Thoughts on 5 Films

1. Lay the Favorite - So. Much. Awfulness. I don't even know where to begin.  With a respected director and a strong cast, I wasn't expecting it to be anywhere close to this bad.  I'll start with Rebecca Hall, since she is the "star" of the movie.  I first noticed Rebecca Hall in the movie, Starter For 10 (yes, I only watched that movie for James McAvoy).  A few years later, she stood out in Vicky Cristina Barcelona - which is hard to do considering her co-stars were Penelope Cruz and Scarlett Johansson.  Then, she was absolutely amazing in The Town.  So, you can say that I am definitely a fan of hers. However, this is one of the worst performances I've ever seen.  Her accent was so awkward, mixed with the very unsexy baby voice and incessant hair twirling, she became one of the most annoying characters of all time (I read that this movie is based on a true story and that these are characteristics of the actual woman it is based on. If that's true, then I guess, Rebecca did a great job at being the most annoying woman of all time).  She wasn't the only failed (?) performance, though - Laura Pepron made a fool out of herself with that Texas twang.  The plot of the movie mostly revolves around high stakes gambling, and could have been interesting if the focus weren't on this idiotic girl who "dreams" of being a cocktail waitress in Las Vegas.  No-one dreams of being a cocktail waitress in Vegas.  I'm not knocking the profession (and some of them make bank), I just think that's really a stepping stone for other things or some end up in it out of chance/coincidence and end up enjoying it. Her "dream" lands her as an assistant to a sports gambler, and she ends up finding something she's good at - even thought the film fails at convincing me that she is actually ever good at it.  Bruce Willis and Vince Vaughn are sort of interesting characters (that is, if your brain hasn't exploded from listening to the most annoying girl in the entire world. Ever.). But the only truly good thing about the movie is Pacey. He always makes me smile.

2. See Girl Run - Adam Scott and Robin Tunney?? I am in. I really miss Robin Tunney (I was a teenager in the 90's - The Craft, Empire Records, Niagara, Niagara...).  I realize that she's been in stuff, and apparently has been on the television show The Mentalist for years (I don't even know what that show is, but it's been on for at least 5 years. Weird.).  I saw this little indie movie listed on Netflix Instant, and I was immediately interested.  It seemed like something I would really like.  Unfortunately, it's really not that good. I enjoyed the beginning, the way it tricks you into making assumptions about each character.  It has a strong message about marriage and the loneliness that people suffer (even when they are in relationships).  The movie also has a strong message about exploring the "what ifs" in life, but then the ending is absolutely the worst.  I'm not sure I fully understood Adam Scott's character, other than he's obsessed with frogs.  It's weird and endearing.  There is something really off about their relationship; mostly because it seemed really immature.  I don't really get the "games" behind relationships. I'm really bad at playing them, because I'm too honest for my own good.  I don't understand what's wrong with just saying what you're thinking. Makes life so much easier for everyone. The whole plot wouldn't exist if everyone just communicated like mature adults. Also, on a side-note, Jeremy Strong reminds me of Giovanni Ribisi. I actually looked it up to see if they were related somehow.

3. Pain & Gain - Half of the reviews for this film fault it for its crassness and moral indecency in telling a story about true life criminals, while the other half praise it as Michael Bay's "best film", admiring it for the witty dialogue and black comedy storytelling (in fact, it's rated at exactly a 50% on Rotten Tomatoes).  I agree with both arguments.  It makes light of violent criminals, glorifies this violence on behalf of "the American Dream", and uses women as props.  It's also very funny and subversive in parts.  However, I don't watch Michael Bay films for the dialogue; I also don't expect a female character with even half of a brain.  The problem with Bay films are that he became so criticized for the things he does well (action scenes, explosions etc) that he became too much a of a parody of himself with his most recent movies.  However, you will never convince me that movies like Bad Boys, Transformers, and The Rock aren't pure entertainment.  I even enjoy both Armageddon and Pearl Harbor (to a very basic extent).  It's obvious from this movie that Bay is trying to convince us that he can do more, but I'd prefer if he just stuck to what he is good at (and the haters can fuck off.  I find the biggest Bay complainers are also the first ones in line to see his movies on opening day).  The cast did a good job in their roles - I love Anthony Mackie; He's sure to be a household name after his role as The Falcon in the next chapter of The Avengers.  I didn't hate The Rock, this is the first role I've seen him actually attempt "acting".  He didn't quite win me over, but I appreciate the effort.

4. Much Ado About Nothing - This is one of those movies in which, the more I think about it, the more I like it.  When it ended, I thought "that was a really sweet and cute adaption", but now I admire the simpleness of it and the strong directorial choices. Whedon kept the complicated Shakespearean dialogue, but everything else is stripped down. It's in black & white, the location is actually Whedon's house, and the cast speak the dialogue as if talking like that is second nature. Much Ado About Nothing is definitely one of Shakespeare's easiest plays, making it a perfect choice for a modern adaption - it's basically a bunch of people trying to trick two people into falling in love.  There is a "second" story as well, in which the "villain" tries to trick Claudio into thinking his fiance has cheated on him.  Both stories are intertwined and given equal weight within Whedon's version, keeping things interesting.  The cast are all from former Whedon movies  - Amy Acker, Alexis Denisof, Nathon Fillion, Fran Kranz, etc. and they have a very strong chemistry together. Everything about this movie, just works really well together.

5. After Earth - Not the worst movie of the year, but pretty damn close.  When you take into consideration how much money this movie cost to make, it's definitely the biggest "flop".  I can't defend it in any way.  There are two things that are horribly wrong with this movie. First, it felt very amateur.  If this were coming from a new director (who didn't have millions of dollars of technology in his hands), I wouldn't criticize it.  I'm not one to harp on camera angles, shots, etc but I did take many classes, as a film studies major, where I literally had to break down and analyze these things (over and over and over again).  Usually, when I am watching a movie, I focus on the story and the acting - and when there are beautiful shots, I take notice; otherwise, I overlook a lot of the technical stuff (making a movie is a ridiculously hard thing to do, I respect anyone who even tries).  However, when an established director uses drastic zoom in and out shots to create a sense of disorientation. it is distressingly bad (and no, I don't think that was an attempt at an ode to Hitchcock).  The second biggest problem is the star of the movie, Jaden Smith.  I've never seen him in anything, so I didn't realize how bad he is.  I don't know if that's his natural way of speaking, or if that was another bad directing choice - but his pronunciation of certain words drove me bonkers (the ones that stand out: effort was "effote", coward was "cowood" and sir was "suh" - if I didn't have the captions on, I don't think I would have understood half of what he said).  I feel bad, if that's the way he actually speaks, I would hate to criticize someone for a speech impediment, but I would argue that maybe acting isn't the best career choice (the pronunciation of words is kind of important).  There are a lot of other problematic elements of the movie - the plot doesn't make much sense (at night everything freezes, yet all of the animals are fine), aside from the "ursa", the kid never seems to be in that much danger - it has similar themes as The Happening (man vs nature), and I HATED The Happening.  Will Smith is stripped away of his natural charisma and given a robotic personality (why would anyone think that's a good idea?).  I was also sort of expecting a "Shyamalan twist", and I even thought of a few as I watched the movie (that would actually help the plot make sense), but instead we were given a very flat ending.  What a disaster.

3 Thoughts on Gravity

1. The experience - If you are questioning whether it is worth seeing in IMAX 3D, trust me, it is.  I'm not a fan of 3D (although I love IMAX), but Gravity uses this technology in a very subtle way. I actually forgot that I was watching a 3D movie, instead it felt like an interactive experience. I felt like I was part of the movie - alone and terrified, barely able to catch my breath.  It's not a perfect movie; the dialogue is stiff, the story is simple and the ending is predictably uplifting, but it's an intense and exhausting ride into space that you'll likely never forget.

2. Sandy & George - How do you create a movie in which there is no time for character development, yet you need the audience to care about the main characters within the first five minutes? You cast Sandra Bullock and George Clooney.   We don't need to know anything about them. They are Hollywood royalty, charming and charismatic to a fault.  It's clear even before watching the movie, that Sandra is the "star" - her performance is garnering a lot of attention and Oscar talks.  She did a fantastic job, but I've always been a fan of hers, so it's not a surprising performance for me, at all. Of course, I will have to mention how refreshing it is that an action/sci-fi movie features a strong and smart female lead.  Won't it be nice when that becomes "normal" and it won't even be worth mentioning?  In general terms, it's been thought that male audiences relate to male characters, while female audiences relate to both, which is why we are bombarded with male lead characters - it's nice to see the shift happening (this shift has been "happening" for well over 30 years, I would say since the introduction of Ripley and Sarah Connor). I'm not just talking about movies with female leads, which is also a nice shift, I'm referring to female lead roles that aren't "feminine".  Characters that don't use their sexuality at all during the course of the story (think Maya in Zero Dark Thirty, or Olivia from Fringe. It's worth noting that both of these characters have been criticized as being "boring").  In Gravity, Ryan has certain female traits (emotional, apologetic) but she has to overcome these traits in order to survive.  There is also a scene where she strips down into her underwear, yet instead of it being a sexual scene - it's raw and intimate.  Even, her name, "Ryan", is referred to as being the name given to her because her dad wanted a boy.  It felt like Cauron's way of saying "yah, you wanted a male character, but fuck you.".  I just noticed that I labeled this paragraph "Sandy & George" and then spent the entire paragraph talking about Sandy's character.  That's actually kind of awesome - so I'm going to keep it that way.

3. Horror story? - During the month of October, most film geeks spend their days watching horror movies, but I have to admit - it's not really a genre that interests me.  I love to be scared, but it's rare that a "traditional" horror movie scares me.  I can still enjoy some of them, but I'm more keen on movies that keep me up at night - that affect me psychologically.  Someone on twitter asked if Requiem For A Dream would qualify as a "horror" movie and I thought "hell, yes!" because that movie did serious damage to my sleeping pattern.  Gravity, to me, is a movie that gets in my head because it's about loneliness and the will to survive. There doesn't need to be aliens lurking in a spacecraft; instead there is NO ONE! As someone who prefers to be alone, you would think the thought of being trapped alone in space wouldn't be so terrifying but I would liken it to being buried alive (with a much better view).  This movie, for me, is much scarier than any "horror" movie released in the past few years.

3 Thoughts on Don Jon

1. It's full of good intentions - While I'm not fully on board with this movie, as a whole, I can't deny that it's packed with good stuff.  I would say that I agree with most of the bold words listed on the poster (except "stellar" and "hilarious").  It's definitely a different look at relationships; an honest look.  However, it's not in the same category as other "honest" movies about relationships - movies like Blue Valentine that make you want to slit your wrists.  Instead, it remains charming and light; there is a clear voice and direction.  For Joseph Gordon-Levitt's first foray into writing and directing, I think it's a quite a success.  

2. It's full of stereotypes - This movie relies heavily on stereotypes, because really, it wouldn't work without them.  The first big stereotype: girls like sappy romance movies, boys like porn. The tagline "There's more to life than a happy ending" is actually quite smart, because it relates to the girly rom-com "happy ending" and also, to the porn "happy ending". Sure, this is probably a stereotype that's pretty true to life.  I guess my problem with this is that I find it hard to believe that there are women out there who believe that life is like a rom-com. Also, while the main character suffers from an obsession with porn, I think porn, in general, is pretty harmless. *Slight spoiler ahead, but it's in the trailer* The big fight that occurs between the couple occurs because she checks his browser history and finds porn (after he claims he never watches it).  The biggest problem with this fight is that SHE CHECKS HIS BROWSER HISTORY. Why do women think this behavior is ok?  I have several female friends who have come to me for relationship advice (no idea why) who start off the conversation with "well, I was checking his email...", "I saw a text on his phone..." etc. I stop the conversation there. If you feel the need to go through his personal stuff, then end the relationship. Period.  Also, back to the porn, I really don't understand what the big deal is. If you think your boyfriend doesn't watch porn, you are in denial (although, I don't think ALL guys watch porn, and I am sure plenty of girls enjoy porn, as well).  I actually know this girl (who is from NJ, I'll get to the whole NJ part of the movie in a minute), who got breast implants and her reason (that she actually admitted out loud) is because her husband watched porn and he claimed that he only watched it because she was flat-chested. So, she got implants and now her marriage is "perfect" (that story simultaneously makes me laugh and cry). So, the second big stereotype: people from NJ are horrible, horrible people.  It's a shame that reality shows like The Jersey Shore and Real Housewives have given NJ a really bad name.  I made NJ my home a few years ago, and I can't deny that these people do exist.  Fortunately, I found a part of NJ where it's not quite as bad, but I still find that most people care about the "image" that they present to people. Just recently, I had a co-worker try to set me up with a guy she knows.  I asked "is he funny?" and she responded "um...he drives a brand new Mercedes" (another story that simultaneously makes me laugh and cry).  It's a sad, sad world we live in, and I hardly think it's specific to New Jersey, but it's definitely more present here than anywhere else I've ever lived.

3. It's full of surprises - *slight spoilers* I think the biggest complaint I have about the movie, is that it moved a little slow and it wasn't as funny as I expected.  The best part of the movie is JGL singing "Good Vibrations". It's shown in the trailer, so I looked forward to it for the whole movie.  The scene finally comes after a series of surprising events.  After the big fight between the couple, the story changes into a story of self-discovery and it's actually quite moving.  I think it will open up a lot of dialogue between couples, and hopefully it's a bit eye-opening for some. The films entire narrative is set up as a glorification of porn, until suddenly it's not. As a whole, the story is taking a clear stance against it - as our main character suddenly learns to let go of his anger and connect with other human beings, after he stops watching it.  It's actually a story about overcoming addiction (anything in excess is bad for you), which I wasn't expecting.  Another surprise came with the sister - played by Brie Larson, who is much more astute to her surroundings than you think she is.  There are some great family moments, that give depth to Don Jon.  And the biggest surprise of all....Scarlett Johansson is really good in this role. I've made it very clear, that I am not a fan of her as an actress, but she really went for it with this role and I have to give credit when it's due.

Thoughts on 5 Films

1. Wish You Were Here - For some reason, I thought Amber Heard was in this movie, but it is actually Teresa Palmer. I was a little disappointed at first (super huge crush on Amber Heard), but I like Teresa Palmer, so I got over it rather quickly.  The plot seemed interesting, although a little unrealistic - two couples vacation in Cambodia, one of them suddenly disappears without a trace and the other 3 are left to continue on with their lives as normal as possible.  You get the sense early on that one or more of them know more about the disappearance than they are willing to tell.  As things unravel, the plot gets more and more annoying but the movie is held together by Joel Edgerton's performance. I love that he has his natural Australian accent (sexy), and that even though his character is hard to root for, he still convinced me to.  I didn't care about any of the other characters (including the one that is missing), which is clearly a problem.  The "twisty" ending seemed a bit out of place (and ridiculous), but overall, the suspense was evenly paced.

2. Oblivion - Very beautiful to look at and towards the middle, it starts to actually get pretty interesting.  It's too bad that I already lost interest by this point.  I got distracted by other things (my phone, the internet, my cats...) and my mind started to wander.  I fully admit that had I seen it in the theater, where these distractions wouldn't exist, my opinion may have been a different outcome.  Watching a film like this, for a first viewing, at home, has plenty of disadvantages, however, I do think that the story and characters were too boring to really grip my attention.  As I said a few months ago when I saw Welcome to the Punch, Andrea Riseborough has a great screen presence and she was definitely the highlight of the movie.  I waited in anticipation for her to answer "no" to the question that is asked over and over again ("Are you an effective team?").  It's ultimately frustrating that a big plot point is boiled down to a beautiful woman's jealousy over another beautiful woman (dumb, dumb, dumb).  I can't say that I enjoyed it, as a whole, because I was just too bored, but it does have some interesting aspects.

3. The Kings of Summer - I was really anticipating this movie once I saw the trailer and read several great reviews (I didn't read the whole reviews, but the gist of most reviews seemed to be positive).  It's a cute, indie movie about boys being boys.  It's not even close to being what I expected.  I guess my biggest problem is that I can't relate - obviously, I can't relate to what it's like to be a teenage boy, but I really can't relate to spoiled kids who have childhoods I've only dreamed about.  They have parents who actually care about them (you know....like make them dinner, play games, remember that they exist, etc), yet they run away because they consider their parents "annoying".  I get that the main kid is having trouble after his mother died and his father is starting to date someone new. Sure, I think that would be tough for a child to deal with, but running away still seems like something a spoiled brat would do. I do think that some of this was intentional - it's a coming of age story about boys who haven't quite figured out that they aren't the center of the universe. It just didn't work as a whole, for me. There were some entertaining and memorable moments - like the "boy who cried wolf" moment with Ron Swanson and the young cop.  Also, the line "he's like the Zodiac killer", made me laugh out loud.

4. The Bling Ring - I long for the day when I love a Sofia Coppola movie. Really, I do.  She has such a great sense of style, always tapping into a younger generation, and extracts out ugliness in a really beautiful way.  Sadly, I always find her movies to be really empty.  This movie is focused on the obsession of celebrities and really, that's all. It's all on the surface.  The plot revolves around true events based on a group of thieves called the "bling ring", a group who invaded the homes of Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Rachel Bilson and others, and stole items totaling over 3 million dollars.  It's a hard concept to wrap your head around - a group of amateur (and mostly drunk) idiots were able to enter millionaire homes over and over (and over) again before being caught.  You would think these celebrities would take precautions to protect their belongings (and themselves - imagine if these were actual evil people instead of just vapid, materialistic thrill-seekers??).  I remember the story about the one girl who had a reality show on E! (because I remember The Soup making fun of her and her mother), and I was fascinated as to how these people were able to secure a show just by being "around" other celebrities.  Also, the mother is an interesting character - she teaches her own religion based on the book The Secret (no joke).  Aside from Leslie Mann (who plays the mom), I didn't find the cast very convincing.  I love Taissa Farmiga (from American Horror Story), but she seems too timid for the role, and Emma Watson just looked like she was playing dress up in her mom's clothing (and she clearly struggled with an American accent. It was painful to watch. Poor girl.).  The movie just presented us with these characters but never follows through with telling us anything meaningful about them.  It was all sort of pointless. Fantastic soundtrack, though, as expected.

5.Upside Down - This is the type of movie where it is absolutely necessary to "just go with it".  If you start to think about the plot, your brain will explode with questions and the movie becomes background noise.  The concept is absolutely fantastic; I've never seen anything like it. Visually, it is incredibly beautiful.  Everything else about it is a disaster beyond belief.  It feels like the creators started with this mind-boggling original idea but realized (while making it) that it won't work, so they just started to make things up as they went along.  So, let me try to explain the plot: there are two worlds that literally sit on top of each other - so when one looks up, instead of seeing the sky, they see an upside down world.  They explain this as "double gravity" and the people stay in "their" world because of "inverse matter".  Jim Sturgess plays a guy living in the "poor" world, who falls in love with someone in the upside down world (Kirsten Dunst), which is the "privileged" world.  The clear problem is that it's love story; if they took this "upside down" concept and made it into a thriller/adventure type movie it would have worked really well. The other clear problem is that scientifically, none of it works.  Physics isn't my strong suit (it's the only class that I received a solid "C" in, but I blame the teacher more than anything else), but even my brain was screaming out "HELLOOOOOO.....THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE".  First, there is only a small sliver between the two worlds where the sun comes in, so technically it would only be light for a few minutes a day. Second, the only way one world could be on top of another world is if both worlds were flat! Otherwise, there would never be light. There are a million more problems like that, and none of it is addressed.  If you're going to create a crazy concept then you have to really go for it.  It's a shame, really, because I would have loved to see a movie like this on the big screen - some of the images will remain in my brain forever (if you're curious, just google some of the images from the movie. Breathtaking.).

4 Thoughts on the Emmy Awards

1. The host - Neil Patrick Harris is adorable and I will always be a fan, but this was one boring show.  The beginning was a struggle to get through.  Really, the big opening number is a montage of television shows, weirdly edited together, so that it seemed like he was interacting with the characters. That's it. It was simplistic, boring and not funny at all.  Then, he did a very short monologue that included a joke about Paula Deen (which was only funny because of his "not soon enough?" jab).  Then, he was accompanied by some previous Emmy hosts including Jane Lynch, Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon. Again, none of it was funny.  I didn't really blame NPH on the catastrophe, until Tina Fey and Amy Poehler appeared and I realized that I would prefer if they stayed on stage instead.  They have the ability to make jokes that don't work, still funny.  It's a talent that not many people have, but it's a must for an awards show host.

2. The winners and losers - When the first two big winners were announced (Merritt Wever and Tony Hale), I was actually really, really excited about the rest of the show.  I am a HUGE Merritt Wever fan. She created the most memorable "wallflower" character in recent memory, as Zoey on Nurse Jackie, and she is the only reason that I have stuck with the show (Edie Falco is also awesome, as expected. The show, however, has its ups and downs).  Tony Hale is pretty fantastic, although I don't watch Veep (it's next on my list, after I catch up on Boardwalk Empire and Californication), I believe that he is deserving. I had a feeling Julia Louis-Dreyfus would win for Veep, as well, and people seem to love Jim Parsons (I don't get it).  It seemed like we were in for an upset on the comedy category with a Veep win, but alas, Modern Family won the big award. I'm not as upset as most seem to be - again, after 4 seasons it is still consistently funny.  I have major love for Louie, but I think it should have won in the writing category (it didn't), not the big award.  When the Drama announcements began, things were looking good with Anna Gunn winning for Breaking Bad. I have never been a huge fan of Skyler, but the way the show was written from the beginning, I would argue that you are not supposed to like her and that's what makes the role and Anna's acting so brilliant.  I wasn't too upset when Aaron Paul didn't win (of course, he is who I was rooting for), because I heard Bobby Cannavale is superb on Boardwalk Empire (I'm not there yet).  But after that, the show went to shit. Jeff Daniels. Come on. I don't watch The Newsroom, but I would love for someone to show me one article, review, anything that states that Jeff Daniels is better in his role than Bryan Cranston or Jon Hamm (It doesn't exist. I've already searched).  Also, Breaking Bad should have won the writing category (that was, like, a given). Then, Claire Danes won over Vera Farmiga.  I would have accepted Kerry Washington, just because I love her, but Farmiga is by far superior to anyone in that category for her portrayal of Norma Bates on Bates Motel.  Claire Danes relies on her "ugly cry face" for every scene in Homeland and everyone thinks she's amazing (I'm half kidding. She's very good on Homeland, but not Emmy good.). I was also rooting for Sarah Paulson to win because she was terrific on American Horror Story: Asylum, but when Ellen Burstyn is in a category, then Ellen Burstyn should win in that category (always and forever). I started to get really nervous towards the end that Breaking Bad wouldn't win but luckily, The Emmys came to their senses. Keep in mind, I am still terribly confused by the many snubs this year (like SouthLAnd and Michael Cudlitz, also Mae Whitman and Monica Potter from Parenthood, everyone and everything about The Americans).

3. The show - What a weird show. It can't all be blamed on the host. The set-up was weird, the "in memoriam" sequences were odd, and there were musical numbers that made no sense (Don Cheadle talking about The Beatles, then Carrie Underwood butchering "Yesterday").  And what about that choreography number? At first, I was like, Ok....that's kind of cool, but then I changed my mind quickly. It's not The Tony Awards.  Does anyone really believe that television enthusiasts care about the choreographers of reality shows? Because we don't. We care about writers, actors and directors. The biggest highlight of the show was in the beginning, with Merritt Wever's non-speech "Gotta go...bye" are the best words uttered on that stage in a long time.  How can you not love her? The lowest point is probably the constant reminder that everyone dies. It's very weird that the producers decided to highlight iconic people that have died this year - the "in memoriam" montage works...why fix it? Why give the audience something else to complain about ("this person should have been highlighted...not that person" bullshit)?  The biggest complaint seemed to be about Cory Monteith - obviously I will stick up for his inclusion, but I think Jane Lynch said it best, in that we are mourning "what could have been".  Yes, more "iconic" people have died this year, but Cory didn't even get the chance. Also, the fact that he was on a current show (an extremely popular show), proves that his death was under different circumstances.  The whole thing was just unnecessary, especially watching Edie Falco fighting back tears when talking about James Gandolfini.  As Steven Levitan said in his speech, it's "the saddest Emmy's of all time".

4. The fashion - For the second year in a row, Leslie Mann wore my favorite dress.  She is just so stunning.  I pray that my body looks like that in 10 years.  You can tell that she has an amazing body in that dress even though she is barely showing any skin.  I also loved Taylor Schilling's dress; I usually hate white dresses at awards show because they look like wedding dresses, but that ain't no wedding dress. She looked hot. I loved the top half of Robin Wright's dress - it's cool and futuristic, but I think it would have looked a lot better if it was a short dress; the solid black made it look too heavy for her. As for the worst, Lena Dunham's dress is hideous, but it's very "her", so I'll let it slide. Amy Poehler's dress was also really unflattering, but when asked what she was wearing, she said "a good attitude", so she is forgiven as well. So, I'm going to go with Melissa Leo, because that white embroidered shirt/skirt combo was inappropriate for a black tie event. Also, Jon Hamm needs to shave...like right now.

3 Thoughts on Blue Jasmine

1. It's not what I was expecting - I didn't watch the trailer. I did, however, read a summary/description of the movie (I'm pretty sure it was from Entertainment Weekly) and from that, it seemed like the movie was about the breakdown of a marriage because Alec Baldwin's character cheats on Cate Blanchett's character with a younger woman, causing her to have a meltdown.  Instead, it was more about the meltdown, itself, and it really had nothing to do with this relationship.  The "main" relationship is focused on Jasmine (Blanchett) and her sister, Ginger (played by Sally Hawkins), as Jasmine has lost everything (except a few designer dresses and some Louis Vuitton luggage) and moves in with her sister, in order to get her life back in order.  Jasmine is a self-involved, materialistic, shrew of a woman, drenched in self-loathing and it's absolutely fascinating to watch.  The movie isn't quite as fascinating. The story isn't exactly new territory, in fact, it's predictable.  It moves really slowly, and the dialogue isn't up to par with previous Allen movies.  I can't say that I was bored though, and that's for one reason: Cate Blanchett.

2. And the Oscar goes to.... - So far, there is no competition for Cate this year.  This performance is powerful, memorable, disturbing and simply sublime. The supporting cast is good, but pale in comparison to the lead performance.  I'm not a huge fan of Sally Hawkins; I find her grating to watch - but to her credit, I think that is how her character is supposed to be.  The men (Baldwin, Peter Sarsgaard, Andrew Dice Clay, Bobby Cannavale, Louis C.K. etc) are all in top form. But really, this is Cate's movie. There is no other reason to watch it.

3. It made me feel sane - While I can easily argue that Woody Allen is one of the most successful misogynistic directors around, I can also very easily argue that most of his female characters are fascinating, multi-layered and intelligent (and they are usually more interesting that his male characters).  There are women like Jasmine in the world and Allen captured "her" well.  I felt like I knew this woman personally, and I think that is a hard thing for a writer/director to accomplish.  I felt really satisfied with the movie, because it made me feel really sane, while watching it. I am so thankful that I've never relied on anyone else and that I've never really cared for the monetary things in life.  Sometimes, I feel a little crazy, but this is a wonderful reminder that I'm actually very sane (yes, maybe I'm a little too self-aware). It's odd that watching someone else self-destruct made me feel better about my life, but I came out of the theater feeling reluctantly good.

3 Thoughts on We're the Millers

1. Jason Sudeikis is not funny - I really don't get it. He's mildly entertaining, at best.  Definitely not funny enough to be the lead in a comedic movie.  I'm not an avid SNL viewer (although I used to be), but he's been on the show for a decent stretch and I can't remember one skit, scene, character etc. that blew me away. He was the worst part of Horrible Bosses and ugh....remember when he hosted the MTV Movie Awards? Just awful. He's just so ordinary. Although, I could very well be jealous; I mean, he's engaged to Olivia Wilde. The world is an unfair place.

2. The "stand-out" moments - Overall, the movie is unexpectedly bland.  However, there are 3 things from it that I will remember for all of eternity.  These 3 moments made the other 95 minutes worth it.  The ironic part is that 2 of them, have nothing to do with the movie.  The first moment, happens right at the beginning with David (Sudeikis) browsing YouTube, watching this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bmhjf0rKe8 . It's a 3 year old video with over 70 million hits, but I'm not really a YouTube watcher, so I've never seen it (I know, seeing that I am a self-identified crazy cat lady, most people assume that I sit around and watch cat videos all day, but I promise, I don't).  I can't stop watching it. It's the cutest thing I've ever seen.  The second moment is Kenny rapping to the 'Left Eye' part in "Waterfalls":  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTzSw3h7aq4 (this is from the trailer, so it's not a spoiler, really.  Although, I didn't see the trailer before the movie, so I wasn't expecting this).  I laughed. I laughed hard - almost brought me to tears.  Kenny (played by Will Poulter), is the best part of the movie.  He out-shined the "big name" co-stars by a mile.  The third moment is part of the outtakes at the end. It's the last moment of the movie and it is the funniest. It's an outtake from Kenny's big rap moment and it's Friends related. I won't link it because all of the videos of it were obtained illegally (but you can totally find it, if you want).

3. So much potential - The most disappointing part of the movie is that it has so much potential to be a hilarious movie.  It has all of the key elements required - great cast (even though I'm not a fan of Sudeikis, his mild tone works well with Aniston), great supporting characters, a fun "dysfunctional family" plot and some solid jokes.  The movie tries too hard to be mean-spirited, offensive and shocking that it loses everything that makes it good.  It's tedious to sit through and it feels really, really long.  When a comedy is good, I don't want it to end; with this movie, I found myself wishing for the end more than a few times.

Thoughts on 5 Films

1. Star Trek: Into Darkness -  I enjoyed J.J.'s Star Trek much more than I was expecting to, but I really had no interest in watching the sequel.  I read very mixed reviews about it; strong reactions on both sides of the spectrum from people that I usually trust with movies, so I had no idea what to expect.  I think I land somewhere in the middle.  I am just not a big Star Trek fan, I don't like the characters and obviously I don't "get" all of it since I've never seen the original series. The only real problem that I had with the movie, is the choppy editing. It did not flow well at all. It's a decent summer flick, though. It features a really strong villain (played by Benedict Cumberbatch) and some really intense visual moments (the ship crashing into the city is really well done - I'm sure that looked brilliant on a big screen).  So let's talk about that famous, gratuitous shot of Alice Eve. **Prepare for my venting** Yes, the shot is completely unnecessary, but so are most shots of women in their underwear. I get so aggravated when someones sole criticism of a film is that it's misogynistic or sexist (and it's a real struggle to read critics who don't know the difference between the two words.  I read an article from a well-respected film blogger about the "rise of misogyny" in the movies from this past summer and literally every example he gave was about sexism and objectification - none of it was based on a hatred of women. Even worse, a ton of women commented how great it was that a man was writing about misogyny in the movies. It took every inch of restraint to not comment.).  My theory is this: Films are art. Art is a representation of life. Misogyny and sexism will be represented in art as long as it exists in life. If you want to "fight the good fight", then focus on rape, sexual abuse, domestic abuse, equal pay, sexual harassment, etc. IN REAL LIFE! I know, I myself, have criticized films for this very thing (I'm a walking contradiction! aka - human), but I often point out romantic comedies because they usually perpetuate an unrealistic stereotype of women and relationships. It's different when you a have a movie, like Mud, for instance, that is just a product of its environment.  The story in Mud is very misogynistic in nature, but it is a representation of life; it's a fantastic movie, criticizing if for something like misogyny is pointless. Criticizing a movie like Star Trek, a film geared towards men, for an underwear shot of a beautiful woman, is also pointless. Get it? It's confusing, I know. Personally, I don't think a man wanting to look at a beautiful woman is sexist (it's called human nature).  But my point is this: focus your anger and energy on real life issues.  The movies won't change until life changes.

2. Now You See Me - I really love this cast. I don't think Jesse Eisenberg has much range as an actor, but he does this sarcastic, wise-ass, borderline asshole character really well.  Isla Fisher is adorable.  Woody Harrelson is hilarious. And I'm slightly in love with Dave Franco.  The four of them are the "four horsemen" - a group of magicians, mentalists and illusionists that use their talents to rob banks.  Mark Ruffalo and Melanie Laurent are the cops trying to stop them (and figure out how the hell they are accomplishing such a task through the use of "magic").  There is a lot of elaborate planning that goes into the plot, it moves rather quickly, has a lot of witty dialogue and keeps the audience guessing through its entirety.  There is also very little character development and the elaborate plots are completely ridiculous.  A lot of the "magic" is explained, but too much is left unexplained which, to me, felt lazy.  I wasn't blown away by the twist, even though I didn't guess it, I still felt like it was a little obvious.  It would be interesting to watch it again, to see if it works (reminds me of the way I felt after Trance), which leaves me with an uneasy feeling.  I prefer when twists are like "HOLY SHIT! I DIDN"T SEE THAT COMING, BUT IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE" and then I spend hours feeling like an idiot for not predicting it.  Instead, films like these have such a ridiculous twist, it's more like "Well, of course, I didn't predict that...because that's dumb".  It kept me entertained, though, and I think that's all it is meant to do.

3. Safe Haven - This is not a good movie. At all. I mean, it's based on a Nicholas Sparks book. Still, I have to admit, this isn't the worst movie of the year. Surprisingly, it's not even in the top (bottom?) 10.  I assumed it would make me really angry, as most of these types of movies do.  I call them "domestic abuse-lite" movies; ones that take this serious topic that effects millions of women and turns it into a cute romance.  This is probably the one time, where I won't go into my usual personal experience/tangent, because it's just too personal.  However, because of my past, I have a lot of emotions when it comes to the subject, but I find films like Sleeping with the Enemy (which is pretty much what this movie copies) far less intrusive on my emotional stability as opposed to haunting movies like Tyrannosaur.  It's a hard subject to tackle (and to get it right).  Safe Haven plays it pretty "safe".  While it shows how dangerous it is for some women to leave abusive relationships, giving insight into the "why don't they just leave" argument; it also makes it seem incredibly easy. Women can't just leave and become another person (buy a house, get a job, etc.) on a whim. There has to be a plan (and that's not even considering that she may have children to think about). The movie also ignores the psychological effect of abuse (nightmares would be the least of her problems).  The reason that I was able to look past all of this is because of the "other" part of the story.  The "twisty" part. I actually looked up the twist in the movie when it was in theaters, because the fact that there was a twist in this sort of film is intriguing.  The twist is really, really stupid. However, it did add a little bit of depth to the story.  Julianne Hough has a strong screen presence, here.  I haven't liked her in anything prior to this, but I think this is a more fitting role for her.  She is also one of those lucky women that look far better without makeup on.

4. Parker - Really silly action film.  I really liked parts of it, at least more that I thought I would.  I think it would have been a much better movie if JLo wasn't in it. I mean, if her character didn't exist.  It felt like the only reason they brought a female character into the plot was to make it sexier (which is exemplified by the "Take off your clothes" scene).  It makes no sense as to why she would get involved in such a dangerous situation. The movie did a terrible job at making me care for this "thief who cares".  I really had no investment in his story. They could have cut JLo and used that time to develop the main character more, and that would have been a solid story.  Also, I always thought Michael Chiklis was a respectable actor (I've heard amazing things about The Shield, but I know him from The Commish), but he was terrible in this movie. Embarrassingly bad.

5. To the Wonder - I really wasn't a big fan of The Tree of Life.  It's a beautiful film, but it's just so empty and pretentious.  To the Wonder feels exactly the same way, but I liked it slightly more, simply because I liked the story more.  I can connect to stories about relationships more than I can connect to stories about family.  It's not a better movie, but I liked it better.  There is still the monotonous dialogue and people wandering around, for no apparent reason - i.e shots like this: 
That is from To the Wonder; but it could have easily been from Tree of Life. It's beautiful to look at, but it gets tedious after a certain amount of time (my max is at about 90 minutes). Malick does have a way of making drop dead gorgeous females, even more drop dead gorgeous.  The best thing that I got out of To the Wonder is the line, "To commit yourself, is to expose yourself to failure...". It sucks that people let the idea of failure control how they live their life and the relationships that they choose to explore (or not explore).  

Fall TV Preview: 12 New Shows

1. Dads - Probably the show that will be canceled the quickest this season. However, the two reasons that I want to watch it are: Seth Green and Giovanni Ribisi.  Both of these guys crack me up.  I can't imagine not laughing at this show. I've read it's supposed to be offensive (like, too offensive), but there are a lot of offensive shows that are still really funny and smart (Archer comes to mind).  I'm going to ignore the critics on this one and watch it with an open mind (like I always do).

2. The Blacklist - James Spader, as a wanted fugitive, who surrenders to the FBI and then begins helping them capture other criminals.  That sounds amazing, right? (It's also an Alias plot, but whatever...). It sound especially amazing, since the article in Entertainment Weekly references both The Usual Suspects and Silence of the Lambs in describing it.

3. Hostages - I haven't heard much about this show, which isn't surprising since I don't watch much CBS. The fact that it is on CBS is probably the worst thing about it, for me.  It's so rare that I like one of their shows (Elementary is the only one that I really like and I've tried many).  Apparently, this series is supposed to be much different than the usual procedural shows that CBS is known for.  It also has a heck of a cast -  Dylan McDermott, Tate Donovan and Toni Collette. I will watch anything with Toni Collette. She is superb.

4. Mom - Another CBS show (I think there might even be a few more on this list. What is happening to me?!).  I love, love, love Anna Faris. Love. I always thought she deserved to headline a comedy series.  I'm not sure this is the right one, but hey, it's a step in the right direction.  She plays a single mom who is struggling to stay sober (and that's supposed to be funny, I guess) and Allison Janney plays her mom - which is perfect casting.  Did I mention that I love Anna Faris?

5. Lucky 7 - I think this will be another quickly canceled show, but I really like the idea - the employees of a gas station win the lottery and their lives are turned upside down.  I feel like it's been done before, but I can't remember the show.  It's interesting to see the "money doesn't solve everything" theory (but come on, it totally does...) and also interesting to see how money changes people.

6. Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. - I almost don't want to watch it, just because of the ridiculous title. I'm actually not that impressed by the commercials I've seen, but it's an Avengers spin-off and it's Joss Whedon.  The problem is that it's probably the most "anticipated" show of the fall, which puts a lot of pressure on it.  I think it's going to be held to a higher standard than most shows. I have a feeling it might disappoint.

7. Betrayal - The commercials for this show must be on repeat, because I rarely watch commercials (I DVR everything), and I've seen the commercial at least a dozen times. At first, I was like "Eh...no thanks", then I was like "hmmm...ok...maybe", then after the 10th time, I was like "OK FINE I WILL WATCH IT, STOP WITH THE COMMERCIALS!".  It's being compared to other scandalous shows like Revenge and Scandal,  and I love both of those shows, so who knows, maybe I will love it.

8. The Originals - The Vampire Diaries spin-off! Yes, please!! The Vampire Diaries is one of my favorite shows currently on the air.  Yes, the last season was its weakest, but it's still damn good vampire drama.  I'm not really a big fan of all the "original vampire" story line, but I think it was because it was taking up too much of the plot on TVD, so I'm happy that they are separating the stories.  It was too distracting for TVD, but now that I can focus my energy on them as a separate entity, I think I will love it.  Also, I already love the characters - especially Rebeka.

9. The Millers - Another CBS show, and yet again, what attracts my attention is the cast.  Will Arnett, Margo Martindale(!!!) and Beau Bridges.  That has to be funny.  I'm still not over the canceling of Arnett's last show, Up All Night (which is the second, Christina Applegate show that I've loved and got canceled - the other is Samantha Who?, which was incredibly hilarious).I feel like it's a comedy that will appeal to the lowest common denominator, but with that cast, I have to give it a shot.

10. Ravenswood - Another spin-off series! This one is from Pretty Little Liars.  Yes, I am too old to be watching this show and yes, I consider it my "guilty pleasure".  It's damn entertaining and the cast of young girls are all fantastic.  No, if you look at the series as a whole, it doesn't make a bit of sense and the revelation of who "A" is, has to be the most ridiculous plot point ever.  I. Don't. Care.  I love it.  I don't know if I really care that much about Ravenswood, but I am nervous that there will be stuff revealed that is essential to Pretty Little Liars, so I have to watch it.

11. Dracula - Jonathon Rhys Meyers as DRACULA!! I am there! However, it seems like NBC doesn't have much faith in the show to put it on Fridays. I love vampire stories, and I think that is sort of frowned upon since the popularity of crap like Twilight, and the ridiculous show, True Blood (and by "frowned upon", I mean that I won't tell people I like vampire stuff because then they automatically think I watch that garbage).  Maybe, Dracula will bring back a little bit of respect to the genre (although I think The Vampire Diaries is also a respectable show.  It's smart, thrilling, dramatic and fun).

12. Almost Human - The show that I am most excited for!!  It's J.J. Abrams (as executive producer) and J.H. Wyman (the showrunner of Fringe - one of my favorite sci-fi shows, ever).  While Abrams has disappointed me in the past (*Cough*....Revolution), I will always look forward to his new stuff.  Almost Human has a great futuristic plot, with a great lead actor (Karl Urban) and well, that's actually all I need to know.

Thoughts on 5 Films

1. Lockout - Fairly generic action movie, with absolutely nothing memorable to even mention in this short post.  In theory, it should be good - It's touted as "Luc Besson presents...", stars Guy Pearce as the protagonist who must rescue the president's daughter from a group of thugs, who have taken over a prison (in space!), in order to clear his own name.  It's futuristic, original and moves quickly, but it fails to make any sort of impact.  Guy Pearce did a good job of trying to make it fun, but the dialogue isn't as witty as you want it to be.  The plot had potential, but it didn't grip me. It all was pretty straight-forward and linear. I can't really take Maggie Grace very seriously, especially with her specialty role of "the victim".  I would love to see something different from her. I do really like Joseph Gilgun, though.  He is awesome as a bad guy.  And I totally just remembered that I'm at least a season behind on Misfits! There is just always so much to catch up on!

2. Welcome to the Punch - Having just recently watched Trance, and liking it, I was really looking forward to this movie just because of James McAvoy.  I love when he does action movies (like Wanted, minus the American accent), because he's not like a "typical" action star, yet he does it better than most. I prefer when the star of the movie has charisma and personality, instead of a dull muscle-man. I also love that he never does anything expected; his next film, Filth, looks really dark and fucked up (I can't wait!!). Welcome to the Punch is an action-packed cop/gangster thriller, that relies heavily on suspense and violence, but I kinda already knew the twist (I mean, come on...that guy is always the bad guy), and the violence seems empty and cliched.  It's entertaining enough, but it doesn't really pack a "punch" (had to do it.).  The supporting cast is solid - Mark Strong (speaking of...how disappointing is Low Winter Sun?!), Peter Mullan and Andrea Riseborough (I'm not familiar with her, but she is really good here. Definite screen presence.), but I'm not sure if the movie would have held my attention if it weren't for McAvoy.

3. The Devil Inside - Exorcism tale told in a faux-documentary style.  I was in the mood for a stupid horror and that's what I got.  I like that the story is from the perspective of the daughter, as she investigates what drove her mother to murder 3 people.  In the beginning, she expresses her concern for the future of her own mental stability (unfortunately, I have the same concerns) and wonders how much of her mothers sickness is genetically predisposed.  Instead of focusing on this, though, the movie tries to convince the audience that her mother has been possessed by an evil force.  In order to believe in this, one must believe in God and the Devil, and since I don't, the whole movie seems a bit ridiculous. I think it all can be explained by mental illness, disorders, chemical imbalances, brain aneurysms, tumors, etc (and from people faking it, which I guess, is also a form of mental illness).  It didn't convince me. Not even a little bit. The movie is gory, predictable and poorly acted.  However, the woman that plays the daughter, Fernanda Andrade, is so absolutely stunning. I could not take my eyes off of her.

4. Dredd - I never saw the Stallone version, Judge Dredd, so I decided to watch that right before the updated version.  It wasn't a great movie, by any means, but it was fun and entertaining.  I've never read the comics, so I didn't have the issues that those fans have with it.  I was surprised at how different Dredd is from its predecessor and if it is closer to the comics, like I've been told, then I understand why people hated the Stallone version so much. Dredd is a much darker movie, with a much better lead character. Karl Urban is really hot, so I was a little disappointed that he never removes the helmet. The best part of the movie, though, is Lena Headey as Ma-Ma (speaking of, every time someone said the name "Ma-Ma", I thought of Raising Hope, with Cloris Leachman as "Maw Maw". It made me laugh, which is obviously not the desired effect).  Lena is absolute bad-ass perfection in this role.  In contrast, I really didn't dig Olivia Thirlby. Her presence should have been stronger, a "good" bad-ass to compete with Lena's evilness. Plus, no offense, but she's no Diane Lane (but not many women are...). Dredd reminded me (a lot) of The Raid, and it seems like I'm not the only one who thought that. It's violent, thrilling, stylish and filled with constant action confined in small spaces.  Overall, it was fun and entertaining, yet a completely different kind of fun and entertaining than Judge Dredd is. 

5. The Iceman - I don't know if I can properly give my thoughts on this movie, because I got instantly distracted by the fact that the main character, a notorious contract killer, lived in Dumont, New Jersey.  This is where my mom currently lives with her husband, who has lived there his entire life.  It's such a tiny, little suburban town (or "borough", as NJ likes to call them), that it came as a complete shock to me (although, there has been some recent incidences in the town like this one: http://bit.ly/153rpES)  I spent most of the movie browsing the Internet for information about him and his time in Dumont.  Turns out, he lived only a few blocks away from my mom's current location.  I can't wait to ask her husband about him. He knows everyone in his town, so chances are he has some information.  Too bad talking to him would involve me calling my mother and that is the biggest chore in the world.  Anyway, like I said, I was distracted for a lot of the movie, but to be honest, it didn't really do much to catch my attention.  Michael Shannon did a terrific job at being a cold-blooded killer, but that's expected.  Since I did so much Internet searching on the subject matter, I find it weird that a lot of stuff was over-looked for the movie - like the fact that he was allegedly abusive to his wife (he may have even stabbed her).  I think they were trying to stick to the "facts", but Richard Kuklinski was only convicted of 3 murders and the movie definitely shows him murdering more people than that.  They showed a brief flashback of him being abused by his father, but it was a "barely there" moment that should have been explored.  The movie just seemed to play it safe; stuck to the surface level of a murderer instead of digging down deep.  I am constantly looking for stories that show the cyclical nature of violence and abuse - most of my interest lies from the female perspective of women who stay in abusive relationships, but it's also extremely interesting to think about the cyclical nature of the male abuser (ones who have been abused or witnessed abuse themselves, as a child).  That's obviously not the story that these filmmakers wanted to tell, but it would have been far more satisfying.  Even weirder is the fact that the poster states: "Loving husband" - Ummmm....what?  That's completely offensive, considering that she has actually stated that she was abused. That just makes me think that the filmmakers either didn't do enough research, or really had no interest in telling the truth.