"You never talk about yourself, it makes me feel lonely."
-Nana K. to Nana O.-

Labels: A, Movies

"It sounds like fun and games -- the boozy, all-woman answer to those close-knit gangs of Hollywood boy-men captured on screen in 'Entourage' and embodied by the real-life Apatown, the industry moniker for filmmaker Judd Apatow's coterie of actors and screenwriters including Paul Rudd, Jason Segel and Seth Rogen. But these women also work hard: Ms. [Diablo] Cody, Ms. [Dana] Fox and Ms. [Lorene] Scafaria can command seven figures to write a movie that makes it into theaters with big stars. Ms. [Liz] Meriwether (the others call her 'the freshman') is on her way to joining them. That's no small achievement when you consider that among the screenwriters who are in steady demand for major projects, only about 20 are women. Don't even try to credit their bankability to their looks."
-An Entourage of Their Own-

Labels: Movies

Not normally a movie I'd pay to watch, since I don't like 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, and other Apatow-esque guy movies. If you want to read a positive review of this movie, click here.

"But what I appreciated most was the way that the film captured the modern American male condition with thought and humor. On the whole, when men get married, study after study has demonstrated that they are more likely to depend more on their spouses for emotional support than they do on others, as opposed to females, who are typically able to maintain a more extensive social network. As a result, widowed men experience higher rates of depression and shorter periods until remarriage."
-Slashfilm review-

I don't think the movie captured much of anything but it is a great concept and can be the launching pad for fun conversations about bromances. The conceit of the movie is that Paul Rudd is about to get married (to Rashida Jones) but he has no guy friends, which indicates he's flawed in some way. Awkward moments, dumb jokes, and a few laughs ensue. Yawn.

The only thing that did strike home was how the movie highlighted the difficulties males can face in trying to meet other males. It's something that could be a problem, I guess, but really, males bond over lots of things, especially hobbies. So just go find an activity you sort of enjoy, do it on a regular basis, and you'll make a guy friend or two. Maybe not one you'll say "I love you" to but that's okay, isn't it?

Labels: D, Movies

(1) Dirty Hands (Harry Kim) - Subtitled "The Art and Crimes of David Choe" and the one film I really wanted to see at the festival. It didn't disappoint, not one bit. Choe is an amazingly versatile artist; a charismatic, crazy, and troubled soul; and this documentary captures and reveals all of it. Heck, I could watch the unedited footage of this stuff and probably totally love it. [Trailer]

(2) The Panda Candy (Peng Lei) - A gentle surprise. The Panda Candy, about two hipster lesbians (sort of) looking for love, reminded me a little bit of Lost in Translation in mood and sentiment. Unexpected moments abound, whether they be humorous, beautiful, or poignant. I'd be curious to watch it again to see how I feel after a repeat viewing. I loved the way the film was shot and composed. [Trailer]

(3) Lust, Caution (Ang Lee) - This much discussed and controversial movie from Ang Lee is probably the only one readily available Stateside. It wasn't in theaters very long, and did quite poorly here, but that doesn't mean it's not worth watching. I have a ton to say about the movie, both good and bad, but I'll leave it alone. One helpful thing to note is that Eileen Chang's translation of her short story title was actually "The Spy Ring," which is a useful tidbit. A friend let me borrow Chang's Love in a Fallen City and I highly recommend her writing. It's beautiful, simply put. [Trailer]

(4) High Noon (Heiward Mak) - A stylish movie about seven Hong Kong youths growing up without direction or conscience. The director was only twenty four when she made the movie and I was really impressed with her grasp of male relationships and her visual flair -- even if it was a bit overdone in spots. The film did drag a bit and I had a few quibbles with the last quarter of the movie but overall it was pretty good. [Trailer]

(5) Whatever It Takes (Christopher Wong) - Edward Tom is the first year principal of a high school in the South Bronx. He's passionate, involved, and extremely hard working. The school challenges its students to rise above their environment and circumstances in pursuit of higher education. The setup sounds intriguing but the documentary plays out more like a feel good story than anything that truly illuminates the struggles of a school serving an underprivileged area. The decision to focus on one particular student lent too narrow of a view to the story and I wish we had been able to follow more the students' stories. [Trailer]

(6) 24 City (Jia Zhangke) - This was highly anticipated but ultimately majorly disappointing. A mixture of documentary and staged monologues, the entire movie was just too slow moving and impossible to get into without knowing what was actually true. While I was really interested about the topic at hand -- a Chinese factory being torn down to be replaced by commercial high rises -- the documentary provided no insight or entertainment. [Trailer]

Labels: Movies

This movie is polarizing reviewers. Artistic masterpiece versus incredible waste of time. I've been waiting for the movie for months, maybe a year even. And now, having sat through two and a half hours of it? I think it's better to invest a few hours into reading the graphic novel before watching the movie.

The translation from page to film is pretty accurate but there's too much context and subtext missing. I'd even suggest that having a good idea of how/why Watchmen is important in the history of comics and superheroes is necessary for full enjoyment. Don't get me wrong, I think the movie is well made and Zach Snyder did an amazing job, but I'm beginning to believe Alan Moore when he says that his work is unfilmmable.

I was worried for my fellow movie-goers who hadn't read the book. I was sure they would think the movie was terrible. Even as a superfan, I thought the pace dragged a little (but was pleased with how much wasn't cut) and the tone was too one-note. I think people are going to go into the movie thinking it's a superhero flick and halfway through, will realize that they're getting nothing of the sort. There's entertainment here, but nothing like Iron Man or The Dark Knight Returns. In comparison to the latter, I'd much prefer to re-watch Watchmen over and over though, because there's more you could unearth with multiple viewings, unlike Batman, who tries to give a nod to symbolism and meaning but is really just vapid in comparison.

In sum, the film version of Watchmen functions better as a visual companion to the book and doesn't necessarily work very well as a standalone piece. Don't watch it unless you've read it, that's what I'm saying.

Update: I take it all back. Watchmen is in (financial) trouble! Go watch it immediately. Then watch it again.

Labels: B, Movies

Geezes, what a movie. It's intense, it's serious, it's goddam a super scary story. A young couple stuck in suburbia and trapped in their lives, together but totally separate. The intensity of the fights between Leo and Kate are enough to make any veteran of relationship battles cringe and wince. If you've ever wondered what you might look like when you are yelling at your significant other, this movie pretty much shows you. It's ugly. And Leo is so manipulative with his words, turning every argument around on its head. It's so real it's crazy.

This is probably the best, most emotionally impactful, movie I've seen all year. I've dubbed it "my new Valentine's Day movie" because it feels like something I should revisit annually to remember what not to do. Fantastic film.

Labels: A, Movies

The movie opens with a quote from Socrates, "The unexamined life is not worth living." That sets the stage for an hour and a half of watching/listening to big thinkers talk about big things. The film is technically about philosophy and could serve as that but it struck me more as an experiment in movie making. Similar to Richard Linklater's "Waking Life," the entire running time is taken up by various people walking/sitting and talking to the camera. But unlike Waking Life, the topics and charisma of (some of) the speakers didn't put me to sleep.

There's a lot to think about when coming out of the movie, but because of the rapid pace, you kind of lose the ideas that germinate while watching it. Thus, I took out my iPhone and started taking notes. Midway into the movie, an old lady leaned over and said that it was very distracting. Initially chastened, I put the phone away. Then I thought about it some more and decided that I should be able to take notes on my phone if I wanted to. I assumed she was bothered by the light so I dimmed the screen down to the minimum and continued note taking.

Some of the topics mused over and talked about: the moral obligation to not just avoid harming others, but also to help. From behind her rose-tinted glasses, one woman talked about how in our search for meaning, we need to have anxiety about our actions and decisions. There was someone noting the difference between religious evangelism ("be like me so I can love you properly") versus the ideal of cosmopolitian love ("be who you are and I'll love you as I love myself"). There was a discussion about being handicapped, whether it be physical or mental, and how that undermines and alters the idea of Rousseau's social contract.

The two most charismatic talkers of the group were Cornel West and Slavoj Zizek (the subject of the filmmaker's first movie). Zizek stood around in a landfill talking about ecology as the new religion, and how more alienation from the environment would be better for us. Mr. West used his particular brand of bebop charm to talk about how philosophizing is learning to die.

These are just some of things that came up in the movie, of course. Every utterance is probably worth discussion and while it's certainly interesting, I can definitely understand some people getting tired and falling asleep. Pump in some caffeine and stay awake!

Labels: B, Movies

I have quite a bit to say about this movie. So hang around for the ride or eject now. First off, it's well known that I'll take a seat in front of any rom-com, if only to "spoil my love life." Having had my eye on the progression of the movie's title from Sex and the City catchphrase, to book, and now to movie, I was prepared for anything. Well, one of my first friend reviews about the film came from my sister, who literally hopped and skipped out of the move in glee when she saw it last week. Then Lilly gave the movie a favorable review in her wonderfully entertaining post. So I was ready for a winner and that's what I got... sort of.

First, I was thoroughly entertained throughout, even if there were plenty of times/lines when I had to suspend disbelief more than normal. It didn't hurt that two of my top five (Scarlett Johansson and Jennifer Connelly) were prominently featured. To sum the whole movie up, I'd say it was like "Harry Met Sally" plus "Love, Actually," two movies I loved and absolutely hated, respectively. Maybe it was just the simple cut-scene interviews that reminded me of "Harry Met Sally," and just the multiple interconnected characters that were like "Love, Actually," but I couldn't shake the comparisons. To be sure, HJNTIY isn't nearly as intelligent or well formed as "Harry Met Sally," the seminal film in romantic comedy history. In fact, maybe we can blame it for all the crappy romantic comedies that have come afterwards. It was so good that it ruined 90% of the copycats that followed.

All that aside, I thought HJNTIY was really well made. Not from a cinematic standpoint necessarily but from a "we reverse engineered every romantic comedy over the past few years, spliced everything together into easily recognizable bite sized chunks/stereotypes, and then blended it all together with a dash of new ideas." It was a romantic comedy smoothie and while it wouldn't win any awards for originality, I think the movie did a good job of integrating the various storylines together (except for the Drew Barrymore one) and justified the long running time.

Plus, on top of all that, it provided some excellent food for thought, as it brought up a potpourri of romantic situations that are just dying to be dissected and reflected upon. All in all, I liked the movie. But then there's a dark side to that.

I kind of hated the happy ending. I know, I know, happy endings are a pre-req for this type of thing. But as Lilly pointed out, that wasn't the message of the book. According to an Amazon review, the book is meant "for the twentysomething career women who have been dating for a while, [and aims to share] the empowering message that a woman deserves a man who truly loves her and not one that she must constantly make excuses for." That would have been a fine message, and I'm not sure that's what we got when the credits rolled. What I heard was the more traditional "love (should) conquer all" tune playing and I didn't like it one bit. I prefer my happy endings with some bite I guess. Or at least a twist. Or at least earned.

We watched the movie with two guys and two girls. The two of us guys liked the movie infinitely more than the girls. In fact, my friend sitting next to me could barely force herself through the whole thing. Afterwards, as we stood in the recently rainy streets of San Francisco, I heard the girls' take about how demeaning and cookie cutter crazy the movie made women seem. They objected to the way all the female characters were depicted as being detail obsessed and unhinged from reality. I said that it was a natural progression of our post-Sex and the City view on how a group of girlfriends are. They said that it was an insult to compare the way these characters interacted to how Carrie, Samantha, Miranda, and Charlotte were. I can concede that point, I guess, since Sex and the City is a hundred times cleverer and ten times more nuanced than anything HJNTIY had to offer.

While I could take an equal stance on the merits and failures of "He's Just Not That Into You," I think the movie exceeded my expectations and there were numerous moments when it made me think about my past relationships and the relationships of people I know. There could probably be a fun game trying to figure out which combination of the characters (and couple situations) everyone most related to. And isn't a relatable romantic comedy already a success?

For the record, this is potentially a terrible movie to watch with your significant other. I imagine thousands of couple fights broke out on Valentine's Day when this movie came out. Whew! Too many of the situations hit too close to home and that's just a mess all around, unless you have a picture perfect relationship and you can just hug each other and say "Oh I'm so glad we're in a perfect relationship honey!" But that probably didn't happen, did it?

Bonus: I stumbled across this page that offers up the essentials (and story structure) for writing a romantic comedy. It's fascinating and I can't wait to see how it matches up to romantic comedies I've seen. Step four, for example, states: "At about page 50, they kiss, have sex, or say 'I love you' for the first time." How did they come up with page 50? Inteeeeresting.

Labels: B, Movies

I'm a sucker for anything 3D, especially if it's animated. I've even got a pair of sturdy 3D glasses sitting in the glove compartment of my car, just in case some random 3D things happens to break out. I'm a boy scout of useless things. Coraline was probably the best experience I've had with three dimensional movies actually. While you'd hardly lose anything by watching it the traditional way, I love how objects and textures pop out with the glasses on. It's worth the extra two bucks or whatever it is.

The entire movie was a charming experience. I loved the look of the film, the imagination of the sets, and the story was interesting even if the moral was a bit unclear (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). There's a lot of energetic eye candy and nothing beats hearing a random little kid saying "wow" during a particular scene. The back half of the movie could certainly be quite scary though. The young girl next to me was asked by her mom if she was scared. Her answer? "I'm terrified!" Kids are cute aren't they?

Neil Gaiman is everywhere in movies these days (MirrorMask, Stardust, Beowulf, Coraline). Not that I'm complaining.

Labels: A, Movies

Well, I like me some Clint Eastwood but his much buzzed about performance isn't exactly different than anything else he's done over the past few years. Everyone likes a crotchety old guy who is handy with the steel, if you know what I mean, (earn your keep). So the movie was better than I expected but there's one nagging little thing. It's a movie about anti-racism but it throws racist remarks around all day long. And it's kind of funny. I mean, I even learned a few new terms. "Zipperhead" for example. Never heard that one and I'm not quite sure what the etymology is.

Halfway through, after realizing that many of the laughs in the movie (and there were quite a few) were generated by Clint calling people things like spook, slanty, mick, and mispronouncing ethnic names, the PC light bulb in my head flared for a bit. In the context of the movie, the overt racism was fine. Clint is a good hearted hero, even if he uses disturbing slurs and makes side comments all day long about how Asian his neighborhood's getting. He's a character and a caricature. But in real life, would you sit around as grandpa swore up and down and called people names to their faces? Hopefully not.

But I guess we let a lot of things slide when people are old (well, sort of). It's kind of funny to hear intolerant and ignorant old people mouth off, as proved by crowd reaction to the movie. The question is: should we let it slide? I mean, Miley Cyrus gets roasted for making slant eyes in a picture. Could everyone in the picture just have been joking? Are people being overly sensitive? Or should she be more aware because she's younger, has Asian fans, and is hypothetically more accountable for her actions? Was she being racist? Personally I'd have slapped myself if I was the Asian guy in the photo, the one semi-validating them simply by being an accessory. "Oh but there's an Asian there and he's okay with it!..." But who knows what the true context of the photo was.

There's always an available excuse for why people say/do racist things; unless it's over the top and obvious but racism these days is not usually overt. You have to draw your own line somewhere. Letting shit slide for age, ignorance, or context. It's a slippery slope isn't it? Choose or lose.

Related but unrelated, an old article about "Stuff White People Like" I've been meaning to share.

Labels: B, Movies

Words I'd use to describe this movie: cloying, long, lifeless, pointless, and disappointing. I didn't necessarily head into this film with high expectations but most everyone who watched it said they liked it, just "not as much as Forrest Gump." I could do with a B-rate Forrest Gump. Instead what I got was a three hour meandering mess that sort of had the worst parts of Titanic, Forrest Gump, and (as Irene pointed out) The Notebook all mashed together. At the end of it I was hoping I'd be the one struck by lightning seven times.

I can't believe David Fincher (Se7en, The Game, Fight Club, Panic Room, Zodiac) directed this. Aside from the tone and content, I just can't believe that he would have let this thing drag on so long -- he's usually tight with his running times. I love the idea of a character aging in reverse and the story had so much potential but it was all unrealized. I got quickly bored with the tired tropes, wished old Daisy would just hurry up and die, yawned at the pathetic attempts at greater symbolism, and got annoyed that there was no emotional pay offs. It also seemed like there were parts when Fincher forgot he was supposed to inject some universal life proclamations and so stuck them in with a quick voice over. Way to summarize buddy, try cutting the movie next time.

The whole thing made me appreciate Forrest Gump so much more as it was done with a hundred times the humor, charm, and originality of Benji Button. I used to love the word "button" but now it's been seriously tainted. For the record, I don't think Cate Blanchett is a great actress, not at all. Don't see it. Not here, not there, not anywhere.

Labels: D, Movies

Love Amy Adams, like Philip Seymour Hoffman, and kind of respect Meryl Streep. All three prejudices were handy since Doubt was pretty run of the mill as a serious actors' vehicle (adapted from the stage) and had all the things you look for in a decent indie flick. Some ideas to mull over, good dialogue, and a sense that you didn't waste your time or money. I expected just a bit more but in the end walked out satisfied if a bit confused. Everything at the end came quickly and the concluding revelations didn't click for me until a few minutes after the credits rolled. Not a bad way to use up an afternoon though, overall.

One thing that I have to discuss is the nasal drip coming from Mrs. Miller's nose as she cried and gave a passionate speech. While I'm all for realistic portrayals of anger and such, having stuff dripping out of Viola Davis' (strangely nominated for a Golden Globe) nose and settling on her upper lip was a bit much for me. Seriously, wipe that stuff off, it's distracting and disgusting on a thirty foot screen.

Labels: B, Movies

You gotta wonder if this movie had been released earlier, before the November elections, if Prop 8 would have been defeated. Sean Penn is indeed stellar as Harvey Milk, and the message of the movie is one that I fail to see anyone not aligning with. Then again, millions of people apparently wouldn't agree and so California is stuck in man-woman marriage hell. The overall movie was quite good (I could have done with less marching) and all the performances were spot on.

I feel like I would have enjoyed a bit more detail about Milk's campaigns and his work but that's probably best left to Internet research anyway. It's tragic that thirty years after Milk helped get Prop 6 passed ("In 1978, Proposition 6 ('the Briggs Initiative') was the California ballot measure aimed at preventing gay people and supporters from working as teachers in public schools."), California has basically regressed. And for a film that challenges as well as illuminates, it's surprising that there wasn't a bigger national reaction -- good or bad -- to the film. It feels like it sort of slipped on by didn't it?

Labels: A, Movies

This is the sort of movie you'd best Wikipedia beforehand to get the background story. Without much knowledge or perspective on Nixon (save his disastrous debates versus JFK), I needed to figure out who he was and why this interview was so important. Turns out, Nixon as played by Frank Langella is adorable, statesman-like, and oh so presidential. Like Lilly said, "We gotta stop watching sympathetic movies about Republican presidents!"

Overall, the movie was pretty good, with a smart script, a decent pace, and a sense that this is really really important. However, without my background research I'm pretty sure I would have been left wondering what the big deal was. The "chess match" that Frost and Nixon engage in isn't portrayed well and Nixon's motivation for admitting his role in Watergate didn't really come organically from within the movie. I wanted to see/understand why Nixon decided to apologize to America but the film doesn't provide that answer. Certainly the film version of Frost wasn't capable of pushing him over the edge.

Two actors/actresses kept bugging me because I couldn't remember where they were from. Matthew Macfadyen plays Frost's producer and was Mr. Darcy in the Keira Knightley version. And Rebecca Hall was Vicky in Vicky Cristina Barcelona. There, now you won't be annoyed trying to figure out who they are the whole time.

Labels: B, Movies

"[Jim] Carrey has often played timid, stammering nerds, but this is the first time he has eradicated any hint of stylization. He makes Joel a deeply vulnerable ordinary man, too 'nice' for his own good, haunted by dreams of romance he's scarcely bold enough to voice to himself. We can see why he's attracted to Clementine -- she's the sort of highly eroticized, let's-try-anything girl who's a geek's idea of romantic danger -- and, more mysteriously, why she digs him: The way [Kate] Winslet plays the role, her volatility masks a deeply fractured soul. These two couldn't be more different, yet deep down they're matching wrecks."

Labels: Movies

I can't quite figure out if Pixar did the animation for this movie. I don't think so since everything I can find out about it only indicates that John Lasseter helped produce Bolt. We waltzed into the movie past the previews but just in time to catch a Cars remake of Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift, which was probably better than the actual Cars.

While Bolt is definitely geared toward younger audiences, it's got enough entertaining elements to keep adults engaged for most of its running time. It's not witty or clever like other Pixar films but even Pixar can't do Pixar anymore. Overall the film was a quality production, with good animation, engaging sidekicks, and a run of the mill "Homeward Bound" story. Disney's been here before but that's okay I guess. The best part of watching the movie was catching it in 3D, which added a lot to the experience, unlike my last 3D movie outing.

Labels: C, Movies

"It is easier to read a book than to write one; easier to listen to a song than to compose one; easier to attend a play than to produce one. But movies in particular suffer from this user asymmetry. The intensely collaborative work needed to coddle chemically treated film and paste together its strips into movies meant that it was vastly easier to watch a movie than to make one.

A Hollywood blockbuster can take a million person-hours to produce and only two hours to consume. But now, cheap and universal tools of creation (megapixel phone cameras, Photoshop, iMovie) are quickly reducing the effort needed to create moving images. To the utter bafflement of the experts who confidently claimed that viewers would never rise from their reclining passivity, tens of millions of people have in recent years spent uncountable hours making movies of their own design."
-Kevin Kelly, Becoming Screen Literate-

Labels: Movies

Stop right here if you plan on seeing the movie. I'm going to spoil a few things, if not plot details, at least the emotional ride that is best experienced first hand. To begin with, the film is incredibly engulfing. It's almost impossible not to get drawn in as you experience the childhood scenes of young vagrant Jamal and his brother, Salim. The story is structured around Jamal's amazing success at the Indian version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire." Because he's just a street rat (scoundrel! take that!), the unctuous host hands him over the authorities for interrogation on suspicion of cheating. Great premise, interesting set up. The frenetic energy pushes the film along and you get invested into the story. All great stuff.

That's why it's so jarring when during the last third of the movie, you have to suspend your disbelief so much in order to make everything work. I felt like the movie was like the Tower of Terror, a slow rise to the top, a thrilling climax, and then a drop that makes you want to yack when hitting bottom. Character's motivations fly out the window, too many coincidences occur, and it becomes clear that this isn't just fiction but a fairy tale. And the game show gimmick tires a little bit, even if it's deftly done. I want to wholeheartedly recommend the movie and give it an enthusiastic thumbs up but the ending confused and flabbergasted me a little too much. It's still a worth a watch though.

One of our friends (who hasn't seen the movie yet) said that it was supposed to be the most convincing portrayal of life in the Indian slums. Since I don't know anything about that particular subject, I'll take her word for it because the movie did seem quite realistic in that sense.

Labels: A, Movies

A seventy million dollar opening and the new blockbuster franchise is here. Twilight is already too big to be a guilty pleasure so it's really just a pleasure. I'm totally biased about this movie but I'll just put it up front, "I loved it!" The movie wasn't the greatest thing in the world, as any review will tell you, but it had enough of everything to make it a thrilling experience.

For this entire Twilight experience, I've been riding along sort of passively, covertly having discussions about it with other secret fans. Halfway through the movie, as I clasped and reclasped my hands in glee, I decided to embrace my Twilight fandom without irony, judgement, or sarcasm. See, it's not about whether the books are actually great, or if the whole thing is a carefully calculated marketing campaign, the truth of the matter is that Edward and Bella will be a romantic touchstone for a generation of tween girls and it's useless to hide from it -- even if Bella is sort of annoying and wishy-washy.

"You have the story of a young woman falling so deeply in love that she doesn't care if she dies or becomes a vampire. There is something so dangerous and alluring about it, and it all goes off in this very lush mountain backdrop. It's an obsessive love that's not that far from 'Romeo and Juliet,' or 'Titanic' for that matter."
-Director Catherine Hardwicke-

No woman will walk out of the theater not wishing she had her own Edward, forever vigilant, incredibly great looking, and a dangerous bad ass with a sparkly heart of gold. As my friend said after watching the movie, "It reminds me of what it felt like to be in love for the first time." If you allow yourself to be pulled into the vampire magic, you will be smitten, I guarantee it.

Just ignore some of the cheesy lines, the horrific special effects, the unintentional comedy, and the entire hilarity that was the baseball game. Oh wait, I'm doing it again. I can't quantify my Twilight statements with disclaimers or dismissals, I just have to puppy love it and overlook all of its faults.

I kind of want to watch it again...

Also, I'm a big fan of Kristen Stewart. Her talents are old news for anyone who's seen her movies (Panic Room, Speak, In the Land of Women, Into the Wild) but she's challenging Ellen Page for the title of my favorite young actress. I also didn't recognize Nikki Reed as Rosalie, which makes Twilight a total Thirteen reunion for her and Hardwicke.

Labels: A, Movies

So the director of Silence of the Lambs comes out with a movie about a messed up, troubled, and still in rehab Anne Hathaway returning home for her sister's weekend wedding. Hathaway's Kym snipes at everyone, is desperate for attention, and basically kind of ruins everything. But it's not like she hasn't done this before. The two sisters show how you don't necessarily need to be a sociopath to rip people apart -- just family will do. They eviscerate each other with words and memories and then sorta make up and then do it all over again.

I saw the movie in a theater of older folk and I'm wondering what kind of reaction they had, or if they were expecting an entirely different movie altogether. While I can't say every minute of the film was amazing, in sum, I really enjoyed it. Jonathan Demme's use of hand-held cameras brings you closer to the characters and was an excellent stylistic choice. Hathaway is being touted for an Oscar and I think she deserves a nomination.

Overall, a film like this brings forth emotion from an audience. Some of it is yanked out of you but many of the moments are genuine. Heck, half the time you want to slap Kym and tell her to grow up, just as if you were her family. While I wouldn't necessarily recommend this to everyone, I think the film did a nice job illuminating dysfunction in people and families and I left the theater pleasantly surprised and with a lot to think about. Can't ask for too much more I guess.

There is one slightly jarring thing about the film. It's almost aggressively multi-ethnic. I'm not sure if I'm just being overly sensitive here but it looks like they really went out of their way to present the couple -- and the family -- as the most Benetton friendly thing on Earth. The sister is white, the guy she's marrying is black (although the movie poster doesn't represent that at all, on purpose?), and they're having an Indian wedding (but strangely, no Indians in attendance). The guests are a cross-section of a whole bunch of not too stereotypical stereotypes. As if to say "We're super eclectic, we have friends from all over!" When they trotted out the middle aged white mom DJ working the decks, I kind of couldn't stand it anymore. The film takes BEP's line to heart a little too much maybe. "Got black to Asian, and Caucasian saying, that's that's the joint, that's the jam."

That sounds like it would be a good thing, and it's kind of cool how the movie doesn't address it at all, but then again, it felt a little bit forced.

Another reason I was excited to see the movie was because I'm a big fan of slam poet extraordinaire Beau Sia and he had a decent sized role. I'm not sure who cast him but I love that he's getting out there. I hope his acting career takes off because that guy totally deserves it.

"If there is anyone in the entertainment industry watching me perform, I want you to keep in mind, that regardless of how you feel about the content or performance of my work, that if you're casting any films, and you need a Korean grocery store owner, a computer expert, or the random thug of a Yakuza gang... then I'm your man!"
-Beau Sia, Def Poetry Slam-

Labels: A, Movies

I recently watched Thirteen Days, a movie about the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Thirteen Days also features actors playing well known politicians. The difference here, of course, is that there's hardly a laugh to be found in Thirteen Days. This movie is played strictly for laughs. I found myself entertained throughout, and even if the whole thing is a bit over the top as a caricature, it does capture something about how we feel about Dubya.

I actually left the theater impressed by Bushy Junior's career trajectory. I mean, if this was your friend, a total drifter and fuck up who then pulled his act together enough to (a) own a baseball team (b) become the governor and then (c) win the presidency, you'd be patting him on the back regardless of his politics. It's true, George W. might be a real American hero!

Labels: B, Movies

I was pretty psyched to watch this movie. Aside from having an awesome title, it seemed like it might be the teen answer to "Before Sunrise." I kept my expectations low however and that was probably wise. There's no denying that the title is still amazing and that Michael Cera and Kat Dennings as Nick and Norah are fabulous, but the movie just could have been so much more.

It was cute. It had some good lines. It had a happy ending -- that's giving nothing away. But overall there just wasn't a sense that this was a magical night. It was hard to build up a consistent sense of connection and relationship when Nick and Norah kept getting jerked around from one set piece to another. There was a little too much obvious over the top humor (along with random quirky cameos) and not enough screen time spent on just Nick and Norah. I wanted to the movie to be about them, instead, it often tilted away to focus on the antics of the side characters.

One thing that bothers me (in movies) of late is how the dorky shy guy will magically be approached by the girl of his dreams. Then he keeps on rejecting her or keeping her at a distance for no apparent reason. And then she just keeps throwing herself at him. That just doesn't seem realistic to me. I mean, fine, if it happened to me once I'd take it all back. That's not a challenge Cupid, just a hint. Overall the movie was definitely a good time but it had the potential to be so much more. I'm definitely going to check out the book though.

"Kat Dennings has an odd, arresting beauty: sleepy blue-green eyes, porcelain-pale oval face -- and lips so red and juicy they look like the prototype for the wax ones little girls used to wear at Halloween. Along with the slight space between her perfect teeth, the effect is sexy and slightly comic."
-New York Times-

Labels: B, Movies

"There are two kinds of men and only two. And that young man is one kind. He is high-minded. He is pure. He's the kind of man the world pretends to look up to, and in fact despises. He is the kind of man who breeds unhappiness, particularly in women. Do you understand?

I think you do. There's another kind. Not high-minded, not pure, but alive. Now, that your tastes at this time should incline towards the juvenile is understandable; but for you to marry that boy would be a disaster. Because there's two kinds of women. There are two kinds of women and you, as we well know, are not the first kind. You, my dear, are a slut."
-Komarovsky, Doctor Zhivago-

Labels: Movies

This definitely isn't as palatable as Fight Club, Chuck Palahniuk's other adapted work. I'm gonna say that you either love or hate this movie. I, of course, just mostly liked it. Any emotion too strong either way is way beyond my means apparently.

Everything in the movie is sort of absurd, the smaltzy gets a bit heavy, and the tone swings wildly between depressing and hilarious, but I found myself entertained every step of the way. Which is much better than anything something like Burn After Reading had to offer.

Sam Rockwell is creepy and attractive at the same time, which is pretty hard to pull off if you think about it. His big sidekick Brad William Henke is sort of Seth Rogen's cinematic older brother, back when Seth Rogen was actually funny -- like for a second. As for Kelly Macdonald, some people might cringe over her acting skills but I really dig her weird monotone-ish, perpetually hurt, delivery and find her very capable. But like my friend said after watching the movie, "She's like Kate Winslet. But not."

I think I'm going to go read the book now. Then again, maybe I should pass on that. It might be too much for my virgin eyes/ears. Fox Searchlight had novel promotional swag for the movie, which caused a brief Internet blip a few months back. Additionally, I love The Christian Science Monitor's terse review of the film, which speaks volumes -- a plot point concerning Jesus' foreskin might have turned them off -- plus the reviewer dismisses Fight Club. Blasphemy.

Labels: B, Movies

The Coen brothers are responsible for some highly acclaimed movies over the years. They've won multiple Oscars, they've made cult classics and mainstream classics, they've pretty much done whatever they've wanted. While I admire their career and their penchant for creating wacky characters and movies, I've decided I don't like them. The only movie of theirs that I'd say I truly enjoyed watching the whole way through was Fargo. Everything else just kind of left me feeling lost or disappointed.

Burn After Reading made me feel even worse. It was the second part of a movie hop and now I wish I could have seen Righteous Kill, Traitor, Babylon AD, Disaster Movie, basically anything else. I mean, sure, it's fun to see Brad Pitt play another off-beat character and Frances McDormand is always a delight, but the whole plot of the movie was just senseless and ridiculous. The ending just about killed me too. It was one of those classic "No way it's ending here, is it?" "It is!?" Skip this movie, seriously.

Labels: D, Movies

There's not one man to be found in the entire film. That's the first thing that stands out. I mean, when they titled this thing "The Women," they really meant it literally. Of course, there might have been a guy or two in the background but seriously, I can't recall one male anywhere. Apparently the original version of the movie did the same thing. I'm not sure what kind of statement that makes but it surely didn't add anything to the watching experience. The Women was just average all around.

Not that I couldn't relate to the issues presented (children, plastic surgery, sex, career versus family, betrayal) but the way everything was done was very sugary and lacking in energy, insight, or enduring humor. A few days after watching it I can't remember any standout scenes, any good lines, or any of the characters. The only fun thing I heard about the movie (from cruising reviews afterward) was to imagine that Meg Ryan was playing Sally twenty years later, in "When Harry Cheated on Sally..."

Labels: C, Movies

A small movie set in upstate New York with a no-name cast and a slow moving plot. Sounds like a winner right? Well, that's what all the critics led me to believe. Frozen River won a Grand Jury Prize winner from Sundance this year and started life there two years ago as a short film.

While I like movies about nothing, or movies that can take a while to build, I was mostly confused about the point of Frozen River. Sure, the acting was good, the cinematography excellent (everything was shot on DV), and there's sort of a point but overall it seemed like I had just wasted two hours of my life. And that's all I really have to say about that.

Labels: C, Movies

I've been hearing a little bit of hype for this movie and was expecting a pretty great time. Instead I left feeling like I'd been taken for a ride. There were plenty of good things, such as the cinematography, the acting, and the basic story line, but there were an equal number of ridiculous things. First off, where was the motivation? In films like Gladiator or Braveheart, we see the hero acquire skills, get motivated, and then kick some ass. In Mongol, a young Genghis Khan basically runs around, turns on his friends, and then somehow defeats his enemies with weather.

Don't be upset if I'm ruining the story for you. The Wikipedia entry for Genghis Khan was more interesting than the movie. Plus, it's never a good sign when you see horseshoes flashing during the opening scene when the Mongols reputedly didn't use horseshoes. So much for attention to detail.

The movie isn't historically accurate of course, and I didn't expect it to be, but even as a myth making piece, it was overly long and just confounding in how little of it makes sense. Having said that, I'd definitely watch the second one (of a proposed trilogy) because the set up here allows Genghis to kick ass and take no prisoners in the next film. Strangely enough, this was nominated for a Best Foreign Film Oscar. Don't believe the hype.

The best thing I read post watching the film was one critic's hope that the second volume would be called "Mongol II: The Wrath of Khan." Genius!

Labels: C, Movies

As the movie begins, an annoying voiceover sets the stage. Vicky and Cristina are off to Barcelona for the summer. Thus the title of the movie. Imaginative eh? Woody Allen loves to talk about relationships and this one's no different. Love triangles, open relationships, failed relationships, unrequited relationships, and unfulfilling relationships, this movie's got them all.

First off, Javier Bardem is amazing. His character here obliterates any previous association you had of him as a merciless killer or a bed-bound quadriplegic. Bardem oozes charm, charisma, and masculinity. Paired with Penelope Cruz, the two of them carry the movie. Mixed reviews about Scarlett Johannson and Rebecca Hall though. Without the benefit of interesting lines or three dimensional characters, Johannson and Hall are forced to play second fiddle even if they are the titular main characters.

Overall, the movie was really great. Whatever emotion it evokes, whatever discussions you have afterwards, however you feel about how it depicts the transitory (and deceptive) nature of romantic relationships, you'll have food for thought and a number of great laughs to boot.

Labels: A, Movies

Not that I knew this, of course, but an elegy is "a mournful, melancholy, or plaintive poem, esp. a funeral song or a lament for the dead." That'll go a long way toward explaining the movie, which is about the fear of death (growing old more specifically), conscious selfishness, emotional unavailability, and a May-December romance between Sir Ben Kingsley and Penelope Cruz. Both are wonderful in their roles and they carry off the chemistry beautifully.

In sum, what I got out of this film experience was that men are bastards and it's frightening, as a guy, to see the lies -- big and small, to yourself and others -- that you can be capable of in certain situations. It all feels sickeningly familiar when thrown up on screen and highlighted, and you start to distrust yourself and hope that this isn't really something you can really relate to. But I could, and that was scary.

While the movie as a whole dragged a little bit at the end and I'd hoped for a better resolution, there are some wonderful lines in the movie and some real (ugly) truths to be discovered. Dennis Hopper steals every scene he's in, but that could partly be due to the fact that he has the lion's share of the funny/poignant lines. (Paraphrased) "Beautiful women are invisible because nobody ever really sees them."

Labels: A, Movies

As the obvious direct descendent of Johnny 5, Wall-E is definitely pretty charming. I mean, I was worried that this movie would completely suck since Pixar is definitely in need of some hits (although maybe not since critics and awards loved their last few films, but I generally yawned through Cars and Ratatouille). People were telling me Wall-E was a must see. Well, I must saw it and I was a tad underwhelmed.

Technologically, Pixar is amazing as usual. The idea of using robots is genius because everyone loves robots, everyone -- except those people on Battlestar Galactica I guess. Plus the storyline involves overbearing morals about greed, gluttony, and garbage. Instant winner.

So the first half of the movie with no dialogue was dope as hell. Where it all bogged down for me was the second half when the focus turned bit too far away from Wall-E and it becames a tad too action adventure orientated. The pacing switch was too much and I kind of lost interest. It's definitely a "just go see it."

I feel like I need to shout out *batteries not included. Just because.

Labels: B, Movies

Man this movie came in hyped for me. All week long people have been asking me what I thought of it. I had to meekly reply, "I haven't watched it (yet)!" My geek cred was in serious dispute. People everywhere loved this thing and I was hoping to be swept away by Christopher Nolan's vision.

Then again, seeing as I didn't enjoy Batman Begins that much, I had to be skeptical. Keeping my expectations in check, I finally got to watch it tonight. What do I think? Well, it's certainly got a ton of good things going for it. The plot was complex and yet tied together well. The Joker kept me on the edge of my seat and he struck just the perfect anarchy reigns tone. Overall it's a semi-must see and definitely one of the finer comic book films.

Of course, there were also excruciating horrible lines and moments. None worse than the little boy at the end screaming "Batman!" Seriously, if you've seen this movie already, wasn't that incredibly jarring? We walked out of the theatre making fun of this little boy's voice and Batman's guttural mumble. Let me expand on that. Do you think anyone would take Batman seriously if he talked through clenched teeth all the time and pitched his voice so damn low for no apparent reason?

I really want to give this thing an A just because they really did craft an intriguing tale and I can see that they tried to put some intelligence and heart into the film. However, it was just a bit too long, a tad cheesy, and the hilarious voices just kick it down a notch. Sorry.

Labels: B, Movies

Man it's been a pretty horrific summer for movies hasn't it? Quick, name a good movie you've seen in the last two months. I'd guess you'd have to date back to Iron Man to find something that was entertaining and well done. Everything else has been really hit or miss. I keep hearing good (and some bad) things about Wall-E so that may have to be the saving grace of the summer since I'm pretty sure Batman will underwhelm.

I really thought Hellboy would be a sleeper hit -- the trailer looked so awesome. Instead I was left trying to figure out if it was just average or way below average. Guillermo del Toro creates great visuals, the characters are all likable, the action is pretty good, and sure Selma Blair can't act but that's okay because she doesn't really need to in this movie. So why did I hope for Hellboy to pound me into submission about three fourths through the movie?

Well, the biggest problem was that the movie tried to be a bit too romantical and sentimental. Yeah, romantical. Think the worst parts of the Neo and Trinity love story, all those stupid cheesy scenes with them declaring their undying love, yada yada, and then times two. Hellboy swings back and forth between bad ass and cartoony and it just ruined the whole thing. Plus a few ridiculous plot holes that puncture believability all around and you're looking at another summer dud. Next!

Labels: C, Movies

In short, this is a film about immigration and the travails being in this country but always under the threat of deportation. The first half of this movie set up an interesting situation, wonderful dynamics, and allowed the charisma of its stars to shine through. While I kept thinking this movie was a little too conveniently simple, it did seem to have something fresh and interesting.

By the second half of the movie though, everything devolved into (semi-)stereotypical Hollywood endings and felt like it moved like molasses after constant action in the first hour. The strength of the acting makes the thing a slight recommend but overall I was inclined to be disappointed even without having any prior opinion of the film.

Labels: B, Movies

I've been avoiding movies for about a month in an effort to concentrate on writing. Plus most of the films I wanted to watch were only hop worthy. Seven plus hours in a theater later and I'm basically caught up with everything the summer has presented so far. First we watched the Incredible Hulk, which was arguably better than Ang Lee's version although I much prefer his daring stylistic choices to this one. I'd actually rate this sub-par if not for the fact that I'm now a proud Marvel stockholder and need it to do well. But even with that in mind it's annoying to see Edward Norton whine and run his way around as Bruce Banner all day long. The whole thing just seemed uneven. And Liz Tyler is awful. Simply awful.

We caught the last thirty minutes of Kung Fu Panda, Indiana Jones, and Prince Caspian in-between the other full showings. Of them all, Kung Fu Panda was probably the best. Yeah, you heard me right. Indy seemed to be way too regurgitated and Caspian suffered from most of the same problems as the first one. Oh well. After discovering that Sex and the City was not playing after eight o'clock -- mind boggling for a rated R movie -- we watched Iron Man again.

By the time that was over it was midnight and Get Smart was premiering so we thought, "Why not?" Best decision of the day. If you had to port Michael from The Office into a big screen movie, this was pretty much it. Steve Carell has cornered the market on incompetent but lovable losers. Also, I've been watching Anne Hathaway's earlier work (Princes Diaries, Ella Enchanted) and I've decided I like her. The entire movie itself was silly but filled with some great lines and hilarious scenes. So after my semi-six pack of movies, I'm all caught up and now I'm ready for a summer of actually good movies to come out.

Bonus: If you're a fan of The Office, you have to watch SNL's Japanese version.

Labels: B, C, Movies

On the short list of perfect marriages between actor and superhero, it's hard to say that Robert Downey Jr. and Iron Man wouldn't top the list. Hugh Jackman is Wolverine, albeit a really tall one, and technically speaking, Downey is probably shorter than Tony Stark, but height doesn't matter in movies. Screen presence does. Downey is amazing as Stark, it's that simple, but we knew he would be. More surprising was how fun Gwyneth Paltrow is as Pepper Potts, Stark's assistant. And it's wonderful to see Leslie Bibb get some movie love (I'm in the middle of watching Popular: Season 2).

Iron Man's been receiving rave reviews and I'd have to agree: it's easily the best comic book movie ever. And I say this with my chest still beating strong with love for the X-Men franchise. There's so many ways this movie could have gone wrong but it's awesome to see Jon Favreau come out on top with a pitch perfect blockbuster movie. This movie is so good that I find it hard to imagine how the sequels can match it. Downey has signed on for a trilogy so I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Also of interest: This is Marvel's first independently financed feature so they'll reap the rewards. I once owned a few hundred shares of Marvel stock at one dollar each. This was years ago when they were failing and on the verge of bankruptcy. Sadly, those shares were sold when my father passed away but it looks like now it's time to buy back in! How many shares can $100 buy me?

Labels: A, Movies

The funniest thing about this movie might be how the advertising campaign, which includes posters and billboards that read "You Suck, Sarah Marshall" and "My Mother Always Hated You, Sarah Marshall," has made life for the real Sarah Marshalls of the world difficult. Some of them have struck back with "You Suck, Judd Apatow" signs.

While I'm no Sarah Marshall, I concur with them: most of the Judd Apatow movies do suck. Check out the films he's produced and directed. Hilarious fare like 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, Walk Hard, Superbad, Talladega Nights, etc. Ugh. Apatow has earned my ever lasting love for Freaks and Geeks but he (and his progeny) have clearly gone for raunch over nuance.

I'm really glad Jason Segel and Seth Rogen have been able to get ahead in life but really, they're not good enough to be leading men. If not for the adorable Mila Kunis -- and Russell Brand (as Aldous Snow) -- this movie would have been a total waste of time. The entire thing is uneven and swings wildly from sometimes amusing set piece to totally off the wall unfunny set piece.

James (Okapix) has this theory that anything over 90% on Rotten Tomatoes is worth watching. His thinking is that if a wide majority of critics and viewers like something it must be good. But I tell him repeatedly that anything the masses like is actually much more likely to be terrible. This film is a perfect example of that. 85% on RT and great reviews from most of the critics.

Skip it and forget it, seriously.

Labels: C, Movies

Jet Li and Jackie Chan together at last. It's the equivalent of an Arnold and Sly pairing in the 80s. Sadly, this film was more like Schwarzenegger and Stallone making a movie together now.

Why watch a semi-drunken style Jackie Chan when you can go rent the real thing? Why bother watching Jet Li in this when he's superior in almost every other (Chinese) movie he's made? The title is misleading too. There's nothing forbidden about the kingdom at all.

The main character, played by Michael Angarano of Sky High fame (who I swore was Shia LaBeouf for a second), seems to waltz quite easily into this fantasy land as well as the enemy's fortress at the end of the movie. Seriously, nobody stopped him at all. It's similar to the packaging on the back of Fiji Water bottles. Look, it's impermeable! Wait a second...

Along the same lines, this movie is almost unwatchable but hey, I had to hop it anyway because it's Jet Li and Jackie Chan. Gotta show some support.

Labels: D, Movies

Wong Kar Wai's films are moody, atmospheric, and romantic and I'll readily pay up to watch anything he does. Yes, the title for this particular movie is laughable but after you watch the movie, it seems less silly -- sort of.

This is Wong's English-language debut and it boasts Norah Jones, Jude Law, Rachel Weisz, and Natalie Portman. All the performances are terrific and I really like Natalie's blonde-fro look. Norah Jones doesn't have too much to do despite being the main character but that's alright because she plays the part of observer quite well.

The cinematography is beautiful as expected however there's definitely something missing. I felt like In the Mood and 2046 had a lot more story and meaning. My Blueberry Nights has neither. There's a sort of lesson in there about dealing with life, love, and loss but it's more heard than seen and the film doesn't really leave you with any lasting impact past the visuals. There's still enough bright spots here though to warrant a big screen watching.

Labels: B, Movies

It looks so good doesn't it? A quirky sarcastic movie starring Dennis Quaid, Ellen Page, Thomas Hayden Church, and Sarah Jessica Parker? Well the important thing to take away from Smart People is that well... nothing actually. Along the same lines of the far superior The Squid and the Whale, Smart People is about self-absorbed academics and their dysfunctional families. That's where the similarities end though.

There's just not enough memorable lines or scenes in this movie and the emotional growth the characters undergo is contrived and hokey. Thank god for (a pre-Juno) Ellen Page, who's as caustic as ever, even if she's saddled with a strange semi-incestuous sort of love story. I read that this script was bouncing around Hollywood for awhile and now I know why.

Labels: C, Movies

San Francisco is an excellent destination for watching films, I gotta say. How else would I have been able to catch a movie about the Los Angeles modern art scene from the late 1950s through the 1960s, embodied by the Ferus Gallery on La Cienega. While names like Walter Hopps, Ed Kienholz, and Irving Bloom didn't ring any bells -- thus the promotion of the film using more familiar names like Frank Gehry and Dennis Hopper (despite being mostly minor commenters) -- the documentary was fascinating.

I'm hardly studied in art enough to really understand abstract expressionism, installation art, or most of the actual pieces the film displayed but it doesn't matter because in the end it's about a group of people carving out a moment (if not an actual movement), much like Dogtown and Z-Boys and grabs your attention irrespective of previous expertise on the subject.

One of the things mentioned in the movie was the requirements for creating an "effective" art scene. It consisted of having artists to create, galleries to display, critics to praise, and ultimately, collectors to buy. I have often wondered why certain cities seem to have an art scene and some don't and this formula sheds some light on the linear pieces that have to be compiled to create something out of nothing.

Labels: A, Movies

Lester: Aw, man. You made friends with them. See, friendship is the booze they feed you. They want you to get drunk on feeling like you belong.
William: Well, it was fun.
Lester: They make you feel cool. And hey. I met you. You are not cool.
William: I know. Even when I thought I was, I knew I wasn't.
Lester: That's because we're uncool. And while women will always be a problem for us, most of the great art in the world is about that very same problem. Good-looking people don't have any spine. Their art never lasts. They get the girls, but we're smarter.
William: I can really see that now.
Lester: Yeah, great art is about conflict and pain and guilt and longing and love disguised as sex, and sex disguised as love... and let's face it, you got a big head start.
William: I'm glad you were home.
Lester: I'm always home. I'm uncool.
William: Me too!
Lester: The only true currency in this bankrupt world if what we share with someone else when we're uncool.
William: I feel better.
-Almost Famous-

Labels: Movies

Five unforgettable GI Joes
Storm Shadow
Tomax and Xamot
Quick Kick
Zartan
Jinx

Labels: Movies

There's really not much to say about this movie. If you like watching humans do incredible things, then watch it. If, for some reason, movies that are inspiring and full of jaw droppingly crazy dance moves don't appeal to you, then watch this anyway and get hooked. That's really all I have to say here.

It really makes you want to break dance after you watch this movie. Like, really. I believe the film is only in limited release so check the dates for when it's around your area. Check out the trailer here. Can't wait for the DVD to check out all the unedited dances and battles.

Labels: A, Movies