, new and UNEXPECTED twists, a few laughs, and a few tears combine perfectly to interweave plotlines. At the end of the 40+ minutes, I wanted next season to start next week. (I also wanted to write AMC to tell them to expand to 22 eps.) I’m such a fan of this show I have quotes from it on post-it notes on my desk. It is that good.

But within the treat that was the “Mad Men” finale, there was another added present. During one of the “limited commercial interruptions” was an ad for the new Jason Reitman film “Up in the Air”. At that moment I had two thoughts – one, my two celebrity crushes Jon Hamm and George Clooney FINALLY combined and two, there is cinematic hope! I couldn’t discover the entire plot during the trailer! The characters looked realistic and interesting! I laughed at the trailer because it was witty! I actually had anticipation! (cue Carly Simon)

So here’s hoping that hidden among yet another Disney 3D holiday mess, a musical I won’t get to see until January, an important Race Relations Film, there’s not just another quirky, indie drama. Here’s hoping that somewhere underneath the commerciality – may lay a good story or two. It’s getting to be that time of year. I just have to get through this dreck first.

My "Paranormal" Experience

I finally gave in to the hype and saw “Paranormal Activity” earlier this week. My expectations going in were low. I was hoping against all hope I’d be scared at some point, or perhaps semi-freaked out. I thought maybe going at 5:05 in the evening meant the crowd would be absent. I knew I wouldn’t have nightmares that night – I’m a horror vet. I’ve seen foreign horror that freaked me so bad I couldn’t even look at the screen, and I’ve seen horror that made me nauseous.

So, what did I think?

I think maybe this film needs to marinate. It’s not a film that ends when you leave the theater. That’s the joy in effective horror – you’re creeped out more once you rejoin the outside world. A theater, after all, is a controlled environment. You can always look away or cover your eyes momentarily. Other people are there – people to feed off of (zombie pun unintentional). That’s why you’re supposed to see this in a theater. Thankfully my audience was just my friend and myself. Did we talk through it? Yup – which made it fun (plus we had better dialogue than the leads did).

While the film was running, I actually got bored. The film is repetitive. The acting is flat. I found both of the leads annoying, and I wouldn’t have stayed with either of them longer than ten minutes. I figured out the ending 20 minutes into the film. A few things were interesting, and I got my one jump. The ending was quite stupid and obvious from a mile away. As I got into my car, I called a friend, starting the conversation with “If anyone thinks this is the scariest movie EVER, I can think of fifteen others they need to see - off the top of my head”. I raved a bit about the blatant “Blair Witch” rip-off (expected) and “The Ring” (unexpected). I stated that the “realistic farce” stating “whereabouts unknown” is just dumb. I know exactly where these people are –on the front my EW I received last Friday!

But then I went back home to my new apartment. Living in an apartment means there is always constant noise coming from somewhere – and you know not where. I’m still getting used to that, as I like to have quiet when I sleep – dead quiet (pun intended that time). Since it was an early film, I had plenty of time to watch other things before retiring for the evening. I ate dinner, watched TV, read “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”, and eventually got tired.

But here’s the rub - I slept with the light dimly lit all night. And I have no idea why.

But back to “what did I think”. Basically, I think it’s nowhere near the scariest movie ever made, but I do concede that the film works. The film in an inarguable success – I just think it succeeds much better outside of the theater.

"Paranormal Activity" - Rated R, 86 minutes **1/2

Don't be a Mimi!

I’m sure by now you’re all aware of the huge hype surrounding the new “it” film – “Paranormal Activity”. It’s tops at the box office, dethroned “Saw”, made several million dollars while only costing pennies to make, scarier than any movie EVER, could make you physically ill, and could be the greatest thing since pepperoni and pickles (not together, of course). You’ve just GOT to see it or basically the cinematic world will end.

Sorry, I’m not buying. I’ve been asked repeatedly if I was going to see it. I wanted to – then I didn’t. I thought it was a great marketing idea. Then I read it was already going to be wide – regardless of the internet buzz and felt scammed. But the kiss of death for me was when someone said “you need to see this in a theater”.

I have a big problem with that, because most moviegoers simply cannot hold their horror. I know that modern horror movies are supposed to be fun – and some are. I saw “My Bloody Valentine 3D” in a theater and loved it – along with the other twelve people in the audience.

But according to the box office, chances of my getting an audience like that are slim to none. Take my not-so-recent horror double feature pairing “Final Destination 3D” with Rob Zombie’s “Halloween 2” remake. FD (which wasn’t that great) was first. Directly behind my 6th row seat was a young lady I’ll call Mimi. You all know Mimi. She screams - CONTINUALLY. Mimi starting screaming at the 3D trailers, including Disney’s “A Christmas Carol”. That right there showed me that Mimi, or maybe I, was in the wrong place. This is FAR from an ideal cinematic experience.

I tried to drown Mimi out. The theater owners had the same idea by turning up the volume. I tried to concentrate on the film (not that there’s much to concentrate on). But there was no stopping Mimi. She yelled, talked back to the screen while hiding her eyes and acted like an idiot through the entire film. Given that 3D films are more expensive to see, I was NOT missing the movie because of her.

In contrast, the “Halloween” group, albeit smaller, didn’t say a peep. They gasped when appropriate, looked confused sometimes (see it and you’ll understand) and had an appreciation for Zombie mixed with David Lynch with a dash of Cronenberg. (The film is much better than expected by the way, and I’ll blog about it when it reaches DVD.)

So, to recap, will I see “Paranormal Activity”? Yes, I am – this Tuesday after work. (I can't have my cinematic world end, can I?) I’m hoping I’ll have the chance to get more into the film and less into the audience. I don’t really have high hopes - “Blair Witch” left me bored, not scared.
But please – if you see a horror movie in a theater, TRY to remember you’re not in your living room. And if you’re with a Mimi, have date night AT HOME.

Trick or Treat!

It’s almost Halloween! This week’s cinematic plate contains all kinds of tricks and treats.

First is a DVD release ironically called “Trick 'r Treat” - my new “must see” Halloween treat. Forget that tired, stale “Saw” dreck ; try something with a bit more bite. Modeled after the 80’s classic “Creepshow”, the film opens with comic book sketches and proceeds to tell a series of interlocking vignettes. Some faces are extremely familiar. In fact, the whole film seems familiar and nostalgic, but that’s part of its charm. The highlight is the pre-“True Blood” Anna Paquin as the Little Red Riding Hood with a wolfish spirit. I’ve learned this gem sat on the shelf for two years before finding a distributor. What a crying shame. But it’d be more of a crying shame if you didn’t see it. It’s good enough to redeem American horror in my book (for a while). ***

Halloween is never without tricks. After suffering through 45 minutes of “The Proposal”, I can say I’ve been tricked, but only by myself. Once in a great while I’ll watch a modern rom-com, hoping to find some intelligence or originality. Nope. Sandra Bullock plays Ryan Reynolds’ boss, who is about to get deported to Canada unless she coerces her assistant into marriage. Think Meryl’s Streep’s “The Devil Wears Prada” without any character. Reynolds was better in his “Wolverine” appearance (all ten minutes of it). Clearly the cast and the writers just wanted the paycheck. By the time they got to the fat guy stripping to Frankie Goes to Hollywood’s “Relax”, I was done. The only good thing to report is that the scenery in MASSACHUSETTS (not Alaska, as alleged) is beautiful. I should have bought a postcard. (unwatchable, and therefore unrated)

But please don’t think I’m a film snob – at least not until March. I did get a bona fide treat this week – a film I thought I’d hate that I actually enjoyed. Most of what passes for comedy these days doesn’t interest me – it’s juvenile, insulting or just stupid. But “Couples Retreat” (yes I did type that) is much better than I expected. I’ll give credit for that to Vince Vaughn. I figured the only reason to watch this was to see Vaughn and Jon Favreau ping off each other. It worked in “Swingers” and it works here. The plot isn’t much. Four couples go away to a couples resort to help one save their marriage. The other couples are along for the ride, even if that’s not the ride they initially selected. Anyone that’s been in any type of long-term relationship will appreciate the humor and the sentiment. It does go too cliché at times, this is still one Retreat I didn’t mind visiting. (***)

That’s it for this week. I’ve been asked repeatedly about “Paranormal Activity”, but that’s another blog for another day. Keep reading, because when it comes to film, I’ll ALWAYS have something to say!

"Trick 'r Treat", Rated R, 82 minutes
"The Proposal", Rated PG-13, 108 minutes
"Couples Retreat", Rated PG-13, 113 minutes

Characters Galore!

This week’s slate features three types of characters – those that are animated, those that are cartoonish and those that are foreign.

First up is the DC Comics’ “Superman/Batman – Public Enemies”. DC usually makes an effort to cast better-known TV actors in their direct to DVD comic-based features, and this one is no exception. Tim Daly, John C McGinley, Xander Berkeley and CCH Pounder all participated. Best to me was Allison Mack from “Smallville” finally getting her due as a superhero herself. But, as a veteran anime watcher, I have to say I was a bit disappointed. Although the effects were interesting, the animation didn’t always work for me. Action-wise, it’s fine. But the characters are too angular for my taste. The story held my interest, but could have been more fleshed out. I’m also all for Superman getting one-upped, albeit temporarily. Plus, considering Disney now owns Marvel, at least DC has a real studio behind it. **1/2

Second up is the fiasco known as “Jennifer’s Body”. I have no excuse as to why I watched this, and I felt cinematically unclean afterward. My only justification was curiousity regarding Diablo Cody’s horror-writing abilities. Unfortunately, there are none. At least she tried. The plot is as non-existent as the nudity the fan boys were dying to see. The soundtrack contains a plethora of 80s remakes; however they are massacred by other artists so badly it’s hard to even identify the source material. Did I mention Megan Fox yet? Megan Fox, who is so bad an actress even Michael Bay (hack that he was) called her out? The highlight of the film was seeing Fox get speared. (Hey, maybe they could put her on RAW to guest host and improve ratings!) Cody will redeem herself with other projects, notably “The United States of Tara”. Fox, however, is approaching beyond redemption. I’ll avoid mentioning Amanda Seyfried, as I’m forgetting her presence, for which I’m sure she thanks me.*

Third was “Martyrs”, a French horror film. In today’s climate of America regurgitating 80s horror or ripping off Asian horror, it’s usually more worthwhile to watch foreign horror. That being said, I’m still not sure what to make of this film. It’s disconcerting. Basically, a young girl with a violent and tortuous past (literally) goes on a quest of revenge, taking a friend of hers along for the ride. The plot gets a little difficult to follow and the subplots do get a bit on the ridiculous side, but I can’t recall the last time that I’ve been this intrigued and repelled by a film simultaneously. (Perhaps the “Funny Games” remake.) A few shots made me gasp. Others had me hiding my eyes. The worst part of the film was the ending, which I found ambiguous but stupid. This isn’t a film for the faint of heart, but I can appreciate gore in the right environment. It’s also redeeming that there is other horror out there – if you can stomach it. **1/2

“Superman/Batman: Public Enemies”, PG-13, 67 minutes
“Jennifer’s Body”, R, 102 minutes
“Martrys”, R, 99 minutes

Until next week, stay tuned. You never know WHAT I'll watch next! Take care.

October 7 - The journey begins!

Films featured:
"Every Little Step", Rated PG-13, 96 minutes
"The Girlfriend Experience", Rated R, 78 minutes
"500 Days of Summer", Rated PG-13, 95 minutes
"Tyler Perry's I Can Do Bad All By Myself", Rated PG-13, 113 minutes


Most of the films I’ve seen lately have been average at best. I simply have no patience to watch anything, because nothing really draws my attention. But now I have the internet, which allows me to seek out the films that I want to see. Being a true film freak, there are many.
This week’s cinematic journey took me all over the map. I happily report that the trip was affordable, and for a change, worthwhile.

I started with “Every Little Step”, the documentary about the Broadway revival of “A Chorus Line”. This was one of those “Oh yeah – I wanted to see that” films I had almost forgotten. Told through archival footage, the film alternates between the original production and the casting of the new one. Even though I’ve never been to a Broadway show, it’s easy to see how much these dancers give for their craft. The only downside is that parts look (pardon the pun) staged, like a reality show. But by the time they make it down from the original 3000 auditions to the finals to the actual Opening Night chorus line, I found myself cheering and singing along. ***1/2

From there I went to Adventureland (not that one, been there, done that, wasn’t all that) and watched “The Girlfriend Experience”. This is a recent Stephen Soderbergh effort, and it’s one of his more odd pieces. Only 78 minutes long, it tells the story of a female escort as she goes about her life. Eventually her “home life” and “personal life” cannot coexist. The biggest hype about this film was the casting of Sasha Grey as the lead. Yes, she made a living in the adult film industry. Yes, she can deliver lines. However, her delivery is wooden. I found it difficult to decide whether that was because the character is supposed to be so matter-of-fact, or because the writing just didn’t work. I also couldn’t understand whether I was supposed to feel sorry for her or not. In the end, I decided it didn’t matter. Although I respect the attempted “Experience”, it didn’t really do that much for me. **

Next stop was one of the highlights of the summer film slate, “500 Days of Summer”. This one had a great deal of favorable press, tauted as the “anti-rom com”. Given my hatred of rom-coms, I had extremely high expectations which were almost completely met. The film is realistic and honest. It uses the same technique as “Girlfriend” by telling events out of sequence. However, here there is a counter telling you what day you’re on. I found the characters completely believable due to the combination of good writing and solid performances of Zooey Deschanel and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. With one small exception of a misplaced song and dance number, it was a great non-rom-com romp. The short run time of 95 minutes means that the film doesn’t have time to meander; I found the length perfect. It’s like a piece of watermelon – there might not be much there, but it’s fun while you enjoy it. ***1/2

To close out the cinematic trip, I ended on a downer. Tyler Perry’s latest effort, “I Can Do Bad All by Myself”, has led me to believe that Perry’s formula may be growing long in the tooth. I’ve liked the last few Perry films a great deal, and I thought he was finally stretching. Unfortunately, I was wrong. There is far too much stereotyping. The thing that I like best about Perry’s films is that I can always relate to the characters, but they’ve all gotten too cookie-cutter. Taraji P. Henson plays a woman who lives a shallow life until a tragedy forces her to grow up and take responsibility, and of course becomes fulfilled with a bevy of solid relationships. A friend of mine told me that it could be the African-American version of “Raising Helen”. She was right – and she hadn’t even seen the film! **

All in all, there is cinematic hope. It will indeed get better. Tune in next week (or whenever I get around to doing this), and please join me for the next installment of my never-ending cinematic saga. Till then, take care and have a glorious day.

She's back - or maybe she never really left!

Welcome back to me!

It's that time of year. Not just football season (although that's enough of a reason to rejoice, especially for Colts fans everywhere), but it's also the pre-Oscar race. And that's enough of a reason for me to start my blog again.

My friends and co-workers have been asking me my opinion on films for years. I don't delude myself to think that my opinions matter all that much. But I do think that most people find my opinions amusing, and in most cases far too critical. I've been told that I pay far too much attention to silly things like directors, writing, scenery and actors who can act.

But that's just me - geek extraordinaire that I am. I'm pretty well-rounded. I love to read (including comic books), and I watch far too much television. (On-demand could be one of the best things ever invented.) I finally figured out that I'm ok with what makes me unique, and I'm not going to change these things, although they may change themselves in time.

Unfortunately, I'm sure I won't post here as much as I would like. I don't really get to the theater much anymore, but thanks to Netflix, Redbox, and the internet, I'll watch as much as I can. I do have a day job, and there's always more to watch. My reviews may not be precise, but they will be honest.

But I do admit that I have biases. Everyone does. I feel it's important when one starts something like this that you know what I'm like from the very beginning. That way you can't say that you weren't warned.

What I like: strong writing, performances I can believe, realism, the absence of the big red bow tying up loose ends, not being spoonfed by a director, and Audrey Hepburn.

What I don't like: romantic comedies, stuff that blows up for no good reason, moronic comedy, things that insult my intelligence, Kate Hudson (I am well aware that's redundant), and the New England Patriots.

I think older movies are usually superior to newer ones, even though I stipulate that there are many I haven't seen that probably aren't - and that applies to both sides of the argument. I think there aren't enough good movies today and you have to look too hard for those that qualify. I think that just because I film is nominated for an Oscar doesn't mean it's good. I believe that a cineplex that shows Cinematic Masterpieces can also have one arthouse showing. Arthouse doesn't mean good and a summer movie doesn't have to be bad.

Genre-wise, my tastes seem to be changing as much as I am. I am getting older. Pushing 40 seems to have changed me a bit. I'm more open now. Sci-fi can indeed be written well. Films can be entertaining and still be great. I also believe that Michael Bay did indeed redeem himself with "Transformers" and I haven't had as much fun in a theater all year. I believe that IMAX is fantastic, but the film has to compliment the technology. I have a soft spot in my heart for horror movies, but I think the best horror isn't in the US.

But I still don't believe that Nic Cage can act. Let's get that straight RIGHT NOW.

This may not really be a defined set of reviews. It may end up just being a catalogue of my cinematic experiences - regardless of whether they're in a theater, in my living room, or on my laptop. I have a tendancy to watch things in spurts, so you might get 4 films one week and then only 1 per week for a month after. I'll try to fit in all genres and both foreign and domestic films. I'll also take requests, so if you have something you want my take on, feel free to ask.

So, in closing, if you're still interested, feel free to keep reading. I'll add when I can. If you aren't, then thanks for stopping by and have a glorious day.