Saw it again yesterday, because frankly, I wanted to pay for it. Well, actually, I had wanted to sneak in to see it, but it was playing on a different floor than DUPLICITY, so lack of mobility forced my friends and I to act honestly. To convince myself the spending was worth it, I did then sort of operate with the delusional idea that my meager ticket sale--much like my one vote in the primaries--would help boost the film, and you know what? Democracy is not dead. I LOVE YOU, MAN finished second, and that ain't too bad. A mere $6 million behind Nicolas Cage. Wait, what is "mere" about $6 million?
Okay, well it was a crowded weekend, so you have to forgive the film that. But having seen it again, I will say that my initial impressions still ring true. It is a funny, funny movie, for all its sweet awkwardness and overflow of bromanticisim. Also, having had a friend who worked on it, I enjoyed catching her name in the credits!
If you were wondering, then, wonder no more: I LOVE YOU, MAN is "laugh-out loud funny!" and gets "two thumbs up!" and will have you saying "Paul Rudd is hilarious!" So go see it.
(And yes, if I were an actual movie critic, I would talk in movie quotes alllll the time.)
Get thee to the cinema, bro: MovieTickets.com
lundi 23 mars 2009
DUPLICITY
This just in: Clive and Julia didn't win the weekend. But having enjoyed seeing it at a moderately packed 10am showing at the local AMC, I'm kind of surprised they didn't fare better. The numbers don't lie, though. And the numbers, so says Hollywood Reporter, are thus:
KNOWING (starring Nic Cage): $24.8 million
I LOVE YOU, MAN (starring Paul Rudd): $18 million
DUPLICITY (starring Clive & Julia): $14.4 million
What do we know about KNOWING? It's got Nicolas Cage, and he rules the box office. Know what we love about I LOVE YOU, MAN? Paul Rudd's fabulous awkwardness revealed. And know what's duplicitous about DUPLICITY? The fact that these spies are incredibly smart and yet, ultimately, easily duped. Is that what turned people off? Or was it the lack of novelty? If I had to guess, I would say the MR. AND MRS. SMITH-ishness of this film, the "it's kind of already been done before" factor, might be what chiefly worked against it. Plus, it's been a while since the world has seen Julia, and Clive has never really been a sure BO-winner, despite his sultry eyes. What I know is that DUPLICITY, despite these things working against it, actually is enjoyable.
Focusing on two lovers who are married to their careers as corporate counterintelligence spies, DUPLICITY weaves a thick but comprehensible net that basically teaches the moral "keep sex and work separate." When Clive and Julia (Ray and Claire, respectively) decide to take down their bosses and garner a huge pay-off in the process, we get roped into their journey of lies and subterfuge. Who can you trust? The answer is no one, no one at all. Another good title for this film, actually, might have been DOUBT.
One thing for which I must commend Tony Gilroy, the writer/director, is how thickly he wove his web. I actually wasn't sure a lot of the time who was conning who, which player was ahead or behind, but if you hang in, you figure it all out. Gilroy doesn't leave you hanging, and that I really liked. Unlike many other heist movies I've seen--and I've seen a good number--you knew exactly what the stakes were, exactly what each side was after, and the measure of believability within this world (how they were accomplishing their hijinks under either corporation's noses) was actually rather high. What scored low was the climax scene--and I don't want to give anything away, but I will say this: for two people presented as amazingly cunning spies, they shouldn't have let what happened happen.
Now, having seen both DUPLICITY and I LOVE YOU, MAN, I refuse to believe that KNOWING actually was the best of the three films. I won't be seeing it to confirm--sorry, Nic--but my gut tells me I'm right. If you want a pretty solid caper movie with some nice bits of romance thrown in, DUPLICITY will do ya fine. If you want NATIONAL TREASURE meets NEXT, well...you obviously already saw KNOWING.
plot: New-school espionage with old-school romance.
thought: They take shaving cream seriously.
in five: 3/5
no angelina: http://www.duplicitymovie.net/
KNOWING (starring Nic Cage): $24.8 million
I LOVE YOU, MAN (starring Paul Rudd): $18 million
DUPLICITY (starring Clive & Julia): $14.4 million
What do we know about KNOWING? It's got Nicolas Cage, and he rules the box office. Know what we love about I LOVE YOU, MAN? Paul Rudd's fabulous awkwardness revealed. And know what's duplicitous about DUPLICITY? The fact that these spies are incredibly smart and yet, ultimately, easily duped. Is that what turned people off? Or was it the lack of novelty? If I had to guess, I would say the MR. AND MRS. SMITH-ishness of this film, the "it's kind of already been done before" factor, might be what chiefly worked against it. Plus, it's been a while since the world has seen Julia, and Clive has never really been a sure BO-winner, despite his sultry eyes. What I know is that DUPLICITY, despite these things working against it, actually is enjoyable.
Focusing on two lovers who are married to their careers as corporate counterintelligence spies, DUPLICITY weaves a thick but comprehensible net that basically teaches the moral "keep sex and work separate." When Clive and Julia (Ray and Claire, respectively) decide to take down their bosses and garner a huge pay-off in the process, we get roped into their journey of lies and subterfuge. Who can you trust? The answer is no one, no one at all. Another good title for this film, actually, might have been DOUBT.
One thing for which I must commend Tony Gilroy, the writer/director, is how thickly he wove his web. I actually wasn't sure a lot of the time who was conning who, which player was ahead or behind, but if you hang in, you figure it all out. Gilroy doesn't leave you hanging, and that I really liked. Unlike many other heist movies I've seen--and I've seen a good number--you knew exactly what the stakes were, exactly what each side was after, and the measure of believability within this world (how they were accomplishing their hijinks under either corporation's noses) was actually rather high. What scored low was the climax scene--and I don't want to give anything away, but I will say this: for two people presented as amazingly cunning spies, they shouldn't have let what happened happen.
Now, having seen both DUPLICITY and I LOVE YOU, MAN, I refuse to believe that KNOWING actually was the best of the three films. I won't be seeing it to confirm--sorry, Nic--but my gut tells me I'm right. If you want a pretty solid caper movie with some nice bits of romance thrown in, DUPLICITY will do ya fine. If you want NATIONAL TREASURE meets NEXT, well...you obviously already saw KNOWING.
plot: New-school espionage with old-school romance.
thought: They take shaving cream seriously.
in five: 3/5
no angelina: http://www.duplicitymovie.net/
dimanche 22 mars 2009
Laffer Saturday (Hamlet 2 & Grosse Pointe Blank)
Saw two comedies chez moi this weekend, both of which I loved.
HAMLET 2, starring Steve Coogan as a nutty high school theatre teacher struggling to produce an off-color play that will let him deal with his daddy issues. It is awkward city, but it is funny. Co-stars Marisa Tomei, Amy Poehler and Elisabeth Shue.
plot: Producing art is never easy.
thought: Woo, there are rape jokes.
in five: 3.5/5
play on: http://www.filminfocus.com/focusfeatures/film/hamlet_2
GROSSE POINTE BLANK, starring John Cusack in probably one of the best turns in his career, as an insecure hit man who travels home for his high school reunion. Co-stars Minnie Driver, Dan Aykroyd and Jeremy Piven.
plot: Hitman remembers his first love.
thought: Best dialogue of 1997.*
in five: 4/5
on imdb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119229/
read the first draft here.
*=FARGO actually won the award that year. GPB wasn't even nominated, which is sadness.
HAMLET 2, starring Steve Coogan as a nutty high school theatre teacher struggling to produce an off-color play that will let him deal with his daddy issues. It is awkward city, but it is funny. Co-stars Marisa Tomei, Amy Poehler and Elisabeth Shue.
plot: Producing art is never easy.
thought: Woo, there are rape jokes.
in five: 3.5/5
play on: http://www.filminfocus.com/focusfeatures/film/hamlet_2
GROSSE POINTE BLANK, starring John Cusack in probably one of the best turns in his career, as an insecure hit man who travels home for his high school reunion. Co-stars Minnie Driver, Dan Aykroyd and Jeremy Piven.
plot: Hitman remembers his first love.
thought: Best dialogue of 1997.*
in five: 4/5
on imdb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119229/
read the first draft here.
*=FARGO actually won the award that year. GPB wasn't even nominated, which is sadness.
SUNSHINE CLEANING
Otherwise known as LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE: REDUX.*
A cute, little tale about a single mom and her troubled sister who both, along with their aging and addled father, try to keep life in check. Our key players are Rose (Amy Adams), Norah (Emily Blunt) and Joe (Alan Arkin). Together they raise Rose's son, Oscar (the adorable and ridiculously busy Jason Spevack), because, you know, it takes a village.
The three are still living in the aftershock of Joe's wife committing suicide some twenty years earlier, and their lives are in a permanent funk. Still living in their hometown, Rose works as a maid, Norah works to keep a job--any job--and Joe dreams up hair-brained, get-rich-quick schemes that all inadvertently fail. They're as American as the cast of lovable losers in LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, and that's this movie's strength. It's almost the same film. Hello, the word "sunshine" is in the title.
I never wrote about LITTLE MISS when I saw it in Paris, but I really liked that film; it was simple and just as special as everyone let on. I don't know what others say they loved about it, but me, it wasn't so much the story. It was the American-ness, that thick and heady middle class soot that oozed out of every scene. From the moment Toni Collette drops the bucket of KFC chicken on the table about three minutes in and announces that dinner is "ready," the American Studies major in me went berserk. I was in it. And even though Paul Dano's character got more normal and the plot a little less remarkable as the film went on, I had to appreciate how this film completely encompassed everything about America that you could love, hate or disinterestedly observe in such an accurate way.
Now, SUNSHINE CLEANING, though a reprisal of the theme, lacked that ooze. It was American, small-town American, but there was a little bit of melodrama and more than a little bit of unfinished character development. Our actors were great, though. Alan Arkin does a great Alan Arkin. And Emily Blunt a great dispassionate American girl in her mid-20s. And this is the first film in which I've really loved Amy Adams. Like--don't get me wrong--I like Amy Adams a lot. I like the idea of her. But having only seen MISS PETTIGREW and DOUBT, I know I haven't seen her best work. SUNSHINE CLEANING must definitely rank up there. She was the star of this film for me, and I'm so glad she was cast as Rose; she really owned it. Though I'll tell you what--for a single mother, Rose looked maaaaybe a bit too good. Better than all her high school friends, that's for sure. Times might be hard for her, but time has been harder on their hips. Then again, those women can shove it.
plot: Cleaning up houses and lives.
thought: Working at two hard jobs.
in five: 3.5/5
a little sunshine: http://www.sunshinecleaning-themovie.com/
*=This is post #200. Huzzah!
A cute, little tale about a single mom and her troubled sister who both, along with their aging and addled father, try to keep life in check. Our key players are Rose (Amy Adams), Norah (Emily Blunt) and Joe (Alan Arkin). Together they raise Rose's son, Oscar (the adorable and ridiculously busy Jason Spevack), because, you know, it takes a village.
The three are still living in the aftershock of Joe's wife committing suicide some twenty years earlier, and their lives are in a permanent funk. Still living in their hometown, Rose works as a maid, Norah works to keep a job--any job--and Joe dreams up hair-brained, get-rich-quick schemes that all inadvertently fail. They're as American as the cast of lovable losers in LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, and that's this movie's strength. It's almost the same film. Hello, the word "sunshine" is in the title.
I never wrote about LITTLE MISS when I saw it in Paris, but I really liked that film; it was simple and just as special as everyone let on. I don't know what others say they loved about it, but me, it wasn't so much the story. It was the American-ness, that thick and heady middle class soot that oozed out of every scene. From the moment Toni Collette drops the bucket of KFC chicken on the table about three minutes in and announces that dinner is "ready," the American Studies major in me went berserk. I was in it. And even though Paul Dano's character got more normal and the plot a little less remarkable as the film went on, I had to appreciate how this film completely encompassed everything about America that you could love, hate or disinterestedly observe in such an accurate way.
Now, SUNSHINE CLEANING, though a reprisal of the theme, lacked that ooze. It was American, small-town American, but there was a little bit of melodrama and more than a little bit of unfinished character development. Our actors were great, though. Alan Arkin does a great Alan Arkin. And Emily Blunt a great dispassionate American girl in her mid-20s. And this is the first film in which I've really loved Amy Adams. Like--don't get me wrong--I like Amy Adams a lot. I like the idea of her. But having only seen MISS PETTIGREW and DOUBT, I know I haven't seen her best work. SUNSHINE CLEANING must definitely rank up there. She was the star of this film for me, and I'm so glad she was cast as Rose; she really owned it. Though I'll tell you what--for a single mother, Rose looked maaaaybe a bit too good. Better than all her high school friends, that's for sure. Times might be hard for her, but time has been harder on their hips. Then again, those women can shove it.
plot: Cleaning up houses and lives.
thought: Working at two hard jobs.
in five: 3.5/5
a little sunshine: http://www.sunshinecleaning-themovie.com/
*=This is post #200. Huzzah!
WATCHMEN (as watched from the outside)
The coming of WATCHMEN was heralded like the coming of the Nintendo Wii. Spreading like a splash of 300-style blood across the interwebs, its trailer was one of the most watched clips on YouTube last year. The week before its opening, Fandango allegedly crashed multiple times as fanboys and girls alike flooded the site to buy tickets to midnight screenings nationwide. But naysayers parlayed their critique, speaking more judgmentally about the film's flaws than Tom Colicchio dissing Stefan on the penultimate episode of this season's "Top Chef." The decries led those unfamiliar with the subject matter to lose interest in its reported SIN CITY-style darkness. All that hullabaloo, and now, a mere two weeks after it hit theatres, its presence is fading into a mere box office memory.
It's a shame, I must say, having just seen it. Why is it fading out when the film is so freakin' good?
Now, I'll admit, I don't read graphic novels (in fact, I barely read anything but my own blog, that's what a ham I am), so I knew nothing about WATCHMEN. I didn't know the characters, the plot, the fact that that blue guy is naked and swinging for most of the movie--didn't really know any of that until about a week ago. But I loved it. I think I even liked it more than some of my friends who are fans of the story's original form. Not sure if that means there's something wrong in the film's marketing...or something right in my digestion of it...or vice versa...or both, but I'm here to say that if you go in, hang-up free and at least a little informed, you're sure to enjoy WATCHMEN. Here's why I did:
1. The superheroes. I love superheros, and WATCHMEN has them in spades, behaving goodly, behaving badly, being human and being superhuman. I haven't seen so many men and women of mystery on screen since the X-MEN trilogy, and this was done so much better than Ratner could have, even if given a handicap (look, more special effects!). Their stories were well-realised, and I was completely drawn in by watching them use their powers, both practiced and inherent. This is a movie that extols superheros even as said icons critique themselves. It's kinda meta that way.
2. The central hero. Would you say it's Dr. Manhattan or Rorschach? I'd say the latter. I was most confused/intrigued by the character Rorschach, as I wasn't sure, really, what his power was--perhaps as a result of not having read the novel. But if you break it down and define what makes someone a superhero as someone who uses any superhuman ability to fight for good--be it superhuman intelligence (Tony Stark) or superhuman stickiness (Spiderman)--Rorschach fits the mold. They all did. About Rorschach, I thought, "Hmm. He is strong. And smart. Unbelievably violent. Yet fighting for good. And that mask thing is cool. He's a superhero." I was pleased by the non-traditional superhero "space" his character inhabited, and hence got pulled into his slightly psycho obsession with journals and justice. And really, in a fight, would you rather have him for or against you? He was a loner, he was a fighter, and he was the glue that brought these superheroes back together.
3. The tone. Again, one point for the non-traditional. If the coming era of superhero movies means a little more DARK KNIGHT, a little less IRON MAN, I'm not sad or happy--they're both great flicks--but I am impressed. I think it's got to be alienating to be "the only one of your kind" (thanks, HANCOCK), and exploring that alienation is human. Exploring it on Mars is just plain cool. It's also a bit wimpy of Dr. Blue Balls, but I forgive him. It ain't easy being all-powerful and somewhat god-like. I appreciated the darkness, the poignancy, of this tale of good-doers with some serious skeletons in their closets. Growing up different wasn't easy for Rorschach or Silk Spectre II, living in the present is a struggle for The Comedian and Nite Owl, in their own ways, and thinking about the future almost derails Dr. Manhattan. In this film, we see the underside of superhero life, and it ain't pretty. But like we saw in DARK KNIGHT last year, a superhero knows his/her place--serve the world first and self second; live a life of hurt either way. That dedication to depicting this message sets WATCHMEN apart, as it did the caped crusader.
4. Story accuracy. As I said--and please don't judge too harshly--I didn't read the graphic novels. I actually (sorry) didn't even know who the Watchmen were until about the fourth time I ran into the trailer, around mid-December of 2008. Yes, I know, way late. But I don't think that entirely dispels my ability to discuss the accuracy of the story. I've asked around, and people tell me the film was very true to the comic, even encapsulating much of the comic's flaws. Interestingly, the things I left thinking didn't work in the movie were things that, upon conversations with others, I found didn't work in the graphic novel, either. And certain observations I made--why is Rorschach so long-winded when dictating his journal but so terse when speaking in scene?--seemed to be details lifted straight from Alan Moore's pages. Don't take the credit if you don't want to, Mr. Moore, but it's all there. You wrote something brilliant, and Zack Snyder did his damnedest to get it all on screen. But how do you turn a painting into a poem? Changing mediums is tough, and I suppose that's why they invented DVD-extras. Apparently, upon DVD-release the already dauntingly lengthy film will be beefed with deleted scenes galore to make this re-telling of the reawakening of the world hopefully even closer to what Moore would have wanted. That's dedication to a story, my friends, and Snyder deserves some serious praise.
5. I was prepped [SPOILER ALERTS AHEAD]. Final reason I could enjoy WATCHMEN, I think, was because I was told I wouldn't. From every media source, friends and foes alike, everyone had an opinion about the movie. I wanted to go in a little "clean-slate," but it was impossible. I heard early that there was graphic violence, graphic sex, it was longer than TITANIC and darker than DARK KNIGHT. I heard Malin Ackerman sucked, you could see Billy Crudup's possibly fake balls, that it was confusing to the outsider (me) and slow in pacing to everyone. I went in informed, and I knew: "Get a good night's sleep the night before. Use the bathroom before it starts. Pay the frack attention. Don't be distracted by the cyan-colored schlong. Get ready for lots of dialogue and a fair bit of cartoonish blood." It was like cheating, knowing all this. But then by the time that [seriously, SPOILER ALERT] Matthew Goode's awful American accent revealed the Noah-and-the-Ark-like nature of this long-winded tale, I was hanging on every minute. I had been waiting for it to get bad, but it didn't. THE WATCHMEN delivered. Well, actually, the ending, the big climax/resolution kind of disappointed me, but knowing that's how the graphic novel ended as well means I had to forgive it. So what, if it boiled down to "kill a million, save a billion"? Was the ride worth it? Knowing what I knew walking in--certainly.
[END SPOILER ALERT]
Of course the cinematic portrayal of the most well-known graphic novel of all time stands to be critiqued, but as far as I can tell, the naysayers are shooting crap. I encourage anyone willing to spend three hours of their time in a dark room with the darkest heroes of our time to go in with an open mind. You don't have to be some graphic novel aficionado to love WATCHMEN. You just need to have a good appreciation for the superhero genre and, perhaps, dark characters in general. If you understand at least a bit of what you're getting into, you'll fare fine. You may enjoy it even more than expected. I, for one, totally did.
plot: Even superheroes drop like flies.
thought: Who will save us now?
in five: 4/5
watch them: http://watchmenmovie.warnerbros.com/
It's a shame, I must say, having just seen it. Why is it fading out when the film is so freakin' good?
Now, I'll admit, I don't read graphic novels (in fact, I barely read anything but my own blog, that's what a ham I am), so I knew nothing about WATCHMEN. I didn't know the characters, the plot, the fact that that blue guy is naked and swinging for most of the movie--didn't really know any of that until about a week ago. But I loved it. I think I even liked it more than some of my friends who are fans of the story's original form. Not sure if that means there's something wrong in the film's marketing...or something right in my digestion of it...or vice versa...or both, but I'm here to say that if you go in, hang-up free and at least a little informed, you're sure to enjoy WATCHMEN. Here's why I did:
1. The superheroes. I love superheros, and WATCHMEN has them in spades, behaving goodly, behaving badly, being human and being superhuman. I haven't seen so many men and women of mystery on screen since the X-MEN trilogy, and this was done so much better than Ratner could have, even if given a handicap (look, more special effects!). Their stories were well-realised, and I was completely drawn in by watching them use their powers, both practiced and inherent. This is a movie that extols superheros even as said icons critique themselves. It's kinda meta that way.
2. The central hero. Would you say it's Dr. Manhattan or Rorschach? I'd say the latter. I was most confused/intrigued by the character Rorschach, as I wasn't sure, really, what his power was--perhaps as a result of not having read the novel. But if you break it down and define what makes someone a superhero as someone who uses any superhuman ability to fight for good--be it superhuman intelligence (Tony Stark) or superhuman stickiness (Spiderman)--Rorschach fits the mold. They all did. About Rorschach, I thought, "Hmm. He is strong. And smart. Unbelievably violent. Yet fighting for good. And that mask thing is cool. He's a superhero." I was pleased by the non-traditional superhero "space" his character inhabited, and hence got pulled into his slightly psycho obsession with journals and justice. And really, in a fight, would you rather have him for or against you? He was a loner, he was a fighter, and he was the glue that brought these superheroes back together.
3. The tone. Again, one point for the non-traditional. If the coming era of superhero movies means a little more DARK KNIGHT, a little less IRON MAN, I'm not sad or happy--they're both great flicks--but I am impressed. I think it's got to be alienating to be "the only one of your kind" (thanks, HANCOCK), and exploring that alienation is human. Exploring it on Mars is just plain cool. It's also a bit wimpy of Dr. Blue Balls, but I forgive him. It ain't easy being all-powerful and somewhat god-like. I appreciated the darkness, the poignancy, of this tale of good-doers with some serious skeletons in their closets. Growing up different wasn't easy for Rorschach or Silk Spectre II, living in the present is a struggle for The Comedian and Nite Owl, in their own ways, and thinking about the future almost derails Dr. Manhattan. In this film, we see the underside of superhero life, and it ain't pretty. But like we saw in DARK KNIGHT last year, a superhero knows his/her place--serve the world first and self second; live a life of hurt either way. That dedication to depicting this message sets WATCHMEN apart, as it did the caped crusader.
4. Story accuracy. As I said--and please don't judge too harshly--I didn't read the graphic novels. I actually (sorry) didn't even know who the Watchmen were until about the fourth time I ran into the trailer, around mid-December of 2008. Yes, I know, way late. But I don't think that entirely dispels my ability to discuss the accuracy of the story. I've asked around, and people tell me the film was very true to the comic, even encapsulating much of the comic's flaws. Interestingly, the things I left thinking didn't work in the movie were things that, upon conversations with others, I found didn't work in the graphic novel, either. And certain observations I made--why is Rorschach so long-winded when dictating his journal but so terse when speaking in scene?--seemed to be details lifted straight from Alan Moore's pages. Don't take the credit if you don't want to, Mr. Moore, but it's all there. You wrote something brilliant, and Zack Snyder did his damnedest to get it all on screen. But how do you turn a painting into a poem? Changing mediums is tough, and I suppose that's why they invented DVD-extras. Apparently, upon DVD-release the already dauntingly lengthy film will be beefed with deleted scenes galore to make this re-telling of the reawakening of the world hopefully even closer to what Moore would have wanted. That's dedication to a story, my friends, and Snyder deserves some serious praise.
5. I was prepped [SPOILER ALERTS AHEAD]. Final reason I could enjoy WATCHMEN, I think, was because I was told I wouldn't. From every media source, friends and foes alike, everyone had an opinion about the movie. I wanted to go in a little "clean-slate," but it was impossible. I heard early that there was graphic violence, graphic sex, it was longer than TITANIC and darker than DARK KNIGHT. I heard Malin Ackerman sucked, you could see Billy Crudup's possibly fake balls, that it was confusing to the outsider (me) and slow in pacing to everyone. I went in informed, and I knew: "Get a good night's sleep the night before. Use the bathroom before it starts. Pay the frack attention. Don't be distracted by the cyan-colored schlong. Get ready for lots of dialogue and a fair bit of cartoonish blood." It was like cheating, knowing all this. But then by the time that [seriously, SPOILER ALERT] Matthew Goode's awful American accent revealed the Noah-and-the-Ark-like nature of this long-winded tale, I was hanging on every minute. I had been waiting for it to get bad, but it didn't. THE WATCHMEN delivered. Well, actually, the ending, the big climax/resolution kind of disappointed me, but knowing that's how the graphic novel ended as well means I had to forgive it. So what, if it boiled down to "kill a million, save a billion"? Was the ride worth it? Knowing what I knew walking in--certainly.
[END SPOILER ALERT]
Of course the cinematic portrayal of the most well-known graphic novel of all time stands to be critiqued, but as far as I can tell, the naysayers are shooting crap. I encourage anyone willing to spend three hours of their time in a dark room with the darkest heroes of our time to go in with an open mind. You don't have to be some graphic novel aficionado to love WATCHMEN. You just need to have a good appreciation for the superhero genre and, perhaps, dark characters in general. If you understand at least a bit of what you're getting into, you'll fare fine. You may enjoy it even more than expected. I, for one, totally did.
plot: Even superheroes drop like flies.
thought: Who will save us now?
in five: 4/5
watch them: http://watchmenmovie.warnerbros.com/
LITERATI | lunch
Girlfriend, don't get me started on cafes. I love cafes. Give me a latte, anything from the bakery and some soft but lively music churned into the low hum of regulars mewling over humdrum life events, and you will be giving me a shot of happiness. Cafe culture is my forte; I live for cafes. And though Fire City is not a purveyor to the sauntering lifestyle (to which cafes typically cater), it does try hard to pretend. Isn't that what this city is about? Pretending? And thus, it has a high number of cafes stationed county-wide, albeit far apart.
LITERATI CAFE in Yupwood is a new discovery of mine. After it had been recommended to me by a number of friends, I looked it up and realised it was down the street from my place of business. I fancied a stop-in. I've been there twice now, and each time was wonderful. LITERATI is not flawless, however. But would I recommend and revisit? Most definitely.
Having recently undergone a makeover, Literati now inhabits two side-by-side locations. Side A is casual but always crowded, with Ikea-like wooden tables crammed too close together. But there is wi-fi, and the service is quick. Side B is a bit more upscale, more "this-is-strictly-business" lunch. The food items seem a touch more refined, and they are also pricier. I have only eaten on Side A and only during lunchtime. First visit, I had a grilled portabello mushroom panini with melted swiss on focaccia (amazing); second visit, I had carrot ginger soup with a side of Mediterranean salad replete with olives and pine nuts and a splash of house vinaigrette. Are you salivating yet? It's okay. I did, too.
I have yet to try the desserts or the classier end of the half-cafe-half-restaurant, but if the first two tastes are anything to go by, I doubt I could ever be disappointed. Now, I don't know if I could do work at Literati--for a place with that name, it seems a bit too busy for any sort of literary endeavor--but it is on my cafe radar. But when it comes to places to station yourself for an afternoon of laptop time, I think my picks are elsewhere.
the place: 12081 Wilshire Blvd 90025 - (310) 231-7484
the taste: Light, farm-fresh, American organic.
in five: 4/5
dine out: http://www.literaticafe.com/
LITERATI CAFE in Yupwood is a new discovery of mine. After it had been recommended to me by a number of friends, I looked it up and realised it was down the street from my place of business. I fancied a stop-in. I've been there twice now, and each time was wonderful. LITERATI is not flawless, however. But would I recommend and revisit? Most definitely.
Having recently undergone a makeover, Literati now inhabits two side-by-side locations. Side A is casual but always crowded, with Ikea-like wooden tables crammed too close together. But there is wi-fi, and the service is quick. Side B is a bit more upscale, more "this-is-strictly-business" lunch. The food items seem a touch more refined, and they are also pricier. I have only eaten on Side A and only during lunchtime. First visit, I had a grilled portabello mushroom panini with melted swiss on focaccia (amazing); second visit, I had carrot ginger soup with a side of Mediterranean salad replete with olives and pine nuts and a splash of house vinaigrette. Are you salivating yet? It's okay. I did, too.
I have yet to try the desserts or the classier end of the half-cafe-half-restaurant, but if the first two tastes are anything to go by, I doubt I could ever be disappointed. Now, I don't know if I could do work at Literati--for a place with that name, it seems a bit too busy for any sort of literary endeavor--but it is on my cafe radar. But when it comes to places to station yourself for an afternoon of laptop time, I think my picks are elsewhere.
the place: 12081 Wilshire Blvd 90025 - (310) 231-7484
the taste: Light, farm-fresh, American organic.
in five: 4/5
dine out: http://www.literaticafe.com/
ONE SUNSET | dinner
Yes, yes, it's true. Meant to write about this one eons ago. But it's still on the mind, so I thought I'd finally get around to it.
The better part of a month ago, a group of friends and I decided to take advantage of a foodie tradition in Fire City known as Restaurant Week. It's a misnomer, really, as this year's Restaurant Week (which historically lasts a fortnight) actually lasted an entire month. God bless the recession and desperate chefs citywide!
Restaurant Week features some of the best eateries in the city offering prix fixe menus at reduced prices for those who like to scale up when masticating but don't like to part with their hard-earned. Well, I am among that number. So I made a schedule of places to go and things to eat, detailed by cuisine and price, with the intent to eat out at least twice per week for the entire month-long affair.
Alas. Not even this foodie could spare the cash. Luckily, ONE SUNSET was one of the first stops on my still-uncompleted schedule (which, for the record, will remain unfinished indefinitely), so we did make it there, at least. Funny story, though--we didn't do the Restaurant Week menu. Realising upon arrival that we could upgrade for a mere $10 (bringing the meal-sans-drinks total to $45) to the Chef's Tasting Menu, we did that. And boy, what a treat.
From the sweet potato fries to the mac & cheese to the beet salad to the Angus beef sliders (yeah, I didn't eat those--but I did get my own salmon slider, compliments of the chef) to the mushroom flatbread to the fabulous desserts (creme brulee, blueberry bread pudding & red velvet cupcakes!) everything was great. Our server was kind and knowledgeable--and obviously good at her job, seeing as she upgraded us against our intentions--and the ambiance was classy without being pretentious. Perhaps that's because we went on a Thursday night instead of the high-volume Friday or Saturday scenester's dining time. But we were the better for it. Good food was elevated to great thanks to the entire atmosphere of the place. I've already recommended the joint to several friends, none of whom have left hungry or disgruntled, so I say one point to ONE SUNSET. You're not too shabby at all.
the place: 8730 W Sunset Blvd 90069 - (310) 657-0111
the taste: American with a mock-Asian twist.
in five: 3.5/5 (for the fusion factor--you can't score a four if you serve Asian fusion, sorry)
dine out: http://www.onelittlewest12.com/sunset/
The better part of a month ago, a group of friends and I decided to take advantage of a foodie tradition in Fire City known as Restaurant Week. It's a misnomer, really, as this year's Restaurant Week (which historically lasts a fortnight) actually lasted an entire month. God bless the recession and desperate chefs citywide!
Restaurant Week features some of the best eateries in the city offering prix fixe menus at reduced prices for those who like to scale up when masticating but don't like to part with their hard-earned. Well, I am among that number. So I made a schedule of places to go and things to eat, detailed by cuisine and price, with the intent to eat out at least twice per week for the entire month-long affair.
Alas. Not even this foodie could spare the cash. Luckily, ONE SUNSET was one of the first stops on my still-uncompleted schedule (which, for the record, will remain unfinished indefinitely), so we did make it there, at least. Funny story, though--we didn't do the Restaurant Week menu. Realising upon arrival that we could upgrade for a mere $10 (bringing the meal-sans-drinks total to $45) to the Chef's Tasting Menu, we did that. And boy, what a treat.
From the sweet potato fries to the mac & cheese to the beet salad to the Angus beef sliders (yeah, I didn't eat those--but I did get my own salmon slider, compliments of the chef) to the mushroom flatbread to the fabulous desserts (creme brulee, blueberry bread pudding & red velvet cupcakes!) everything was great. Our server was kind and knowledgeable--and obviously good at her job, seeing as she upgraded us against our intentions--and the ambiance was classy without being pretentious. Perhaps that's because we went on a Thursday night instead of the high-volume Friday or Saturday scenester's dining time. But we were the better for it. Good food was elevated to great thanks to the entire atmosphere of the place. I've already recommended the joint to several friends, none of whom have left hungry or disgruntled, so I say one point to ONE SUNSET. You're not too shabby at all.
the place: 8730 W Sunset Blvd 90069 - (310) 657-0111
the taste: American with a mock-Asian twist.
in five: 3.5/5 (for the fusion factor--you can't score a four if you serve Asian fusion, sorry)
dine out: http://www.onelittlewest12.com/sunset/
samedi 21 mars 2009
TAKEN
The long and short of it is that Liam Neeson took me by surprise (ba-dum-ching!).
I love French films. And this film, despite being helmed by an Irish actor, is French, through and through. Produced by Luc Besson. Financed by most of Europe. Takes place in Paris. Has on-the-nose dialogue that makes you kinda go, "Oookay, is this written badly...or is it written so well it feels bad?"
Ha. That's a trick question. And the answer is, "It's actually a mix of both."
Revolving around the violent kidnapping of a dumb-as-nails, pre-college Daddy's girl in the city of love, TAKEN offers enough action to make up for the mediocre dialogue. Who says older men can't still pack a punch? Liam is definitely still in fine form (thank you, editors), and he is a star. TAKEN will have you tense and riveted as you watch the dad you wish you had tear shit up to get his daughter back. That's unconditional love.
I've always been a fan of Mr. Neeson. From ETHAN FROME (creepy!) to LOVE, ACTUALLY (adorable!) to GUNSHY (so weird!), I find that whatever movie he's in, I like to see him. So if you haven't seen it yet, consider TAKEN and soon. There's a reason why it stayed in the box office top five for over a month. It's worth the rush.
the plot: "Forget it, Kidnapper. It's Liamtown."
the thought: Can classes teach those tricks?
in five: 4/5
get taken: http://www.takenmovie.com/
I love French films. And this film, despite being helmed by an Irish actor, is French, through and through. Produced by Luc Besson. Financed by most of Europe. Takes place in Paris. Has on-the-nose dialogue that makes you kinda go, "Oookay, is this written badly...or is it written so well it feels bad?"
Ha. That's a trick question. And the answer is, "It's actually a mix of both."
Revolving around the violent kidnapping of a dumb-as-nails, pre-college Daddy's girl in the city of love, TAKEN offers enough action to make up for the mediocre dialogue. Who says older men can't still pack a punch? Liam is definitely still in fine form (thank you, editors), and he is a star. TAKEN will have you tense and riveted as you watch the dad you wish you had tear shit up to get his daughter back. That's unconditional love.
I've always been a fan of Mr. Neeson. From ETHAN FROME (creepy!) to LOVE, ACTUALLY (adorable!) to GUNSHY (so weird!), I find that whatever movie he's in, I like to see him. So if you haven't seen it yet, consider TAKEN and soon. There's a reason why it stayed in the box office top five for over a month. It's worth the rush.
the plot: "Forget it, Kidnapper. It's Liamtown."
the thought: Can classes teach those tricks?
in five: 4/5
get taken: http://www.takenmovie.com/
jeudi 19 mars 2009
Girl's Best Friend: 'I Love You, Man' versus 'Duplicity'
**This article also appears on RopeofSilicon.com.**
This week, we've got a special serving of cinematic romance. First course is the Julia Roberts-Clive Owen starrer, Duplicity, which unites the two familiar hotties for the first time since 2004's Closer, a much darker character study that involved the awkward line, "He tasted like you but sweeter." In Duplicity, the two are con artists in cahoots to scam big who instead end up gaming each other, simply for the sweet pursuit of extended screen time and hijinks. The film is starting to be called a test to see if Julia, who has been raising a child and playing house for a while now, can still hold a box office ransom with her smile. Reviews so far are middling to favorable; I'm sure Mrs. Moder will do quite fine.
But our weekend meal doesn't stop there. Second course is a helping from a platter that's gotten very popular over the last few years--the guy's chick flick. The gick flick, if you will. Well, wait--just did a Google search, and apparently 'gick' is Irish slang for 'shit.' I guess we need a new name...how about Mangina Movie? Defining it now: a MANGINA MOVIE (man + vagina + movie) is a comedic chick flick made for guys. In short, it focuses on a male lead having female problems and overcoming them using both typical female and uncustomary male wiles. In long, it also usually has the crass humor and off-color set pieces that guys tend to enjoy in standard comedies coupled with a love story that guys and girls alike can appreciate. After watching once, men can re-watch mangina movies ad infinitum, claiming they "loved the jokes," when really, a little part of them blossoms into happiness every time they see their bumbling hero learn to love by credits' end.
40 Year Old Virgin is a mangina movie. Knocked Up is a mangina movie. So is Anchorman; so is Superbad...in fact, almost anything produced by Judd Apatow and/or featuring Paul Rudd = MANGINA MOVIE. (And though it doesn't fit this rule: Wedding Crashers? Full of mangina.) But they are all--every single one of them--fantastic. Utterly and almost unerringly lovable. That includes this week's plate #2: I Love You, Man (no, not produced by Apatow but yes, featuring Mr. Yaeger-né-Rudd).
Why she might want to see Duplicity: It's the British lover syndrome. A girl can but dream (and if she closes one eye, hey, maybe Clive is speaking just to her).
Why you might want to see I Love You, Man: Are you kidding? Paul Rudd finally getting a real chance to carry a comedy, and then there are fart jokes, and there's Lou Ferrigno, and there's a little dog, some guitar playing and a masturbation chair, plus Jon Favreau talking dirty to Jaime Pressley, not to mention the shrimp joke from the trailer, and the hot-dog eating and the male bonding, and the pet names and the, the, the...MANGINA.
Why you should both see both: I'll give you five reasons.
1. Who doesn't love a double-feature?
2. So you can both appreciate the term 'slapping the bass'
3. You've both wondered what became of that Mr. and Mrs. Smith sequel
4. Jason Segal & Tom Wilkinson, respectively
5. You were already seventeen once...so do you really want to see 17 Again?
Really, it isn't--and shouldn't be--a contest. There haven't been too many weekends (if any yet) this year that featured multiple, agreeable popcorn flicks that both sexes can enjoy. I'm excited to see Duplicity, and having already seen I Love You, Man, I can tell you that movie is FUNNY. So go. Run, I say. And start early: many theatres offer recession-friendly prices for first showings of the day, even on the weekends.
Now, if you're feeling really ambitious, I would encourage a look at that Zac Efron flick. It looks cute, he is cute, and the movie is family-friendly. But warning: I can't promise it's mangina-free.
There's something about March. When it comes to taking out that special ladybird, there are usually just as many girlie movies that get released in March as during the month of love. But it's sunnier outside, a little bit warmer. And you don't have to buy a diamond necklace to compliment those ticket stubs. I'd guess men with better halves dig this month more than February. So if you're planning on a date at the cinema to celebrate the other month of love, let this be your one-stop guide to choosing the right chick flick: your girl’s best friend (and your guilty pleasure).
This week, we've got a special serving of cinematic romance. First course is the Julia Roberts-Clive Owen starrer, Duplicity, which unites the two familiar hotties for the first time since 2004's Closer, a much darker character study that involved the awkward line, "He tasted like you but sweeter." In Duplicity, the two are con artists in cahoots to scam big who instead end up gaming each other, simply for the sweet pursuit of extended screen time and hijinks. The film is starting to be called a test to see if Julia, who has been raising a child and playing house for a while now, can still hold a box office ransom with her smile. Reviews so far are middling to favorable; I'm sure Mrs. Moder will do quite fine.
But our weekend meal doesn't stop there. Second course is a helping from a platter that's gotten very popular over the last few years--the guy's chick flick. The gick flick, if you will. Well, wait--just did a Google search, and apparently 'gick' is Irish slang for 'shit.' I guess we need a new name...how about Mangina Movie? Defining it now: a MANGINA MOVIE (man + vagina + movie) is a comedic chick flick made for guys. In short, it focuses on a male lead having female problems and overcoming them using both typical female and uncustomary male wiles. In long, it also usually has the crass humor and off-color set pieces that guys tend to enjoy in standard comedies coupled with a love story that guys and girls alike can appreciate. After watching once, men can re-watch mangina movies ad infinitum, claiming they "loved the jokes," when really, a little part of them blossoms into happiness every time they see their bumbling hero learn to love by credits' end.
40 Year Old Virgin is a mangina movie. Knocked Up is a mangina movie. So is Anchorman; so is Superbad...in fact, almost anything produced by Judd Apatow and/or featuring Paul Rudd = MANGINA MOVIE. (And though it doesn't fit this rule: Wedding Crashers? Full of mangina.) But they are all--every single one of them--fantastic. Utterly and almost unerringly lovable. That includes this week's plate #2: I Love You, Man (no, not produced by Apatow but yes, featuring Mr. Yaeger-né-Rudd).
Why she might want to see Duplicity: It's the British lover syndrome. A girl can but dream (and if she closes one eye, hey, maybe Clive is speaking just to her).
Why you might want to see I Love You, Man: Are you kidding? Paul Rudd finally getting a real chance to carry a comedy, and then there are fart jokes, and there's Lou Ferrigno, and there's a little dog, some guitar playing and a masturbation chair, plus Jon Favreau talking dirty to Jaime Pressley, not to mention the shrimp joke from the trailer, and the hot-dog eating and the male bonding, and the pet names and the, the, the...MANGINA.
Why you should both see both: I'll give you five reasons.
1. Who doesn't love a double-feature?
2. So you can both appreciate the term 'slapping the bass'
3. You've both wondered what became of that Mr. and Mrs. Smith sequel
4. Jason Segal & Tom Wilkinson, respectively
5. You were already seventeen once...so do you really want to see 17 Again?
Really, it isn't--and shouldn't be--a contest. There haven't been too many weekends (if any yet) this year that featured multiple, agreeable popcorn flicks that both sexes can enjoy. I'm excited to see Duplicity, and having already seen I Love You, Man, I can tell you that movie is FUNNY. So go. Run, I say. And start early: many theatres offer recession-friendly prices for first showings of the day, even on the weekends.
Now, if you're feeling really ambitious, I would encourage a look at that Zac Efron flick. It looks cute, he is cute, and the movie is family-friendly. But warning: I can't promise it's mangina-free.
mercredi 18 mars 2009
BETTER OFF TED: Preview
This show officially has struck my fancy. Who says there aren't good mid-season replacements?
mercredi 11 mars 2009
Blockbuster Stimulus Package
What a sad/annoying thing it is to try and find a Blockbuster during a recession. They're dropping like flies! I didn't notice it at first, but on my latest look around the street corner, I saw nothing but empty windows. And a sign. "This location has closed."
In an attempt to raise the revenue of the Blockbuster further down the street, I launched into rental mode again. First up was the film noir that informed the OG I wrote about last week, BRICK. I was a mite bit embarrassed that I had alluded to CHINATOWN in my writing but actually had never seen it, so it was time, for Blockbuster's sake and for mine, to remedy that.
CHINATOWN
plot: Water and murder under the bridge.
thought: Is Chinatown really that shady?
in five: 4/5
whose your daughter?: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071315/
I watched CHINATOWN with my friend Tivo, who suggested following it up with the mid-nineties, we-heard-it-was-a-classic BOONDOCK SAINTS. I love-love-love RESERVOIR DOGS and PULP FICTION, both of which were referenced on the back of BOONDOCK's dvd case, so I had high hopes. And since I was in an underbelly-of-the-city kind of place, I knew I was in the right mindset. But BOONDOCK....It was weird. It felt like it was trying to be pulpy but was missing the mark. I know that it came out before QT sprayed bullets from the reservoir, so that means it wasn't trying to imitate these works, even though they seemed to beg comparison. So what was the excuse for the kitsch? I couldn't tell if it was supposed to be grindhouse, like bad for the sake of its genre...or if it was just bad.
BOONDOCK SAINTS
plot: Bible-bashers on a killing spree.
thought: Is this a B-movie...or a bad movie?
in five: 2.5/5
pray or be prey: http://www.boondocksaints.com/
We watched MEMENTO next, and it was good as always. But then the darkness was done; I wasn't looking to wallow in crapulance for the whole weekend. For a little bit of light, I went for the film that fell second to ONCE two years ago--because apparently, you only can have one indie movie starring the musically talented per Awards Season.
AUGUST RUSH
plot: Boy prodigy searches for parents.
thought: Robin Williams exploits children...weird.
in five: 2.5/5 for the movie, but 3/5 for the music
music time: http://augustrushmovie.warnerbros.com/
What's up next, you ask? Well, renting from Blockbuster costs more than it used to, so I'll resort to the DVDs around the apartment for my next rental special. Here's to hoping the entire movie store chain doesn't crumble without my love.
In an attempt to raise the revenue of the Blockbuster further down the street, I launched into rental mode again. First up was the film noir that informed the OG I wrote about last week, BRICK. I was a mite bit embarrassed that I had alluded to CHINATOWN in my writing but actually had never seen it, so it was time, for Blockbuster's sake and for mine, to remedy that.
CHINATOWN
plot: Water and murder under the bridge.
thought: Is Chinatown really that shady?
in five: 4/5
whose your daughter?: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071315/
I watched CHINATOWN with my friend Tivo, who suggested following it up with the mid-nineties, we-heard-it-was-a-classic BOONDOCK SAINTS. I love-love-love RESERVOIR DOGS and PULP FICTION, both of which were referenced on the back of BOONDOCK's dvd case, so I had high hopes. And since I was in an underbelly-of-the-city kind of place, I knew I was in the right mindset. But BOONDOCK....It was weird. It felt like it was trying to be pulpy but was missing the mark. I know that it came out before QT sprayed bullets from the reservoir, so that means it wasn't trying to imitate these works, even though they seemed to beg comparison. So what was the excuse for the kitsch? I couldn't tell if it was supposed to be grindhouse, like bad for the sake of its genre...or if it was just bad.
BOONDOCK SAINTS
plot: Bible-bashers on a killing spree.
thought: Is this a B-movie...or a bad movie?
in five: 2.5/5
pray or be prey: http://www.boondocksaints.com/
We watched MEMENTO next, and it was good as always. But then the darkness was done; I wasn't looking to wallow in crapulance for the whole weekend. For a little bit of light, I went for the film that fell second to ONCE two years ago--because apparently, you only can have one indie movie starring the musically talented per Awards Season.
AUGUST RUSH
plot: Boy prodigy searches for parents.
thought: Robin Williams exploits children...weird.
in five: 2.5/5 for the movie, but 3/5 for the music
music time: http://augustrushmovie.warnerbros.com/
What's up next, you ask? Well, renting from Blockbuster costs more than it used to, so I'll resort to the DVDs around the apartment for my next rental special. Here's to hoping the entire movie store chain doesn't crumble without my love.
vendredi 6 mars 2009
Overlooked Greatness: 'Brick' (2005)
**This article also appears on RopeofSilicon.com.**
This just in: Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience has underperformed. Expected to make in the area of $30 million, the 3D picture that thought it could has come in at just under $13 million. Now, since it has been heralded as a “concert experience,” I’m not sure if it really qualifies as a movie…but hearing about this sad, un-Miley-like box office implosion, I started wondering to myself: What happened to movies with teen themes? Can’t Hardly Wait…She’s All That…Boys and Girls. The American Pie franchise has been relegated to DVD reprisal, and last I heard, 10 Things I Hate About You is now in development to become a TV series…which seems weird.
Well, here’s what I think happened to movies primarily featuring teen storylines: they sucked. Oh, that might seem like a harsh conclusion—I watched and loved them all, I’ll admit—but what I really mean is that they cloned each other and subsequently became forgettable. That sucks. Road Trip is to Euro Trip what Hannah Montana is to The Brothers Jonas.
The teen films that stand the test of time, you’ll note, are the unique originals, the trailblazers. By nature of the field, however, it’s hard to get uber-original. How many ways can you show puberty reeling its slightly horny head before you’re hips-deep in pie again? Filmmakers must decide to veer off the beaten (get it?) path or risk Death by Duplication. Luckily, Rian Johnson’s wonderful little indie, Brick, has already beaten the seldom explored teen mystery genre—and challenged future noir mysteries in general. Brick, effectively, has blazed the trail, and left nothing but awed soot in its wake. Here’s how:
1.) Noir Factor: Brick is black, black, black, and that is so, so good. With a heavy nod to Polanski’s Chinatown, this film’s aesthetic intensity captivates. If for some reason, your TV speakers break but the image is working fine, know this: you could still watch and enjoy Brick. Can’t do that with Can’t Hardly Wait. With a focus on detective novels like The Maltese Falcon, first-time screenwriter Rian Johnson started his teen detective tale as a novella of sorts, where main character, Brendan, plays our Sam Spade. But in his evident devotion to the genre, Johnson ripped the American detective story in two, creating dual levels: the narrative level, where a “who dunnit?” is solved, and the thematic level, where we, the viewers, explore the effects of teen drug culture in American suburbia. The lens is his paintbrush, and the paint is dark, twisty and beautiful on the big screen canvas.
2.) JGL Factor. That would be Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Yeah, that kid from “Third Rock from the Sun.” You know, I first saw JGL (who I also like to refer to as “Hotness Walking”) in Holy Matrimony opposite Patricia Arquette when I was about 10 years old. I remember thinking to myself, “That kid will one day be Hotness Walking.” He was talented then, as a Hutterite on the verge of arranged marriage, and he has only grown. JGL is a man who rarely disappoints. I will see anything he’s in, because he chooses riveting work and plays his roles with mind-bending intensity. Yeah, even on “Third Rock from the Sun,” and again in that teen number, 10 Things I Hate About the Fact that 10 Things I Hate About You Might Become a TV Show (we can discuss that later). His body of work has been described as “acclaimed and underseen,” and you know what, Boston Herald, I agree with you. Because if Joseph Gordon-Levitt says he’s an alien, I believe him. He says he’s a nerd, I believe him. He says he’s mentally challenged, a prostitute, physically disabled or—in this case—a teenage detective out to avenge his missing girlfriend; I believe him. His presence alone will draw you in.
3.) Addictively indie. Much like this year’s Best Picture Oscar winner, Slumdog Millionaire (and many other movies, might I add) Brick tread a long path to the big screen. With Slumdog, Danny Boyle and his team achieved what others would never have attempted to try on $7 million. Originally penned in 1996, Brick took nearly ten years to hit the art house circuit, and that was after being whittled down to a $475,000 budget! They faked the special effects with a bit of creativity and edited the rest like mad. After all that, the writer still was able to work out a deal with Fox Searchlight, the distributor, and hence to this day, he offers his entire, annotated shooting script for anyone to read and download online. That’s right: “Free on the internet.” That is so indie, it’s like listening to Radiohead and Fleet Foxes at the same time. You gotta respect a filmmaker who honors the unspoken artist’s covenant: though shalt share thine art—at any cost.
4.) The name game. You know you’re really floating in a pool of noir once you encounter a character that goes by something like “Acey,” “Sonny” or by “The [Insert Noun]” in an already dark film. Well, Brick has “The Brain,” JGL’s partner in solving crime, and “The Pin,” our post-teen, bad guy extraordinaire. Five minutes in, and you’ll guess right away: Something’s up, and it ain’t what you thought. Though our lead is simply “Brendan,” the softness of that name defines him entirely: he’s in this for love, and love will put up a fight. Other character names do not disappoint, however. There’s also Tug (bad guy) and Dode (bad guy) and a slew of knick-names for outliers, like “Dangle” and “Flatfoot.” Between these names and the stylized, genre-loving dialogue, it’s almost hard to keep up with the plot. But don’t worry: this is a movie you’ll want to see twice, so just pick it up on the next viewing. Or read the script for free on the internet!
5.) Score. That is to say, the music tracks. Pays to have a multi-platinum record producer in the family. Brick’s writer, Rian, has that brother—his name is Aaron. But the music talent didn’t stop there. Rian’s cousin, Nathan, reined over this composition. Rumor (read: wikipedia) has it that Brick was scored mostly by way of iChat, i.e., Rian sent clips of his film-in-progress from Los Angeles to his cousin in New York, who scored on the go at the reduced, family rate. With further help from The Cinematic Underground, an indie (natch), alt-rock group, Brick’s score came together. The music in this film is telling and adds to the surreal nature of the action. Again, if your TV choked for a couple hours and all that worked was the sound—put the DVD in anyway. You’ll be alright.
Now some might say that Brick is a little over the top in its noir-ittude. The lingo, the name game, the score, the Hotness Walking…these are all elements that collectively strike a pose as recognizable as Heidi Klum’s on the catwalk. This film is making a statement. And it’s going to hit you over the head with it a little bit. Repeat viewings, however, will reveal that the artistry supporting this statement is fairly intact. And because the man behind Brick also scribed the upcoming The Brothers Bloom (starring Adrien Brody and Rachel Weisz), we can guess that he is not a one-trick pony.
I have yet to see Brothers Bloom, but I’m excited to see the next step in Rian Johnson’s repertoire. Bloom looks like a comedy, which already differentiates it from Brick. I suggest getting your hands on Brick before heading forward, get to know Rian a little. Embrace this journey, and you will feel artistically revitalized afterwards, I can almost guarantee it. You also may never want to watch She’s the Man again. It’s an unfortunate side effect of enlightenment.
This just in: Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience has underperformed. Expected to make in the area of $30 million, the 3D picture that thought it could has come in at just under $13 million. Now, since it has been heralded as a “concert experience,” I’m not sure if it really qualifies as a movie…but hearing about this sad, un-Miley-like box office implosion, I started wondering to myself: What happened to movies with teen themes? Can’t Hardly Wait…She’s All That…Boys and Girls. The American Pie franchise has been relegated to DVD reprisal, and last I heard, 10 Things I Hate About You is now in development to become a TV series…which seems weird.
Well, here’s what I think happened to movies primarily featuring teen storylines: they sucked. Oh, that might seem like a harsh conclusion—I watched and loved them all, I’ll admit—but what I really mean is that they cloned each other and subsequently became forgettable. That sucks. Road Trip is to Euro Trip what Hannah Montana is to The Brothers Jonas.
The teen films that stand the test of time, you’ll note, are the unique originals, the trailblazers. By nature of the field, however, it’s hard to get uber-original. How many ways can you show puberty reeling its slightly horny head before you’re hips-deep in pie again? Filmmakers must decide to veer off the beaten (get it?) path or risk Death by Duplication. Luckily, Rian Johnson’s wonderful little indie, Brick, has already beaten the seldom explored teen mystery genre—and challenged future noir mysteries in general. Brick, effectively, has blazed the trail, and left nothing but awed soot in its wake. Here’s how:
1.) Noir Factor: Brick is black, black, black, and that is so, so good. With a heavy nod to Polanski’s Chinatown, this film’s aesthetic intensity captivates. If for some reason, your TV speakers break but the image is working fine, know this: you could still watch and enjoy Brick. Can’t do that with Can’t Hardly Wait. With a focus on detective novels like The Maltese Falcon, first-time screenwriter Rian Johnson started his teen detective tale as a novella of sorts, where main character, Brendan, plays our Sam Spade. But in his evident devotion to the genre, Johnson ripped the American detective story in two, creating dual levels: the narrative level, where a “who dunnit?” is solved, and the thematic level, where we, the viewers, explore the effects of teen drug culture in American suburbia. The lens is his paintbrush, and the paint is dark, twisty and beautiful on the big screen canvas.
2.) JGL Factor. That would be Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Yeah, that kid from “Third Rock from the Sun.” You know, I first saw JGL (who I also like to refer to as “Hotness Walking”) in Holy Matrimony opposite Patricia Arquette when I was about 10 years old. I remember thinking to myself, “That kid will one day be Hotness Walking.” He was talented then, as a Hutterite on the verge of arranged marriage, and he has only grown. JGL is a man who rarely disappoints. I will see anything he’s in, because he chooses riveting work and plays his roles with mind-bending intensity. Yeah, even on “Third Rock from the Sun,” and again in that teen number, 10 Things I Hate About the Fact that 10 Things I Hate About You Might Become a TV Show (we can discuss that later). His body of work has been described as “acclaimed and underseen,” and you know what, Boston Herald, I agree with you. Because if Joseph Gordon-Levitt says he’s an alien, I believe him. He says he’s a nerd, I believe him. He says he’s mentally challenged, a prostitute, physically disabled or—in this case—a teenage detective out to avenge his missing girlfriend; I believe him. His presence alone will draw you in.
3.) Addictively indie. Much like this year’s Best Picture Oscar winner, Slumdog Millionaire (and many other movies, might I add) Brick tread a long path to the big screen. With Slumdog, Danny Boyle and his team achieved what others would never have attempted to try on $7 million. Originally penned in 1996, Brick took nearly ten years to hit the art house circuit, and that was after being whittled down to a $475,000 budget! They faked the special effects with a bit of creativity and edited the rest like mad. After all that, the writer still was able to work out a deal with Fox Searchlight, the distributor, and hence to this day, he offers his entire, annotated shooting script for anyone to read and download online. That’s right: “Free on the internet.” That is so indie, it’s like listening to Radiohead and Fleet Foxes at the same time. You gotta respect a filmmaker who honors the unspoken artist’s covenant: though shalt share thine art—at any cost.
4.) The name game. You know you’re really floating in a pool of noir once you encounter a character that goes by something like “Acey,” “Sonny” or by “The [Insert Noun]” in an already dark film. Well, Brick has “The Brain,” JGL’s partner in solving crime, and “The Pin,” our post-teen, bad guy extraordinaire. Five minutes in, and you’ll guess right away: Something’s up, and it ain’t what you thought. Though our lead is simply “Brendan,” the softness of that name defines him entirely: he’s in this for love, and love will put up a fight. Other character names do not disappoint, however. There’s also Tug (bad guy) and Dode (bad guy) and a slew of knick-names for outliers, like “Dangle” and “Flatfoot.” Between these names and the stylized, genre-loving dialogue, it’s almost hard to keep up with the plot. But don’t worry: this is a movie you’ll want to see twice, so just pick it up on the next viewing. Or read the script for free on the internet!
5.) Score. That is to say, the music tracks. Pays to have a multi-platinum record producer in the family. Brick’s writer, Rian, has that brother—his name is Aaron. But the music talent didn’t stop there. Rian’s cousin, Nathan, reined over this composition. Rumor (read: wikipedia) has it that Brick was scored mostly by way of iChat, i.e., Rian sent clips of his film-in-progress from Los Angeles to his cousin in New York, who scored on the go at the reduced, family rate. With further help from The Cinematic Underground, an indie (natch), alt-rock group, Brick’s score came together. The music in this film is telling and adds to the surreal nature of the action. Again, if your TV choked for a couple hours and all that worked was the sound—put the DVD in anyway. You’ll be alright.
Now some might say that Brick is a little over the top in its noir-ittude. The lingo, the name game, the score, the Hotness Walking…these are all elements that collectively strike a pose as recognizable as Heidi Klum’s on the catwalk. This film is making a statement. And it’s going to hit you over the head with it a little bit. Repeat viewings, however, will reveal that the artistry supporting this statement is fairly intact. And because the man behind Brick also scribed the upcoming The Brothers Bloom (starring Adrien Brody and Rachel Weisz), we can guess that he is not a one-trick pony.
I have yet to see Brothers Bloom, but I’m excited to see the next step in Rian Johnson’s repertoire. Bloom looks like a comedy, which already differentiates it from Brick. I suggest getting your hands on Brick before heading forward, get to know Rian a little. Embrace this journey, and you will feel artistically revitalized afterwards, I can almost guarantee it. You also may never want to watch She’s the Man again. It’s an unfortunate side effect of enlightenment.
jeudi 5 mars 2009
Girl's Best Friend: The Comic Book Superhero
**This article also appears on RopeofSilicon.com.**
Given the paragraph above, you should know that, if you're reading this, I already think highly of your girlfriend. And if I think highly of your girlfriend, then I'm automatically assuming she doesn't twitter away her days discussing nothing but the lighter side of Kate Hudson's film repertoire. A real girl likes real movies. Thus, if your girl really is so great as to deserve a movie date this weekend, she has probably already bought tickets to go see Watchmen. I don't say that because the reviews have been astounding (they haven't) or I've seen an advanced screening and pre-emptively approve it (I haven't); I say it because it's movie history, and any true lover of movies must be at least a little bit curious.
If the lady and you do have plans to see Watchmen, then...I can bet you already know a bit about it. If it's the lady herself who has requested the fanboy sojourn, however, you might do a bit of homework. Read about it here and there, and then ask yourself...what's the appeal? Is it the Historical Movie Moment Factor (TM), i.e., the fact that the most loved comic ever is hitting the big screen? Is it the 300-style, eye-popping graphics and special effects? Is it her not-so-secret Alan Moore obsession? Her slightly curious Billy Crudup obsession? Maybe. But it's also the curiosity wrought from seeing multiple masked women and men of mystery blow up the big screen. Ladies love the superhero.
Let me clarify: not all ladies love collecting material goods based on the superhero, repeatedly discussing the superhero, verbally admonishing the superhero, or in other ways treating the superhero as if he or she were a real person. But...ladies love the superhero.
That fantastically capable demi-god from comic book lore has gotten a lot of face-time recently. With The Dark Knight and Iron Man (and you can throw in the opening number with Hugh Jackman from last month's Academy Awards in lieu of the upcoming X-Men Origins: Wolverine), you might wonder what's left to see out there. Well, let's revisit recent comics-turned-movies that pump up the presence of the atypical superhero: the average guy wronged by life. In the event you want your weekend to go comic book-crazy, here are suggestions of a few adapted greats that any perfect girl would love to watch with you:
OLD BOY (2003)
Plot: After fifteen years in jail, a man embarks to avenge his wrongful imprisonment.
Pluses: He's not a superhero, but you do get to root for the underdog, watch some startling beat-downs, laugh, cry, cringe and be amazed for two full hours.
Minuses: "Laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone."
If she likes it, also consider: Sympathy for Lady Vengeance
GHOST WORLD (2001)
Plot: Two post-high school misfits pretend to befriend Steve Buscemi.
Pluses: Scarlett Johansson in one of a small number of roles in which she isn't attempting to break up a marriage.
Minuses: Few from my vantage point.
If she likes it, also consider: Napoleon Dynamite, who really could star in his own comic book.
AKIRA (1988)
Plot: A biker boy amped up by the government goes on a killing spree. Hijinks ensue.
Pluses: Oldie but a goodie. From start to finish, it's one blast of excitement after another.
Minuses: You might risk wetting your pants, which may threaten to wreck the mood.
If she likes it, also consider: Ghost in the Shell
AMERICAN SPLENDOR (2003)
Plot: The title says it, really. It's American life in all its splendid normalcy.
Pluses: Paul Giamatti plays our title character, Harvey Pekar, with splendor.
Minuses: It waxes a bit depressing (as does America).
If she likes it, also consider: Persepolis
PERSEPOLIS (2006)
Plot: Based on and drawn by the author of the graphic novels of the same name, this film tells the coming-of-age story of an Iranian girl during and after the Islamic Revolution.
Pluses: It's black and white hand animation, which looks really cool.
Minuses: Will remind you of the glaring fact you are not well-traveled, Bali aside.
If she likes it, also consider: Waltz with Bashir
SIN CITY (2005)
Plot: Basin City is a mess!
Pluses: Fabulously cast, stylistically slick, and with a kiss from Tarantino, visually compelling.
Minuses: Sets you up to expect a really cool sequel, which has yet to be delivered.
If she likes it, also consider: Not seeing The Spirit
X2: X-MEN UNITED (2003)
Plot: United they stand.
Pluses: Bryan Singer.
Minuses: X-men 3: The Last Stand
If she likes it, also consider: Watchmen!
There you have it, a small collection of comic books adapted to movies that are snuggle time-ready and girl-approved. Sure, a few are violent, but isn't life but A History of Violence? No matter your comic genre preference, do let me know if there are other flicks you would suggest!
If you manage to set the mood right via any of the films above, you might just go for broke and try to segue into a little Guitar Hero or Halo 3 to finish your evening. That is, if you didn't want to get any below the guitar action. Otherwise, put the lights down low and get ready to watch Neo-Tokyo explode.
She's the perfect girlfriend. She's funny, smart, complicated in a good way, and she looks better in your t-shirts than you do. Don't let that girl get away; treat her right. If you know she likes resort vacations, get that job you just lost back, because you can't fly to Bali in your Camry. If you know she likes movies, well then, lucky you--your job is half done: Here is your one-stop guide to discovering the only one of your girl’s best friends you're allowed to watch, touch and secretly love (and your chance to admit to the inner girl in you).
Given the paragraph above, you should know that, if you're reading this, I already think highly of your girlfriend. And if I think highly of your girlfriend, then I'm automatically assuming she doesn't twitter away her days discussing nothing but the lighter side of Kate Hudson's film repertoire. A real girl likes real movies. Thus, if your girl really is so great as to deserve a movie date this weekend, she has probably already bought tickets to go see Watchmen. I don't say that because the reviews have been astounding (they haven't) or I've seen an advanced screening and pre-emptively approve it (I haven't); I say it because it's movie history, and any true lover of movies must be at least a little bit curious.
If the lady and you do have plans to see Watchmen, then...I can bet you already know a bit about it. If it's the lady herself who has requested the fanboy sojourn, however, you might do a bit of homework. Read about it here and there, and then ask yourself...what's the appeal? Is it the Historical Movie Moment Factor (TM), i.e., the fact that the most loved comic ever is hitting the big screen? Is it the 300-style, eye-popping graphics and special effects? Is it her not-so-secret Alan Moore obsession? Her slightly curious Billy Crudup obsession? Maybe. But it's also the curiosity wrought from seeing multiple masked women and men of mystery blow up the big screen. Ladies love the superhero.
Let me clarify: not all ladies love collecting material goods based on the superhero, repeatedly discussing the superhero, verbally admonishing the superhero, or in other ways treating the superhero as if he or she were a real person. But...ladies love the superhero.
That fantastically capable demi-god from comic book lore has gotten a lot of face-time recently. With The Dark Knight and Iron Man (and you can throw in the opening number with Hugh Jackman from last month's Academy Awards in lieu of the upcoming X-Men Origins: Wolverine), you might wonder what's left to see out there. Well, let's revisit recent comics-turned-movies that pump up the presence of the atypical superhero: the average guy wronged by life. In the event you want your weekend to go comic book-crazy, here are suggestions of a few adapted greats that any perfect girl would love to watch with you:
OLD BOY (2003)
Plot: After fifteen years in jail, a man embarks to avenge his wrongful imprisonment.
Pluses: He's not a superhero, but you do get to root for the underdog, watch some startling beat-downs, laugh, cry, cringe and be amazed for two full hours.
Minuses: "Laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone."
If she likes it, also consider: Sympathy for Lady Vengeance
GHOST WORLD (2001)
Plot: Two post-high school misfits pretend to befriend Steve Buscemi.
Pluses: Scarlett Johansson in one of a small number of roles in which she isn't attempting to break up a marriage.
Minuses: Few from my vantage point.
If she likes it, also consider: Napoleon Dynamite, who really could star in his own comic book.
AKIRA (1988)
Plot: A biker boy amped up by the government goes on a killing spree. Hijinks ensue.
Pluses: Oldie but a goodie. From start to finish, it's one blast of excitement after another.
Minuses: You might risk wetting your pants, which may threaten to wreck the mood.
If she likes it, also consider: Ghost in the Shell
AMERICAN SPLENDOR (2003)
Plot: The title says it, really. It's American life in all its splendid normalcy.
Pluses: Paul Giamatti plays our title character, Harvey Pekar, with splendor.
Minuses: It waxes a bit depressing (as does America).
If she likes it, also consider: Persepolis
PERSEPOLIS (2006)
Plot: Based on and drawn by the author of the graphic novels of the same name, this film tells the coming-of-age story of an Iranian girl during and after the Islamic Revolution.
Pluses: It's black and white hand animation, which looks really cool.
Minuses: Will remind you of the glaring fact you are not well-traveled, Bali aside.
If she likes it, also consider: Waltz with Bashir
SIN CITY (2005)
Plot: Basin City is a mess!
Pluses: Fabulously cast, stylistically slick, and with a kiss from Tarantino, visually compelling.
Minuses: Sets you up to expect a really cool sequel, which has yet to be delivered.
If she likes it, also consider: Not seeing The Spirit
X2: X-MEN UNITED (2003)
Plot: United they stand.
Pluses: Bryan Singer.
Minuses: X-men 3: The Last Stand
If she likes it, also consider: Watchmen!
There you have it, a small collection of comic books adapted to movies that are snuggle time-ready and girl-approved. Sure, a few are violent, but isn't life but A History of Violence? No matter your comic genre preference, do let me know if there are other flicks you would suggest!
If you manage to set the mood right via any of the films above, you might just go for broke and try to segue into a little Guitar Hero or Halo 3 to finish your evening. That is, if you didn't want to get any below the guitar action. Otherwise, put the lights down low and get ready to watch Neo-Tokyo explode.
Slacking at the bit (rentals & remorse)
Lately, I've been perma-exhausted in the worst way, and I don't even know why. Maybe it's all the lack of sleep. But you know, I would sleep more if I wasn't so busy. I'd be less busy if I didn't have a job. In a crumbling economy, however, the ability to work isn't something over which one should openly fret. It's distasteful. Almost as distasteful as me consistently konking out on the couch while watching TV nearly every evening. What to do to cure this state of accidental-comatose...caffeine? Coffee does tend to make a day pass more quickly. So do movie rentals.
Last week was grand, saw a small number of great flicks. First up, however, I finally--finally--gave up my quest to watch SUPERSTAR. I've more or less seen the movie, in bits in pieces, over the last ten years of my life, but about a month ago, I decided I wanted to, at long last, watch the whole kit-n-kaboodle in one clean squat. Unfortunately...exhaustion swept in. I've tried watching SUPERSTAR, in the last month, about four times. I'm done trying. My tivo is done holding onto it, too. DELETE. I trust it's funny, and you know what? I got the gist. "Sexually nervous girl with a crush on the school dance-jock actually ends up falling for a misfit, stuttering bad boy." YAY.
I also begrudgingly deleted MR. WOODCOCK from my tivo bin (is there a name for that, really? bin? queue? menu? list? or just always, obligatorily "tivo," tout court?). Sorry, Sean William Scott. Billy Thornton. Susan Sarandon. I tried.
Now, onto what I actually did see.
In preparation for the super-fun of TAKEN, I had a hankering to watch some Liam Neeson. Caught the under-the-radar action-comedy GUN SHY (2000), which was quirky and satisfying. In it, Liam plays an undercover cop who witnesses a horrifying gangster coup while he's on duty and hence needs a bit of counseling to coax him to revisit his role as bad guy mediator. Co-stars Sandra Bullock, looking lovelier than usual, and Oliver Platt, playing a guy named Fulvio...which is neat. It was weird, a little unfocused, but witty, and it made for a nice character study.
GUN SHY
plot: A plea for gun control.
thought: When does Bullock get TAKEN?
in five: 3/5
shoot 'em up, wuss: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0171356/
Next up was another throw back: Steven Soderbergh's SEX, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE. I didn't realise how far back I was throwing, however--I'd actually been under the impression that SLV was rather recently released, though now I don't know why. The minute James Spader came on the screen, I was like, "Wait, what?" But I still was figuring it for late nineties--until I saw Peter Gallagher. Ok. He's aged well, but this was not Gallagher from "The OC." Clearly, I should have caught the time period from the shoulder pads on Andie MacDowell, but forgive me. Despite its 1989 release, the film feels incredibly modern. The dialogue in SLV is amazing, and the deliberate pacing drew me in remarkably--slow, without a hint of lassitude. Spader's character is not as "realised" as I would like, but I basically forgive it, thanks to the cohesion of every other moment.
SEX, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE
plot: Videotapes and lies about sex
thought: No, really, that's about it.
in five: 4/5
tape it: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098724/
Heading in a different direction, thematically (but in the same direction, temporally), I scaled back to 1988 next with BIG, the Tom Hanks starrer that I can't believe I haven't seen until now. It's adorable--and so is David Moscow, who plays Tom Hanks' character's childhood self, the young Josh. I just looked up Moscow to see where he's been all these years since (and what he looks like now, natch), because in BIG, he looked every bit like Kirk Cameron, and I seriously saw him and had a JGL-in-Holy-Matrimony moment...but I guess something went awry, because history has proven me wrong. The world hasn't seen much of Moscow since, well, NEWSIES and that short-lived but kinda funny show on the WB, "Zoe, Duncan, Jack & Jane." Well, at least the world finished off okay--we still got Tom Hanks.
BIG
plot: Boy wishes to be big!
thought: Has sex with a woman!
in five: 4/5
they grow up so fast: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094737/
So...in the title of this post, I also promised remorse. I was being melodramatic, perhaps. I do have a bit of remorse--I still haven't written about my visit to ONE SUNSET, where I enjoyed the chef's tasting menu and reached a moderate level of food bliss, nor have I talked about LITERATI CAFE, my new favorite lunch stop on the west side--close to work and delicious, both of which recommend it to my palate. Cheap soups, too. Furthermore, I have yet to discuss my thoughts on TAKEN (loved it), or start posting recipes, a dream I've been toying with for some time now. I cook more these days (thanks, Recession), and I like to experiment. Sometimes I pass...other times, I kinda fail. But listen, don't let anyone tell you not to try.
Voila, there it is, my remorse. I want to write these things, but not sure if I really will. REMORSE! Well, if I don't end up doing it, I've already (sort of) apologised here, so...deal with it, Cate Blanchett. We'll be in touch.
Last week was grand, saw a small number of great flicks. First up, however, I finally--finally--gave up my quest to watch SUPERSTAR. I've more or less seen the movie, in bits in pieces, over the last ten years of my life, but about a month ago, I decided I wanted to, at long last, watch the whole kit-n-kaboodle in one clean squat. Unfortunately...exhaustion swept in. I've tried watching SUPERSTAR, in the last month, about four times. I'm done trying. My tivo is done holding onto it, too. DELETE. I trust it's funny, and you know what? I got the gist. "Sexually nervous girl with a crush on the school dance-jock actually ends up falling for a misfit, stuttering bad boy." YAY.
I also begrudgingly deleted MR. WOODCOCK from my tivo bin (is there a name for that, really? bin? queue? menu? list? or just always, obligatorily "tivo," tout court?). Sorry, Sean William Scott. Billy Thornton. Susan Sarandon. I tried.
Now, onto what I actually did see.
In preparation for the super-fun of TAKEN, I had a hankering to watch some Liam Neeson. Caught the under-the-radar action-comedy GUN SHY (2000), which was quirky and satisfying. In it, Liam plays an undercover cop who witnesses a horrifying gangster coup while he's on duty and hence needs a bit of counseling to coax him to revisit his role as bad guy mediator. Co-stars Sandra Bullock, looking lovelier than usual, and Oliver Platt, playing a guy named Fulvio...which is neat. It was weird, a little unfocused, but witty, and it made for a nice character study.
GUN SHY
plot: A plea for gun control.
thought: When does Bullock get TAKEN?
in five: 3/5
shoot 'em up, wuss: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0171356/
Next up was another throw back: Steven Soderbergh's SEX, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE. I didn't realise how far back I was throwing, however--I'd actually been under the impression that SLV was rather recently released, though now I don't know why. The minute James Spader came on the screen, I was like, "Wait, what?" But I still was figuring it for late nineties--until I saw Peter Gallagher. Ok. He's aged well, but this was not Gallagher from "The OC." Clearly, I should have caught the time period from the shoulder pads on Andie MacDowell, but forgive me. Despite its 1989 release, the film feels incredibly modern. The dialogue in SLV is amazing, and the deliberate pacing drew me in remarkably--slow, without a hint of lassitude. Spader's character is not as "realised" as I would like, but I basically forgive it, thanks to the cohesion of every other moment.
SEX, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE
plot: Videotapes and lies about sex
thought: No, really, that's about it.
in five: 4/5
tape it: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098724/
Heading in a different direction, thematically (but in the same direction, temporally), I scaled back to 1988 next with BIG, the Tom Hanks starrer that I can't believe I haven't seen until now. It's adorable--and so is David Moscow, who plays Tom Hanks' character's childhood self, the young Josh. I just looked up Moscow to see where he's been all these years since (and what he looks like now, natch), because in BIG, he looked every bit like Kirk Cameron, and I seriously saw him and had a JGL-in-Holy-Matrimony moment...but I guess something went awry, because history has proven me wrong. The world hasn't seen much of Moscow since, well, NEWSIES and that short-lived but kinda funny show on the WB, "Zoe, Duncan, Jack & Jane." Well, at least the world finished off okay--we still got Tom Hanks.
BIG
plot: Boy wishes to be big!
thought: Has sex with a woman!
in five: 4/5
they grow up so fast: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094737/
So...in the title of this post, I also promised remorse. I was being melodramatic, perhaps. I do have a bit of remorse--I still haven't written about my visit to ONE SUNSET, where I enjoyed the chef's tasting menu and reached a moderate level of food bliss, nor have I talked about LITERATI CAFE, my new favorite lunch stop on the west side--close to work and delicious, both of which recommend it to my palate. Cheap soups, too. Furthermore, I have yet to discuss my thoughts on TAKEN (loved it), or start posting recipes, a dream I've been toying with for some time now. I cook more these days (thanks, Recession), and I like to experiment. Sometimes I pass...other times, I kinda fail. But listen, don't let anyone tell you not to try.
Voila, there it is, my remorse. I want to write these things, but not sure if I really will. REMORSE! Well, if I don't end up doing it, I've already (sort of) apologised here, so...deal with it, Cate Blanchett. We'll be in touch.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
