Girl Talk Thursday - Who's Your Romance?

I went through a brief phase towards the end of high school when I could just not get enough of the romance novels. I don’t know how many I must have read but it’s not like they take that long to get through. In a good week I would easily get through several. I started covertly, sneaking them off of my mom’s shelf, but soon enough I was just reading them out there in the open. Not really sure what got me started and I’m even less sure of why I stopped.

I’ll still occasionally grab a romance off of my shelf or pick up a new one in the store but I have to be honest here, I can’t remember the last time I actually finished one. Maybe it’s an age thing or something but now I find the plots and frequently the characters to be boring, cliché, and sometimes even annoying. The last one I tried to read spent so much time telling me the heroine and hero were so “smart” and “intelligent” and “brilliant” all while they were running around acting like big idiots. I wasn’t convinced.

ANYWAY.

As a reader, I’ve definitely imagined myself as a character in the novels I’ve read. I think if I were to star in my own romance I would definitely want to be in one of the historical ones set in London. Beautiful dresses, elaborate parties, shenanigans unacceptable by society’s standards. There would be none of that damsel in distress nonsense, no contrived plots for me. I might be the debutante on the sidelines, a little too smart and bored to really take part. My leading man would possibly be tall, dark, and handsome (I’m allowed at least one cliché, right?) and would notice how awesome I was. There’d be some friction because we would be both be a little too disillusioned for our own goods but eventually it would work out. I guess it would end with babies?

OR.

If I go back to the sort of scenarios I used to imagine myself in before I even picked up a romance novel, I would definitely be the awesome heroine in the action/adventure plot. The female equivalent of Robin Hood, the good witch in the woods who made that amazing potion, maybe even captain of the pirate ship! I’ve noticed I’m not the first lady participating this week whose romance novel character fantasies involve some combination of swords, kicking ass, and pants.

Makes sense to me! Why should we have to be relegated to the role of dress wearing, bosom heaving, corset enclosed, helpless woman who needs a man to come to her rescue? F’ that! I will cut you just as soon as kiss you!

Not that I want my hero to be weak or even in need of saving himself. Ideally we’d be going up against the villain together, we’d need each other to succeed. We would both be strong, capable people who work better together than individually.

And we would have some great sex.

So I think my plot would go something like this. I’m a girl/princess/lady/whatever who lives in some sort of castle or village. I somehow stumble across this truly heinous plot by the evil villain and this sets off a string of events leading me out into the wide world on a quest to retrieve some object or save some other person. Along the way I’d meet and team up with my hero and maybe a couple of other supporting characters. We’d all distrust each other at first but over the course of adventures and various life saving we’d form a deep bond and eventually realize we were in love. The quest would continue, something crazy and epic would happen possibly involving various gods of different cultures, and in the end we would vanquish the villain together.

The love part wouldn’t be easy though. He would definitely be the dangerous type and the story would be fraught with sexual tension before any sort of consummation ever occurred. Maybe there wouldn’t even be any consummation! Unfulfilled desire is hot. There would definitely be lots of close whispering in corners, smoldering stares, that sort of thing.

So maybe we would have some great sex. Maybe not.

I think that more or less covers it. I love the quest idea. If I lived in another magical time period I would definitely go on a quest. I think that would cover more of my romance novel than the lovin does. Maybe that’s why I’m not such a fan of romance novels anymore. Love always has to be the center of the story and the character’s lives. In my real life I don’t really want that, my fantasy life isn’t much different.

In Which She Gets On Topic

For a blog ostensibly about film, I sure haven't talked about movies nearly enough lately. Which is ridiculous as there are actually quite a few around right now worth seeing.

Normally the summer months are the domain of blockbusters. Last year I was all about gettin me some Iron Man action. This summer however nothing on the large scale really appealed to me. Transformers 2? GI Joe? No thank you. Sure, Star Trek was great fun but Wolverine was beyond boring and please don't get me started on Terminator. Infuriating.

Luckily, there has not been a dearth of quality in the theaters. It's just not to be found in the large budget affairs. This summer, the films that are most worth seeing are the little guys.

So far, these have been my three favorites. I kind of want to see them all again. Depending on where you live, you should still be able to catch them.

(500) Days of Summer

I loved, loved, loved this movie. I am not really a romantic comedy kind of girl, even if I did go see The Ugly Truth, but 500 days is not your typical romantic comedy. It's more accurate to focus on the comedy part, rather than the romance. It is a love story but it's not the love story you might expect it to be. (500) Days is a whimsical look at the difficulties of love and dating. It's upbeat and mostly nice but it's also relateable. At least for me, a single 20 something in LA, it was.

Plus, how can you not love a movie with two leads as cute as these guys are?

Hurt Locker

Hurt Locker is wonderful. I'm not sure I really need to see another movie about this war. The word that came to mind immediately as the credits started to roll was "intense" and it's a word I've heard many people use to describe this particular film going experience. I was at the edge of my seat, quite literally, the entire film. While there were some moments I found to be a little silly, this movie has so much going for it I'm willing to forgive them. The performances in particular stand out, Jeremy Renner really nails it as Sgt. James and the rest of the cast is solid as well. I can't recommend Hurt Locker enough.

District 9

Neill Blomkamp's sci fi flick about aliens in South Africa proves that a large budget is not always necessary, or even always desirable, for a special effects heavy action story. This movie has it all: monsters, explosions, gun fights, blood, space ships. Occasionally ridiculous, for the most part wonderful, it was all accomplished on a budget that is tiny compared to the standard $100+ million for all of the usual summer nonsense. Sure, the veiled digs at apartheid and racism are rather thin but seeing a story told from such a different perspective is a refreshing treat. I also enjoy how Blomkamp manages to integrate the faux-documentary approach into the narrative without getting carried away ala Cloverfield. District 9 is a must for any sci fi or action fans. It's a rare thing, an action movie that actually focuses on character and story telling. What a concept!



These certainly aren't the only movies out now worth seeing. Harry Potter was great for the HP fans, Julie and Julia is passable but Meryl Streep is phenomenal as always, and, hmm... what else? Drag Me To Hell is wonderful but you probably won't find that playing anymore.

I'm a bit behind on others. I never did make it to Paper Hearts or Away We Go. Ponyo and Inglorious Basterds I also still need to get to.

What else is out there? What am I missing?

Review: Clueless

When Amy Heckerling’s brilliant teen version of Emma hit the big screens back in 1995, I was still in middle school. I remember being utterly fascinated by the vision of teenaged California beauty that was laid before me. Was that what high school was going to be like? Plaid skirts and cell phones, cool cars and parties, romance and fun? I especially liked the idea of the plaid skirts. And that really cool computer program Cher had to help her dress herself in the morning (I still wish I had something like that!). Alas, reality is not nearly as glamorous. I didn’t get a cell phone until I went to college.

Luckily for Clueless, it doesn’t need a firm base in reality to work. It’s a fantasy that is layered, nuanced, and intelligent. Based on Jane Austen’s Emma, Clueless is about Beverly Hills princess Cher and her group of upper crust friends. Cher and best friend Dionne are the two most popular girls in the school. The film follows their exploits, everything from creating romance between two cranky teachers to making over the new girl in school. There are parties, charities, classes, shopping, romance, debate… and very little homework.

Cher is a sixteen-year-old beauty queen who lives with her father in their palatial Beverly Hills mansion. After Cher and Dionne decide to try their hands at matchmaking and make-overs, Cher naturally must learn that her friends are actually all quite good as they are. Roles switch, Cher realizes she’s in love, and after attempting to make herself over, there’s a happy ending. The lesson in the end is to accept people as they are. And that possibly love is closer at hand than one may initially think.

Clueless after all is a teen comedy, there’s always a happy ending. While it occasionally brushes on touchier topics, it doesn’t try to be any more serious than that. The biggest issue it deals with is virginity and when the right time to lose it might be. Good one-liners, plenty of entertaining bits, and fun characters all come together to give us a charming and infinitely watchable movie.

The cast includes Alicia Silverstone as Cher, Stacy Dash, Brittany Murphy, Donald Faison, Breckin Meyer, Jeremy Sisto, Wallace Shawn, and Paul Rudd as Cher’s love interest (and step-brother) Josh. Everyone in the ensemble does a great job but Silverstone definitely stands out. She’s perfect as Cher, the right mix of ditz, charm, and occasional, surprising insight.

Clueless is more than just another brainless teen movie. It set the bar in the nineties and many of the teen movies that followed borrow heavily from it. Despite its Beverly Hills surface, Clueless has a script that is full of comedic wit and charm. It hits the right combination of satire and sincerity.

I’m always a fan of a story that features a likeable female protagonist. While Cher is perfectly capable of being incredibly silly, ultimately her concern for others and a desire to do good for her friends wins out.

In the years since it’s release it’s since been followed up by a string of other successful teen movies featuring female protagonists including Mean Girls and Ten Things I Hate About You (another adaptation). It’s also Heckerling’s second foray into the teen genre, her first being the favorite Fast Times At Ridgemont High.

Of course, having been released over a decade ago it’s natural to wonder how Clueless holds up. I think the nostalgia it induces works in its favor. The soundtrack is poppy, the wardrobe is very ‘90s, but the tunes and threads bring back good memories rather than feel dated. Ultimately the story is one that continues to work, no matter how much time has gone by.

Clueless is ultimately a movie for girls that the boys can still get a laugh out of. It’s a nice change of pace from the normal testosterone infused fair offered at the Cineplex. Even though I’ve long since graduated from middle school, it still remains one of my favorite teen flicks. It’s perfect for a lazy afternoon in or a girl’s night with your friends.

There are currently several DVD options available. The standard, no frills edition that is pretty bare on the special features was the first released. That's since been discontinued as a new edition (the Special Whatever! edition) was released in 2005. It includes a number of features that does the movie much more justice. Definitely worth the less than $15 price tag.

Thoughts: My Weekend in Film 12/1

Hi! I hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving. I drove out to Phoenix for the holiday to spend some time with my family. It was nice minus the six hour return drive that took nine hours. There was food, I cooked, my grandmother was in town from Florida, I didn't have to work, I slept. The family drove up to Sedona for an afternoon and I enjoyed the lovely scenery. Of course I forgot my camera and failed to take pictures. Oops. The drive was tiring but it's always nice to be with family on the holidays.

My brain is a bit sluggish at the moment, still slow from the Holiday or something. Bear with me.

Thursday:

After delicious food (turkey for the family, homemade veggie pot pie for myself), wine, and pie, we all settled on the couch and chilled out while we digested.



Fox Movie Channel was running a Planet of the Apes marathon and we ended up watching the original Planet of the Apes.

It's really been a while since I've seen it. In fact, I think Tim Burton's version was actually the last Ape movie I'd seen (I am NOT a fan). I do still enjoy the original. They take themselves so seriously. And of course I remember the first time I saw the ending, and how I really was shocked. I actually watched the movie before I was old enough to have had the ending spoiled for me. So I had no idea that the twist was coming.

One thing about watching movies like this with my family though. Especially with my dad. He never "remembers" anything (which is just silly, he remembers plenty but likes to play like he's forgotten). So of course we're sitting there watching, he wanders off for the last five minutes and then comes back and asks "What happened? Where are they?" My mom says "Come on, you remember Planet of the Apes!" Which of course he does. "Oh yeah, that's what happened, right?" as he lists off all of the major plot points of the last half hour.

Yes dad, yes it was.

Normal banter in my house. Oh family.

Friday PM:

I guess I must be insane because I actually agreed to go to the mall on Friday. It was kind of terrifying. I'm excited that I once again own pants that fit me (I have an issue with that. All of my pants seem to have gotten to be too large for me in the last year). I also finally bought a new pair of sneakers. I should perhaps try and do that more frequently than once every two years.

I did manage to survive the rabid hordes and eventually made it home to the safety of my living room. After Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune and time reading Neil Gaiman's The Graveyard Book, everyone kind of wandered off and I had the TV to myself. Ovation TV was running Andy Warhol themed programming all weekend and I decided to watch I Shot Andy Warhol.



I haven't watched the film since college (I watched it as part of a Women In Film retrospective type thing). I remembered liking Lili Taylor in it a lot, being somewhat shocked by certain parts of it, and just enjoying it as it fed into my fascination with Andy Warhol and that period in NYC.

I still find that scene intriguing. The people and personalities involved, the art and music and film, the lifestyle. I wish I could have seen The Factory, been a part of that at least peripherally. Or maybe not The Factory exactly. But that sort of creative scene.

Anyway. I Shot Andy Warhol is cool.

Saturday PM:

Australia. I had to see it. I'm a fan of Baz Luhrmann, I like romance and daring and adventure, I think Australia is a pretty neat looking place.



Watching the film, I couldn't help but be reminded of many, many other movies. Walkabout comes to mind almost immediately (for reasons beyond the obvious shared location) but it's not the only one. Throughout Lurhmann reminds us of old Hollywood, the Westerns, the War Epics, the Love Affairs. I'm a sucker for that sort of thing.

The reviews on this one seem to be split and I feel like it's definitely one of those love it or hate it films. I loved it.

Doesn't hurt that Hugh Jackman looks AMAZING. I finally understand his being named Sexiest Man of the Year. Indeed. Also, that kiss between

What really stood out for me though was Brandon Walters. Walters plays Nullah, the half white, half aboriginal child whose fate much of the plot revolves around. Walters is incredible. His performance is definitely something special.

Sunday:

Before embarking on what would turn out to be one of the worst drives ever, I ate delicious apple pancakes. And then I watched Joe Wright's adaptation of Pride & Prejudice. Wright also directed last year's Atonement and the upcoming (eventually) The Soloist.



Atonement is ok, it's one of those movies that I liked less the more I thought about it, but I still really enjoy Pride & Prejudice. I like Keira Knightly as Lizzie Bennett (and everyone else as the rest of the Bennetts). Pride & Prejudice is one of my favorite books, it's such a great story with fabulous characters, and I enjoy the different adaptations of it. It's true though that Matthew Macfadyen is no Colin Firth. I still think Firth's Mr. Darcy is better.

I also wish Wickham had had a bigger role in this film. I felt like that subplot wasn't given enough time to develop. However, considering the film is all ready hitting two hours as it is, I suppose something had to be cut.

That's the hard thing about seeing a book you love adapted into a film. Something usually has to go but as a reader you're loathe to give anything up. It's always an interesting question, is the movie a good film or a good adaptation? Sometimes it's one, sometimes the other, and every once in a while it actually manages to be both.

Pride & Prejudice is a good movie, a decent adaptation, and a fair amount of fun.

On The Slate:

Friday Night Lights. The TV show. Seasons 1 & 2. I'm excited.

Play Misty For Me and Day for Night, both in from Netflix.

And maybe some James Bond although at this point I'm beginning to lose hope. So sad!

Thoughts: My Weekend in Film 11/17

I may not have made it to Quantum of Solace (boo!) but the weekend wasn't a complete waste. Now that my work schedule is falling into the realm of reasonable I feel like I'm actually catching up on everything life related. Including movie watching.

Friday PM:

I nixed my Quantum of Solace plans after I didn't finish work until around nine or so. I mean, I know that's obviously still early enough to catch a movie. I was just tired! Give me a break, okay?

I did manage to make it home for Pizza and Beer night though. We had a "Make your own pizza" night which was pretty rad. So fresh made pizza, seasonal beer, and a little Shakespeare in Love. Not too bad, I think.



Shakespeare in Love is one of those movies that I saw, I liked a lot, and then I kind of forgot about. Watching it again (for the first time in years) I can understand how that happened. With a screenplay by the fabulous Tom Stoppard I probably don't need to say that I love the writing. But I do! Otherwise, the film is well done, I enjoy it, but eh. It's not an earth shattering film experience. I might even go so far as to say it's a very safe movie. It's light and feel good and really, there's nothing wrong with that. I enjoy it. I'll probably enjoy it again the next time I watch five years from now. But it's not really something I need to own.

Saturday Afternoon:

I actually managed to wake up at a decent time and spent my day Saturday out and about. I rode my bike through the Marina, ran some errands, finally got my hair cut, hung out by the pool, had Pinkberry for only the second time ever, rode out to the beach for the sunset. Other than the smoke in the air giving me a headache, it was a great afternoon.

A quick note about the fires. It's crazy out here. The air is awful, as in it's actually full of ash. All of our thoughts are with the people being directly effected by these fires. It's pretty horrible. It's so bad that the news is actually reporting on it (rather than just sensationalizing it, as Wil Wheaton pointed out in his Twitter the other day).

After inhaling more smoke than was good for my head, I went home with a vague headache and the desire to just crash on the couch and watch something interesting on TV for a while. Luckily TCM was more than happy to oblige.



As part of their "Essentials" series they were showing Stanley Kubrick's 1957 film Path's of Glory. While I definitely consider myself a Kubrick fan, I have to admit that this particular film had managed to escape me. I'm glad I've finally scene it.

What struck me most about it, is Kubrick's use of the frame. The cinematography is fantastic and the contrast between the different locations is great. The close claustrophobia of battle, the open luxury of the commanders's quarters. Also, the mise-en-scene with the use of lines, the movement of soldiers in the foreground and background. This is the kind of movie I just want to watch over and over in order to really absorb everything that's happening visually.

Say what you will about Kubrick, be a fan or not, it's hard to deny that his reputation has been earned. Especially when you watch his early films.

Sunday PM:

I was supposed to go see the B-52's last night (roommate J scored some tickets) but my head was still killing me and leaving the house was the last thing I wanted to do. So instead I took a long shower, put on some comfy pajamas, and popped in Factory Girl.



I had added Factory Girl to my Netflix ages ago but finally just got around to watching it. I hadn't heard much about it from the critics but it came highly recommended from a friend. And given my slight obsession with all things New York City in the 60's, I was inclined to give it a go.

The verdict? It looks cool... It's the story of Edie Sedgwick, a sensational story on it's own, depicted in a shallow, disappointing manner. She's such a fabulous character, her story could have been told so much better! There really was no need to take the liberties that they took. Anyway, the movie isn't Horrible, it's just not great. What it does have going for it: Sienna Miller who looks great as Edie and, I never thought I would ever say this, Hayden Christiansen. Seriously, I think this is the only time I've ever liked the guy. While I know there have certainly been better Bob Dylans, Christiansen managed to really make it work for me (keep in mind that his character isn't really just Dylan, he's credited as "The Musician" and is supposedly a mix of several people Edie was involved with after her days at The Factory). Maybe it was the chemistry between him and Miller. Maybe his bad acting just really suits Dylan's personality. I don't know. Either way, the scenes with him and Miller were all my favorite.

And that was pretty much my weekend. The rest was dedicated to sleeping and being social and cleaning my room. I feel accomplished for once.

On The Slate:

Quantum of Solace. I promise this time!!!

JCVD - Maybe. Am I really admitting that I want to see this? HA!

Tropic Thunder and Wall-E both come out on DVD tomorrow and you can bet I'm going to be at the Best Buy tomorrow night buying them both. They were easily two of my favorite movies of the year so far and I want them!!! Plus I hear the DVD's are going to be really cool.

Beyond that, whatever I end up getting from Netflix. Right now I'm leaning towards 8 1/2 and Lust, Caution. But we'll see.

Review: Sex In The City: The Movie

Before I get into this review I’m just going to come out and say it. I hated the movie. Completely, flat out, hated it. Looking around at other reviews I can see that while I’m not alone I am in the minority. I guess my point is that while I hated it, you may very well love it. So read on or don’t, enjoy it or don’t, maybe I just didn’t get it.

It’s not that I’m not a fan of the show (if you've read this blog, you know otherwise). I’ll admit that I haven’t seen every episode but I do watch it on a regular basis, have watched it for years, and I enjoy it. Yes I think it’s silly and shallow and I really never have understood SJP’s wardrobe. But it’s fun escapist television about women having sex in a city that I love. I can turn my brain off for a while and go with it.

It’s also not that my expectations were too high. Honestly, they were pretty low. All I was looking for was a fun movie about characters that I like and know.

That’s not what I feel like I got. I feel cheated.

Almost immediately I was thrown for a loop. The lights went down, the picture came up, the familiar music started to play… and then… Fergie? Uh. Huh? Where is the rest of our theme song? Where is Carrie in her tutu?

Granted, it is four years later. A lot can change in four years. Carrie and Big are still together! And they’re happy! Miranda is a workaholic, Steve is trying his best, and Brady is still adorable. Charlotte and Harry have adopted their beautiful Lily and are living their fairytale life. Samantha and Smith are out in LA (Really? Samantha left NYC? The sex really must be good!).

That’s our status quo. I don’t really want to say much more than that because I don’t want to spoil anything for those of you who have been kind enough to keep reading. So with that in mind I won’t say anything more about the plot points and I’ll instead tell you what this movie did (or didn’t do) to earn my absolute loathing.

First of all, spoilers aside, the plot is awful. Rather than any reasonably developing progression where point A follows point B, where we see a cause and effect, instead I feel like we are given a scenario where This happens and then This happens and so on and so forth. Nothing feels motivated by what precedes it in the film, let alone the six years of television history. There is the occasional reference to something we remember happening, the occasional name-dropping (remember that guy Aidan?), That’s pretty much as far as it goes.

In fairness to the story, they do try to give us something for everyone. Each of the girls is featured at some point.

Honestly though, I hate what they do with Carrie. She is so passive for the entire film. I feel like her character is completely lost, she has no voice. I’ve always thought Carrie was silly but she was silly in her own special way. In the movie she isn’t just depressed; she is silenced.

As for everyone else… Miranda is an uber- (word that is censored). She is beyond the tough lawyer I occasionally roll my eyes at but like in general. She is uncompromising and unlikable. It is her character taken to a simplified extreme that loses any of the minimal complexity she was originally given. What made her an interesting, empowered female character in the series is completely taken away and instead we’re given an insulting version of what is in store for any female who decides to attempt a challenging career in addition to a family.

Charlotte… poor Charlotte. She isn’t so much a human being as she is a shrieking doll. Did Charlotte do anything other than screech? In a rare self-aware moment, Miranda is given a line commenting on Charlotte’s screeching. That doesn’t excuse it! Then that whole thing with Charlotte in Mexico? Really? Give me a break.

As for Samantha. Meh, I honestly don’t have much to say about the roll she and Smith are given. It’s more like our lovely writer said “Hey, here’s who they were in the series, let’s just do the same thing with them we’ve done a million times before. And Samantha can adopt a puppy. No one will notice that we completely throw away these characters if there is a cute humping puppy involved!” The puppy humps more than Samantha does. I’m not kidding.

The one new character Louis (played by Jennifer Hudson) is an improvement and welcome break from everyone else but that is saying next to nothing.

I could go on at this point about Steve and Big and the gay boys and others. I think you get my point though. Yes, we see almost everyone we cared about. Yes, they are doing the same wacky things. That’s it though; there is no depth. There is nothing to them. They never come alive. The fault may be with the actors but based on David Eigenberg’s and even Chris Noth’s performances, my opinion is just that the script and the direction failed. Completely.

Where is the wittiness? Where are the clever lines? Comebacks? Commentary? A cute line or two that we've all ready seen in the trailers. A joke about Vogue airbrushing and a surprising reference to Diane Arbus. A vulnerable moment with Charlotte, an actually convincing moment with Steve. Occasionally the heart of Sex in the City shows through. Unfortunately these moments are rare and the film is bogged down with clichés, bad jokes, gross out humor, and a plot that is never developed but instead thrown at us.

Sometimes a movie adapted from a television show runs the risk of seeming like an overly long episode. For Sex in the City, that scenario would have been a welcome improvement.

When it comes down to it, this movie is insulting. Samantha has to call Miranda out on an overgrowth of a certain type of hair? Everyone has to call Samantha out on gaining, what, five pounds? The only things that matter are weddings, babies, and expensive accessories? Is that really all we’re supposed to care about?

Say what you will about the show, but I never felt as angry or insulted watching it as I did almost every minute of this movie. I wanted to like it. I really, really did. I knew it wasn’t going to be great but I would have been happy with fun. Instead, the only thing that made me want to cry was the fact that I spent over ten dollars ton the ticket price.

I really hope for your sake that you avoid this absolute mess of storytelling and waste of time. Or that if you must go see it, and I can understand if that might be the case, that you get more enjoyment out of it than I did.

As it is, I will never willingly watch this movie again and it’s going to be a very long time before I’ll be able to stomach any more Sex in the City. If everything else wasn’t enough to make me angry, that right there is.

Goodbye Sex and the City. It was fun while it lasted but, alas, it was apparently never meant to be. Thank you Michael Patrick King. You’ve effectively ruined a decade of pop culture entertainment in two hours and twenty-five minutes. If that was your goal, couldn’t you have at least spared me that last half hour? For a few minutes I thought about giving you two stars. And then I remembered that last half hour. I’m taking a star back.

Sex in the City: The Movie. One very generous star. I’m not convinced you deserve even that.

Thoughts: My Weekend in Film 4/21

So with Birthdays and Passovers and other life things, my weekend was once again uneventful in the film world. What did I do?

Friday PM:



Sex in the City! I know, I'm such a girl.

I actually have not seen much Sex and the City in the original, HBO form. I don't have HBO and haven't had it for years. So I watch a lot of the syndicated, edited episodes. I enjoy the show, it's fun, but I have a feeling I'll like the HBO uncut versions better.

My roommate on the other hand is a huge fan. She has the DVDs somewhere (not in our house or I would have watched them), is excited for the movie, etc. Most of my Sex in the City watching is due to her putting it on.

Not that I mind, like I said I enjoy the show. It's a nice little bit of escapism that I can relate to my Real Life even as I recognize the fantasy. While I don't necessarily think that my life should revolve around dating and I'm certainly not in a rush to settle down, I like talking about boys. I will probably always like talking about boys. And Sex in the City gives me exciting boy talking with out all of the mess and nonsense that accompanies it in Real Life.

I have enough Real Life. If I can have a couple of hours of fantasy on a Friday night... excellent.

Saturday late late PM/Sunday early early AM:

After a long day of cooking and eating and drinking wine (it was the first night of Passover) and hours of swinging on the neighbors hammock, it was time to come inside, thaw out, and catch a flick.

I flipped through my DVDs but honestly I was just too tired to commit to anything. So when I turned on the TV and TBS was playing A League of Their Own... good enough for me!



I grew up with baseball and still have a soft spot for this movie. Mostly for the baseball and because I'm a girl. Girls playing baseball? Awesome!

It's been a while since I'd last seen it and while I still enjoy it, not all of it holds up. A lot of the jokes just come off as cheesy. There is also more sap than I'm generally a fan of.

But there's baseball and that makes me smile. It's an easy, fun movie than I can lie on the couch and fall asleep to.

Sunday PM:



Again my day was filled with things other than film. By the time Sunday night rolled around I was ready for another easy watch. Sticking on the theme of a chick weekend, the roommate and I put on Little Women.

I feel much the same way about Little Women as I do about A League of Their Own. Not all of it holds up, there is an excess of cheese, but it focuses on interesting Women characters who manage to have more in their life than just romance and talk of romance. Almost an opposite of Sex and the City.

Another easy watch that is somewhat of a guilty pleasure.

And that was pretty much it. I may actually attempt to go to the theater sometime this week. It's been a while.

Still on the slate:

Once. With everything else that went on during the past week I never did make it to Once. It'll happen this week.

More Tudors. I got the second DVD from Netflix! Yay!

Maybe some other things. We'll see what happens.

Thoughts: Punch-Drunk Love

I love Paul Thomas Anderson. To the point being a little fangirl-ish. Normally I reserve my fangirl excitement for the cute faces of actors like Josh Hartnett or Johnny Depp. However, I occassionally get just as excited over someone working behind the scenes. The combination of Wong Kar Wei and Chris Doyle, for example.



PTA is by far my favorite of the moment. I loved There Will Be Blood with a fangirl's blindness. (What do you mean you liked No Country For Old Men Better????) I think Boogie Nights is utterly brilliant. And Magnolia? I may not ever completely understand the frogs but I still think it's genius.

With all of that, I've just now gotten around to seeing Punch-Drunk Love. Why the long wait? I have no idea. There are just so many movies out there that occasionally, or frequently, I don't come even close to seeing all of the ones I want to. Netflix helps but what I really need is more than 24 hours in a day.

Punch-Drunk Love is not my favorite PTA film. I think it's good, there are elements I think are great, but overall I found myself unable to fully connect with the story. The first half is incredibly slow and while Adam Sandler's performance is actually very good, I found the film lacking in humaness. I felt like I was being kept at a distance when I desperately wanted to be engaged.

As the story develops and more characters are introduced things improve. By the second half I was completely involved and very happily so. I think what really helped to crack the ice more than anything was Emily Watson. I think she's a great actress and she is beyond adorable in this movie. And while her wide eyes frequently convey a sense of childish wonder and innocence, she is capable of expressing an impressive range of emotion. I really feel like her performance in this film is spot on.

While this film is filled with the bits that I've come to look for in PTA's work, it's not his strongest film. Which I'm sure he all ready knows. However, with strong performances and visual style that grew on me as the film progressed, it's worth seeing. I don't think other fans of PTA will be disappointed.

Review: The Other Boleyn Girl

There is something seductive about the idea of two of cinema’s most striking leading ladies being featured in a sensuous, lush historical drama. The idea becomes even more enticing when you place a gentleman with dark, searching eyes between them. And just as different opinions on religion flow in out of fashion in the Tudor court, the historical drama itself has thrust itself into the forefront of our movie going conscience; the season is ripe for films like Focus Features’ The Other Boleyn Girl.

In this adaptation of Phillipa Gregory’s excellent novel, the forces of Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman are combined. They are cast as the Boleyn sisters, Johansson as the innocent, light Mary and Portman as the dark, dangerous Anne. Gregory’s story is one filled with seduction, greed, lust, betrayal, obedience, and, most significantly, ambition. She weaves together fact and fiction to tell a famous story from the outsider’s eyes. The eyes of the other Boleyn girl, the eyes of Mary.

While it’s true that Gregory does use a bit of literary license in her novel, she stays to true the overarching facts of history. She creates a story that is both entertaining and intriguing. A story that challenges the reader to take sides, to dare to judge the people involved, and then shows in the end how we are all merely, simply human.

Where the novel succeeds in it’s richness of detail, bringing to life the court of King Henry VIII, the film unfortunately fails. I mention the novel’s strengths to offer a counterpoint to the film’s weaknesses. Where Gregory plays with facts to enhance the story, the filmmakers change facts completely for a purpose that I could not fathom. Where Gregory gives us rich details that add depths and bring the reader’s imagination to life, the film is overblown, silly, and pretentious. Where Anne, Mary, and George Boleyn of Gregory’s imagination are siblings whose complicated relationships are at once believable and sympathetic, the film’s Boleyn’s are dense and unremarkable.

The film’s director Justin Chadwick and cinematographer Kieran McGuigan are able to paint a pretty picture but there is nothing of substance beyond it. Which in itself seems to miss the point of the story they are attempting to tell. I found the stylistic decisions to often be distracting. When your production design is as gorgeous as this film’s, I want to see it, I don’t want half of my frame obscured by some random foreground object, the other half out of focus.

However, I think the biggest fault is in the writing. I don’t understand the choice to open the film as they did, with King Henry visiting the Boleyn estate and having Anne thrown at him. It is one of many departures from both the novel and history and serves only to offer us a drawn out and completely unengaging representation of events. The entire first act is slow moving, fails to develop any of the characters, and left me not caring one bit about anyone.

The development of Anne and Mary gradually improves as the plot unfolds but this has more to do with the strength of the performances than anything else. At least by the end of the film I had a sense of who these two women were supposed to be, if nothing else.

What I really do fail to understand though is the reasoning behind all of the changes that are made. Having read Gregory’s novel I know that while long it is certainly an adaptable story. The film’s greatest flaw is its failure as this adaptation. Rather than focusing on one element, one protagonist (which sensibly should have been Mary since that’s whose story the novel tells) the film cannot make up its mind and as a result it is no one’s story. It becomes a string of plot points. A boring history lesson in which the history you’re learning is not even a history you can trust.

Which I suppose brings up questions such as what is a version of history that can be trusted? Since the storyteller easily manipulates truths, events come to mean whatever those relating them want them to mean, etc. And if I thought something like was what the filmmakers were trying to give us then, well, that could have been thought provoking at least. But I don’t think that is what they were trying to do and their point had about as much presence as Eric Bana’s King Henry (that is to say, not a lot).

The Other Boleyn Girl is another pretty face with absolutely nothing behind it. It loses its charms after first glance and never gives the viewer anything worthy of a second look. If historical drama is the fashion you crave, the novel is available in any major bookstore.

Review: Atonement

Originally posted at Epinions

Two figures stand by a fountain. A little girl watches from a window. What the girl thinks she sees only marginally corresponds with what actually occurs between the man and woman below. A little girl’s perception, a little girl’s imagination, a confusion, occasionally deliberate, of truth. This is what lies at the heart of Joe Wright’s Atonement.

Atonement is the second feature by director Joe Wright, his 2005 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice being his first. An adaptation of Ian McEwan’s novel, Atonement tells the story of writer Bryony Tallis, her sister Cecilia, and their gardener Robbie Turner. It’s a story of love, hurt, passion, and forgiveness: what the characters involved want, need, and ultimately fail to find.

The story begins in England on the cusp of World War I. Over the course of an evening lives are torn apart by a crime of lust and young Bryony’s purposely false accusation of guilt. As a result Robbie Turner is torn from his lover Cecilia. The story continues through the war four years later, telling the story of Cecilia and Robbie’s attempt to reclaim the life that was stolen from them and of Bryony’s attempt to make things right.

The narrative meanders throughout the course of the film, the story being told out of sequence and from different points of view. We see glimpses of the private lives of Robbie, Cecilia, and Bryony. But what is true and what is imagined? What version of events can we trust? How much is Bryony’s invention?

As a result of how the story is told you do have to pay attention. There are enough cues that I never found it so disorienting as to take me out of the film. In the end everything makes sense and any questions I was left with seem to be left unanswered for a reason. The idea is that if it’s not our story we can only know as much as we are told. If our narrator is unreliable then we can trust what they give us only so far. The idea of trust and ambiguity in a narrative is one that I find fascinating and films that explore that generally appeal to me. I enjoy being allowed to think and question, I like being challenged. Atonement succeeds in this sense.

Of course, while there are questions raised, enough is given that if you are more inclined to see a movie that is straightforward Atonement can still be perfectly enjoyable. While not completely linear, its narrative is not confusing. The visuals are lush and the acting is strong. Keira Knightly continues to impress and James McAvoy makes Robbie Turner such an incredibly sympathetic character that it is near impossible to not ache for him.

Saoirse Ronan is Bryony at 13 while Romola Garai comes in for the older 18-year-old Bryony. I personally prefer Garai’s older Bryony but Ronan is still solid. I think for me it may be more that Bryony is more complex character at 18 and therefore more sympathetic. Vanessa Redgrave also has a few minutes as Bryony at the end of her life and, interestingly, I found this elderly Bryony to be the least sympathetic of all. Where the child acts out of hurt and the young woman seeks to repair, the old woman has fallen back on the sins she committed at 13 and seems to have failed to grasp the lessons she should have learned.

Balancing the different view points expressed in Atonement is tricky at times and as a result the pacing is a bit off. It slows down in the middle which is unfortunate considering the slowest portion had the potential to be the most affecting. Where it could have added substantially to the emotional impact of the film, the problems with pacing instead detract from it. So while I felt sad as I watched the credits roll, my eyes remained dry.

I love Wright’s use of long, moving shots, how he deals with the passage of time, as well as his use of sound (most notably the use of the sound of a type writer in Atonement). I’m incredibly interested to see what Wright does with his next film, The Soloist.

Atonement is a good, almost excellent film. There are flaws for sure but it’s strengths make up for them. A beauty to watch, characters to care for, Atonement is a film definitely worth seeing.

Review: Bridges of Madison County

Originally posted atEpinions

By what definition does a romance become great? Is it the doomed fate of Romeo and Juliet or is it the triumphant happily ever after of Cinderella? We all go through life searching for that elusive great love. How often do any of us get to find it?

Bridges of Madison County is the story of a great, brief, love affair. Francesca Johnson and Robert Kincaid meet over a weekend in rural Madison County in 1965. Francesca lives a quiet farm life. Her husband has taken the children to the state fair for the weekend when Kincaid shows up. He is a photographer on assignment for National Geographic magazine and is there to photograph the famous bridges of Madison County. Francesca offers to help him find his way and as they spend more time together, the attraction between them grows.

The movie is filled with tender moments of hinted at desire, expressions of frustration, and acknowledgements that a relationship between them can never be. With all of that, I was honestly expecting something more. More tension, more sympathy, something more personal. As it is, the movie is good, really good; it’s just not great.

The talent behind the film is excellent though. Meryl Streep and Clint Eastwood are Francesca and Kincaid. Streep got quite a bit of attention for her performance (an Oscar nomination for Best Actress among other things) and rightly so. Her expression of emotions is powerful. Eastwood has a strong presence as always and the chemistry between them is certainly believable.

Eastwood directs and as much as I love Clint Eastwood I think that may be part of the problem. I love Eastwood for his westerns, for his films with a more male perspective. The viewpoint that works so well for something like Unforgiven does not give us the same insight that Bridges of Madison County would have benefited from.

I will say this though. It’s a beautiful film. Jack Green’s cinematography truly takes advantage of the rural setting. Combined with Eastwood’s direction, the warm images captured are definitely my favorite thing about the movie. It evokes a distinct feeling of nostalgia that makes me long for summer. It’s a feeling that fits the story perfectly.

While the visuals are its strength, the narrative structure is its greatest flaw. Adapted from the novel by Robert Waller, the story is told through the narrative device of a frame story. Which is just awful, especially the acting. Where Streep's performance is spot on, the acting of her grown children is forced and seems fit more for a TV movie than a Clint Eastwood epic. It was also frustrating how the frame would continually interrupt the flow of the narrative. We would be involved with Francesca and Kincaid, waiting anxiously for what was next, only to have the grown children thrust back into our focus. Their poor voice over narration would interrupt Streep and Eastwood’s dialogue and I would be taken completely out of the film.

So overall I guess what I feel towards the film can be best described as ambivalence. I enjoyed it, I’m glad I watched it, but I’m in no rush to see it again. I’m not going to force it upon my unsuspecting friends. Or at least, any more than I all ready have (my roommate watched with me). So for my recommendation I will say this: If you’re a fan of romance, Clint Eastwood, or Meryl Streep you should definitely see this film. It will be worth your time. Otherwise, I don’t think this is a must see.

The DVD is nothing to write home about. No real features or anything like that. Just the movie for your viewing pleasure.

Thoughts: Here On Earth

I hate this movie. Absolutely, completely, totally HATE this movie. Normally, it's not the type of movie I would bother with. I am not a fan of the melodramatic teen drama romances. But I took a chance on this one because of the cast. Leelee Sobiesky, Chris Klein, Josh Hartnett. Especially Josh Hartnett. Have I mentioned my Josh Hartnett obsession yet? I'm a little bit in love, have been since... The Faculty. High School. Some crushes die hard.

Anyway, I watched it for the cast. I really wish I hadn't.

What's so bad about it? The script. The acting (even good actors can give poor performances). The cheesy direction. The bad music. The lame plot. The fact that it just never makes me care. About any of it. And the melodramatic, overly emotional, ending.

It's all about making the audience cry, but why should we shed tears for people we don't care about?

Whatever. Don't watch it. Please.

Review: Knocked Up

Originally posted at Epinions



Knocked Up isn’t the sort of movie I will normally go see in the theater. It’s the sort I would normally wait to rent or wait for a friend to bring it over or maybe wait for it to show up on cable. 40 Year-Old Virgin was fun and all but not $10 (or more in certain places) worth of fun.

You know, occasionally, I can be wrong.

I did go see Knocked Up in the theater. In fact, I’ve seen it twice. It’s a movie that I thoroughly enjoy. It’s fun, it’s funny, it’s sweet, it’s moving. Sometimes it’s just plain wrong but it’s also down to earth and something that I think people can actually relate to. There are so many moments that make me think of my friends, situations they’ve been in, antics they’ve been up to. I’m not sure what that may say about myself and my friends but I like to think that it means Judd Apatow is somewhat in touch with reality.

Knocked Up is about Ben and Alison and the results of their drunken one night stand. Alison is a gorgeous blond who is working her way up in the entertainment news industry while Ben is an overweight stoner with about $100 to his name. From the title of the film the results of their one night are a given. It’s the journey they take over the next nine months that the film is concerned with. How do two people who are so different, headed in such different directions in life, reconcile themselves to a fate that has tied them together? Can they make it work? Is making it work enough?

Katherine Heigl and Seth Brogan star as Alison and Ben. They are joined by Leslie Mann and Paul Rudd as Alison’s sister Debbie and Debbie’s husband Pete; Jason Segel, Jay Baruchel, Jonah Hill, Martin Starr, and Charlyne Yi play Ben’s band of fellow stoners. Joanna Kerns, Harold Ramis, Alan Tudyk, and Kristen Wiig make appearances as well.

I really enjoyed all of the performances. Heigl and Brogan work well together, their chemistry is convincing and I believe in the relationship that slowly builds between them. It’s an awkward situation, to say the least, and I like the way that their characters work it out. I also enjoyed the supporting cast. Debbie and Pete create a great sub-plot that adds tension and conflict to not only their relationship but to Ben and Alison’s as well. As far as the stoners go, well, I may know a few people like that. They seemed fairly realistic to me.

As good as the acting in a film like this may be, what it really comes down to is the writing. And in that regard Knocked Up wins. As a comedy it kept me laughing through the entire film. The second time I watched it I still laughed the entire film. The jokes don’t get old, the movie is never boring. It’s a movie I can see myself buying and pulling out for a movie night with my friends, even when we’ve all seen it already.

My favorite part of the movie, two times through: The scene between Ben and Pete in the hotel room in Vegas. There really were a lot of chairs.

Knocked Up is a lot of fun. At a running time of just over two hours some people might get a little antsy but I don’t think it’s overly long. There aren’t any scenes that feel unnecessary. It’s all funny, it’s all well written, and it’s really all very likeable.

Thoughts: I Capture the Castle

I saw the trailer for this a while ago and thought it looked interesting so when I saw it in blockbuster I decided to rent it. It was ok. It's a love story, coming of age thing. Which is cool. It was just a bit too complicated I think. Or maybe it's just that my head hurts.

The scenery was nice. And I liked the actors. Yeah, I really think the plot was just a bit much. Everybody was in love with somebody but it wasn't the right somebody. Or they thought they were in love with somebody else. Or they were just being silly. I dunno. If I watch it when I feel better I may like it more, but I think I may leave it alone for now.

It's ok, it definitely has its funny parts, but you don't have to leave right this second to go find it, it's nothing vital.

Thoughts: Dirty Dancing

Chick flick? Yes. Cheesy? Yes. Do I care? Not at all.

I have seriously always loved this movie. I remember way back in the day when my mom and dad used to watch it, my mom thought I was too young so she wouldn't let me see it. I would sneak out to the living room and watch from where they didn't notice.

I know a lot of people don't really care for this movie, guys especially, but there's just something about it. At the risk of sounding cheesy myself, I think it's just magical. And hot. MmmmmmmHmmmm. Very, very hot. Now this is a sexy movie. And with that dancing, how could it not be? Man I wish I could move like that.

There's just so much more to it than most of the chicky, coming-of-age flicks we get now. I feel like this movie just got it, understood it, and really brought it to life, rather than just mimicking it. If that makes any sense at all. Maybe it's just the age I'm at or something. Or that I grew up with it. Or that I'm female. Whatever. I love this movie.

Thoughts: Chocolat

Yay for hanging out with the girls. Chocolat is such a great flick for a fun, chill evening. It's kind of like a chick flick, only much much better than that. I think it's pretty well done and I really enjoy the acting. Of course, Johnny Depp is in the movie, so I'm kind of partial. Oh, and that chocolate looks sooo good. This movie definitely makes me hungry. And makes me want to go to France. And makes me want to buy lots of chocolate. So yeah, I like this movie.