Thoughts on 5 Films

1. Kill List - Totally weird and creepy.  I was completely invested in the story, the characters and the mystery. We get a clear indication from the beginning that there is something going on in the story, underneath the one that we are watching.  It takes the entire movie for it to unfold, but it's worth it.  The reason it works so well is because the presented story is a very complex domestic drama about an assassin who has severe anger issues. It's an intriguing tale on its own, that you almost forget about the horror undertones in the beginning. The pace doesn't let up (which is amplified by the sound design - absolutely brilliant) and it has a truly horrifying ending. I would say it's probably the best "genre-bending" film I have seen in a long time.  I don't know what else to say; it's just something you have to experience for yourself. 


2. What to Expect When You're Expecting - A toddler gets hit in the head with a beer can!!  HILARIOUS, right??  Other "jokes" include a woman offering sexual favors to get her partner to do what she wants (always funny) and Jennifer Lopez still trying to convince everyone that she's an actress. The intersecting of different narratives is reminiscent of Valentine's Day/New Years Eve movies, only this one features the common thread of women vomiting (Yeah!!). The single most offensive line in the whole move comes from Elizabeth Banks towards the end: "I just wanted to glow, like the pretty women on the covers of the magazines...". The assumption that women believe that pregnancy is all a "glowing" miracle is a tad ridiculous.  If you aren't aware that pregnancy is a trauma to a woman's body, then I question whether you should bring a child into the world.  I would rather watch a film that is blatantly misogynistic, then one that pretends not to be.  The female characters in this movie are stupid, shallow and manipulative.  In fairness, the male characters are pretty lame, as well.  The scenes with Chris Rock and the other "fathers" were just sad.  Worst film of the year.  Game over.


3. The Pirates! Band of Misfits - Really cute and clever animated flick.  I was entertained through the whole thing and I think kids would get a kick out of it too. It's surprisingly educational (some nice little science and history references). There were some great recognizable voices (David Tennant!!  Oh how I miss him as The Doctor.  Watching Doctor Who is a such a chore now). Hugh Grant was surprisingly amazing as The Pirate Captain; he should definitely consider doing more animated tales.  My favorite character was The Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate (voiced by Ashley Jensen).  That made me laugh.  I think it's probably one of those movies that has a lot of hidden jokes here and there; the more you watch it, the more you pick up.  But, even on first watch, I laughed quite a bit.  Any kids movie that has Charles Darwin as a character, has my approval. 


4. Battleship - At no point in the film does anyone say "you sunk my battleship", which I think would have made the film 100% better.  At least it would take the "serious" level down a notch and infuse some fun.  If you're going to make a Michael Bay movie, then get Michael Bay to make it. Battleship literally stole parts from Armageddon, Pearl Harbor and Transformers and combined them into one story (for the record, I was completely entertained by all three of those movies; I don't care what anyone says!!).  The lack of fun and the desperate rip-off plot are not the films only mistakes - they also cast Rihanna.  Disastrous.  The rest of the cast was decent.  I feel a little bad for Taylor Kitsch.  He obviously needs a new agent.  I was really happy to see Jesse Plemons (another FNL alum; luckily this is his only post FNL dud so far.  He seems to be popping up everywhere - Breaking Bad, The Master. I hope it never stops.).  His sole purpose in this movie was to provide some much needed comic relief and he succeeded ("He's not dead. Not dead!!!").  I also don't mind Brooklyn Decker.  She is physically flawless, like a Barbie doll.  People are going to hate on her, but so far she has been satisfying in all the roles she's been given (she was also probably the best part of What to Expect When You're Expecting).


5. The Five-Year Engagement - I was super excited to see Chris Pratt and Alison Brie within the first 5 minutes.  My hopes and expectations for the movie automatically shot through the roof.  They were easily the best part(although Alison's British accent??  oooof.  That was rough.); the rest of the movie was bland and uninteresting.  The relationship between the main characters (Emily Blunt and Jason Segel) felt honest, with very realistic problems, but it just went on, and on, and on for about 40 minutes longer than it needed to.  A little editing could have made it a decent chick flick.  There was some funny stuff, but the unfunny stuff is what ended up sticking (like the whole deer scene and the "experiment").  Mindy Kaling was under-used and since I had issues with the entire plot-line that she was involved in, I think she could have been cut out, altogether.  Also, the girl who looks like Jess Weixler but amazingly isn't, described Emily Blunt's character as "old".  Um....what?  She's 28 and is stunning.  It's too ridiculous to be funny. 

3 Reasons to See Looper....NOW!

1. It's something different - If you want to support original, smart, bold and creative film-making, then go see this movie in the theater!!  Like Brick and The Brothers Bloom, Rian Johnson created something fantastically bizarre.  I don't want to over-hype it, because it isn't a perfect film by any means, however, it is extremely entertaining brain candy. 

2. JGL and the rest of the cast - If you read this blog, then you know my love for JGL.  I wouldn't say this is his best role, but he keeps the sci-fi elements grounded in a very realistic character.  It seems from most reviews that I have read, people don't seem to mind the physical transformation made to his face to create the younger Bruce Willis effect, but I would have to disagree.  I felt it was terribly distracting and unnecessary.  It also seemed to limit JGL's facial movements, which I think was detrimental to an otherwise terrific performance.  Bruce Willis is awesome as Bruce Willis (like old-school Die Hard Bruce Willis).  Emily Blunt, Jeff Daniels and Paul Dano all make up a brilliant supporting cast.  The real star of the movie is Pierce Gagnon (the little boy).  Seriously, the whole plot of the film rests on this boys shoulders and he was astonishingly creepy. Like, horror movie creepy. 

3. You'll want to watch it again - It's a sci-fi tale about time travel (and other "powers"), yet on first viewing, it was very easy to understand.  Everything that was necessary to create a believable future world was explained without becoming too simple (although it was very clear that the couple sitting in front of me had no idea what was going on, as they kept explaining the plot to each other).  However, I am certain that when I watch it again, there will be several moments that I missed with the first viewing, scenes and dialogue that will work on another level, etc.  This is what makes a great movie. 

3 Thoughts on Arbitrage

1. It's not a thriller - First, if you have any intentions of watching this movie, I suggest you avoid the trailer.  It not only gives away most of the plot, it also describes the movie as "a crackling thriller" (also seen on the poster image above).  It would be better described as a cliched drama.  *slight spoilers ahead* (although if you have seen the trailer, then you are already spoiled) The plot is about a wealthy, businessman in NYC who is in the midst of selling his company, due to some shady dealings.  He, of course, has a wonderfully luxurious life complete with a wife, children and grandchildren.  He is also, of course, having an affair with a much younger, french, art gallery owner.  The beginning set up was like watching the A,B,C's of a typical lifestyle of the so-called "one-percent".  But then, the thrilling twist happens; while driving with his mistress he gets into an accident that ends up killing her.  Let me repeat, AN ACCIDENT.  He did not murder her.  Yet, he flees from the scene because the controversy could jeopardize his business deal.  The controversy of an affair.  At this point, is having an affair really even a controversy anymore?  Also, I'm sure with the "power" that he has, he would be able to cover up his relationship with this woman as a "business affair".  Instead, he spends the entire movie covering up this ACCIDENT, which also involves getting an innocent guy caught up with his crime (of fleeing the scene).  I will admit that the film was an interesting commentary on the prejudice of the justice system, concerning race and class.  However, it didn't really tell me anything that I didn't already know.  There was absolutely nothing "thrilling" about the plot at all.  I guess, we are supposed to be on the edge of our seats wondering if he will get caught, but I couldn't give a fuck.  The film ends with an ambiguous, cut to black ending, which has been done to death lately.  It can work beautifully with some films (A Separation, Take Shelter), but in most cases it feels lazy (like this movie). 

2. What's an "Arbitrage"?  - The best thing about this movie?  I learned a new word.  Arbitrage means "the simultaneous purchase and sale of the same securities, commodities, or foreign exchange in different markets to profit from unequal prices".  When I left the movie, I heard several audience members question what it meant.  While the word describes a major plot, it's probably not the best idea to use a word that many people don't know, as the title of your movie.  Just a thought. 

3. Brit Marling was miscast - While most critics are praising Richard Gere's performance, I think the best performance was from Tim Roth, as the investigating officer.  Gere was satisfactory, but he still played Richard Gere (has he ever played anyone else?).  I really liked Brit Marling in one of my favorite films from last year, Another Earth (which she also co-wrote), but she did not fit this role.  The character was written as unrealistically naive, but combine that with Marling's soft and sweet demeanor, it becomes really hard to believe that she would thrive as a powerful businesswoman in NYC.  Also, someone should tell the costume designer that no woman in NYC would wear a white shift dress with an off-white coat. 

Thoughts on 5 Films

1. God Bless America - Well-written, witty, dark, twisted and surprisingly touching.  The film is commentary on the current obsession with celebrities, reality television and other trash that has resulted in people regurgitating information instead of having their own thoughts.  It's not subtle either.  After being told that he has a terminal brain tumor, Frank (played by Joel Murray) decides to release some of his frustration by killing a very popular reality TV star.  This leads him on a spree, killing all the "rude" people in his path, which in all honesty, is very satisfying.  American Idol doesn't make me want to kill, but it does make me hate pretty much everyone around me.  Bobcat Goldthwait delivers a strong script that really just goes for it, with no apologies or remorse.  My biggest (and only) problem with the movie is the character of Roxy.  I think the actress over-played her part a bit, but the actual character isn't very cohesive either. *spoilers*  Roxy would have made a more resonating impact if her "story" was true.  The revelation (that was clear from the beginning) that she lied is offensive and a disservice to females that have actually lived the life that she described.  The fact that she is just another spoiled girl, who is desperately seeking excitement in her life, is terribly disappointing.  I know that this is the point; that she is just another product of her environment and now we can feel Franks disappointment in, yet, another person.  But then, he easily forgives her and, even more frustrating, he reassures her that she is "pretty".  Like I said, it was my only problem with the film and I can easily look past it.  It will most likely land in my top 10 of the year. 


2. The Dictator - Some comedies are provocative, outrageous and offensive all for the sake of a laugh.  The Dictator tries too hard to accomplish this and it fails.  I sat staring at the screen, thinking "wow....this really isn't funny"  and the odd thing is that I really didn't think it was offensive either.  As an American, as a woman, as a New Yorker and as a human being, I should be offended, so in that way it failed as well. I can appreciate Sacha Baron Cohen's humor and his "characters".  Borat made me laugh and I just now realized that I've never seen Bruno.  I assumed that I did.  Weird.  Also, why, Anna Faris, why???  Dumb comedies are totally her thing, but even this was beneath her.  Her dumb blond thing works when she is playing a dumb blond.  It doesn't work when she is supposed to be a smart, independent business owner.  There wasn't even a cohesive plot to follow, just one ridiculously unfunny scene after the next.  A very pathetic attempt at comedy. 


3. Abduction - I'm sorry, I don't get Taylor Lautner.  Why is he famous again?  Because he has nice abs?  And?  Aside from said abs, he isn't hot (at all) and he has absolutely no acting ability.  He lacks charisma and facial expressions.  He looks like he struggles to even walk naturally.  Abduction easily belongs on the worst films of 2011 list, which is a shame because it actually has a somewhat original idea.  This idea, however, becomes so contrived and unbelievable that it negates any positives. The catalyst in the film is that Nathon (Lautner) discovers his own picture on missing children's website, leading him on a quest to discover who he is. Even when I saw the trailer, I thought "ooooh, that is interesting", but I wish someone could take this idea and do it well.  This film was empty and boring and forgettable.  Although, my absolute favorite part was the BMW commercial in the middle.
 

4. A Separation - Incredible film.  Powerful but still subtle and intimate.  It's interesting to see the justice system in Iran, but the domestic story made the film easy to relate to.  There were political and religious undertones throughout, but it was never really the focus.  I didn't really know what the film was about before watching it, other than a couple getting divorced.  It's so much more than that and becomes a very complex tale of human conflict.  It is unclear on who the audience should root for (if anyone?).  I loved the way it was shot and the narrative felt like a thriller instead of a drama.  The ending will leave some frustrated, but I thought it was perfect.  The acting was superb, especially Peyman Moadi.  I was shocked to learn that this is only his second film.  I can clearly see why the film won the Oscar for Foreign Language film (although, my pick, The Skin I Live In, was not nominated). 


5. Girl in Progress - So much potential, but hardly amounts to anything.  In the beginning, the daughter states that she is inspired by her mother, meaning she is "inspired to be nothing like her".   This is something that I can relate to, but I was disappointed that the daughter then spends the entire film becoming exactly like her mother.  She becomes selfish, irresponsible and spends her time rebelling and trying to get attention - setting a goal of losing her virginity, which will suddenly make her an adult and therefore independent (and no one seemed concerned about that flawed logic?).  I seriously hope that young girls aren't that stupid.  The movie becomes a contradiction of itself and it hits all the cliches of mother/daughter relationships (and of course, a happy ending). Eva Mendes did a decent job; much better than the rest of the cast, but still nothing spectacular. 

3 Thoughts on The Words

*slight spoilers*

1. The three stories - From the trailer, we can see that there is more to the movie than the main story.  I thought that even though the main story, of a writer who steals a manuscript and passes it off as his own, was a bit dull, at least there seemed to be more intriguing parts to it.  Unfortunately, the three stories are all part of one story and it's really not that interesting.  I'm not sure if we are supposed to be surprised by the events as they unfold, but I doubt anyone was.  It only took a few seconds to "get it" and then I was kind of left with this feeling of "what next?".  Only there isn't anything next.  It's not intellectual or clever or the least bit exciting.  The acting ranged from decent (Bradley Cooper) to horrible (Olivia Wilde).  My biggest problems with the film were Zoe Saldana's character, as the supportive wife, and the pace of the film. 

2. The supportive wife - Even though Zoe wasn't the worst actor/actress in the film, her character was probably the most annoying (though to be fair, everyone was pretty annoying).  At first, I liked that her character seemed to be supportive of her partner's passion for writing.  Most women in this situation are portrayed as nagging, "get a real job" dream-crushers, so I was relieved that they opted to go a different route. Things started to disappoint me when she becomes the catalyst for Rory (Cooper) to pass off this found novel as his own.  She finds it on his laptop (WHY ARE YOU GOING THROUGH HIS PERSONAL THINGS!) and then tells him how this novel is the best thing he's ever done.  By the end, as Rory confronts her, he says something to the effect of "you knew it wasn't mine", which she denies.  But if you think about it, if she really was as supportive as she is portrayed, then, he is right, she should have known.  If she read his other work and then read something that is completely different (complete with spelling and grammatical errors that he admitted to keeping), why would she assume that it was his?  That's a bit ridiculous right?  So, in the end, she's the same manipulative shrew character that I despise.  Also, as my friend pointed out, she spent the entire film smothering him.  I admit, if I were in Zoe's shoes, acting along with Bradley Cooper, I might have trouble keeping my hands off of him, but it is really up to the Director to "direct" her to back the fuck up.  Seriously, she was touching him in every scene.  It was uncomfortable.

3. The pace - The three stories (that were really one story) felt very disjointed, but that wasn't the only problem.  First, I am not a big fan of voice-overs and this film starts off with Dennis Quaid narrating and then it doesn't stop.  His voice became grating.  There was an awkward break in the film where we get narration from Jeremy Irons, in which we get details of what the actual book was about. This was told through these almost silent flashbacks that were probably the most boring sequences I've seen in a while.  Hard to believe that this tepid love story is the subject of this supposedly amazing book.  Then we get scenes with Olivia Wilde and Dennis Quaid painfully trying to seduce each other by endlessly talking.  Talk about a lack of chemistry - I could almost feel her cringe anytime Dennis Quaid got too close to her.  Also, it's not all that interesting to watch someone type for a long period of time, nor is it interesting to watch someone read, nor is it interesting to have words appear on the screen that the audience can't even read.  All of these elements made for a really lengthy cinematic experience.  I was sure the film was more than 2 hours, so I'm shocked to learn it was only 1 hour and 36 minutes.  96 minutes of torture. 

**Attention Alias fans: There is a very short scene with Bradley Cooper and Ron Rifkin (aka Arvin Sloane).  I actually squealed out loud. 

4 Thoughts on the Emmy Awards

1. The Host - Jimmy Kimmel wasn't a bad choice for hosting the Emmys, but I don't think he was the best choice, either.  I don't watch his talk show, but I've seen plenty of clips and yes, I usually laugh.  He's never really wowed me though.  I was worried with the opening sketch that consisted of Botox humor, fake punches and a naked Lena Dunham; especially if you compare that opening sketch with my favorite opening sketch from a few years ago with host Jimmy Fallon recruiting Jon Hamm, Cory Monteith, Tina Fey, Joel McHale and others to bust out on stage with Bruce Springsteen's Born to Run (if you don't know what I'm talking about, watch it: http://bit.ly/b56ba8 ).  I smiled for days after watching that.  This years opening fell flat and it set the tone for the rest of the show.  I didn't laugh out loud at any of Kimmel's jokes.  He didn't seem to be having any fun up there, but in his defense, he did keep the show moving smoothly. 

2. The Winners - AARON PAUL!!  I was actually rooting for Giancarlo Esposito but Aaron is still a win for Breaking Bad and he is just as deserving.  I think Aaron was as surprised as everyone else that he beat out Gus Fring and I loved their little exchange of hugs and kisses (Also, HOLY FUCK, Aaron Paul's fiance is gorgeous.).  I was hoping that his win was just the beginning of the Breaking Bad sweep, but unfortunately it all went to shit after that.  I haven't seen Homeland yet. I have read a ton of great things about the series and about Claire Danes, but I've never read or heard anyone claim that it is the *best* drama on television.  I have heard best *new* drama.  Breaking Bad season 4 and Mad Men season 5 consisted of some of the most brilliant drama I've ever witnessed on television. Mad Men has been on an Emmy winning streak, so I understand the need to move on.  It's just ironic that the past season was its best (plus if The Daily Show can win 10 times, then so can Mad Men).  It should have, at least, won the writing category, while Breaking Bad should have swept the directing and acting categories.  Although, I always go back and forth between Bryan Cranston and Michael C. Hall, I would have been happy with Jon Hamm winning (he still hasn't won an Emmy).  On the comedy side of things, I've read a lot of people upset over Modern Family winning, which I think is odd.  It's a consistently funny show, with a great cast.  Out of the nominated shows, it is the best.  Louis C.K. won for writing Louie, which I think is enough (he doesn't deserve the acting nod since he PLAYS HIMSELF and the show, while brilliantly written, is not better than Modern Family).  I did not realize that Pamela Adlon helped write some Louie episodes.  I adore her. Also surprising, the winning writer for Game Change was the kid that played Jonathon on Buffy the Vampire Slayer!!  That blew my mind.  I would have loved to see Merritt Wever win for Nurse Jackie, but I knew that was a long shot and I would have preferred ANYONE else over Jon Cryer. 

3. The Show - It wasn't just the host that was flat; the skits, the presenters, the winners speeches, everything about it was just plain blah.  I won't remember a single thing from the show a week from now.  There was a cute Modern Family sketch and a really funny Breaking Bad sketch (that seemed like it was cut short) but they were followed by a really awful Big Bang Theory sketch (it baffles me that people actually find that show amusing).  There were some funny presenters; Seth Macfarlane not knowing where the microphone was; Stephen Colbert joking about the "war on women" noting that out of the 7 women up for Lead Actress in a Comedy, 5 of them are great (side note: there were 7 nominees for this category!!); Aziz Ansari doing a British accent so people think he is a better actor (I don't know why but when he said "fish and chips", I giggled); Ricky Gervais proving that he only needs a few minutes to prove that he is the best comedian in the room, while also acknowledging that Louis C.K. is the "second best".   There were some really awkward presenters as well - the worst being Hayden Panettiere and Connie Britton, both seemed aggravated and gave off a weird vibe (doesn't bode well for their new show).  All of the speeches were dull, but leave it to Amy Poehler to liven things up by switching speeches with the winner Julia Louis-Dreyfus (we all know that was Amy's idea).  I can't believe that they cut off the acceptance speech for Modern Family (and to think, the guy who directed the show won a freakin' Emmy!!).  That was really tasteless. 

4. The Fashion - Most of the fashion was boring this year.  Apparently, the banana look is the big trend this year.  While, Julianne Moore and Claire Danes made this trend a disaster, Leslie Mann was absolutely stunning.  She looked comfortable, effortless, fun and still sexy (and not in the cleavage-baring kind of way).  Perfection.

3 Thoughts on Lawless

1. My interest - I expected to wait to watch Lawless until the DVD release.  I had very little interest in it.  From the trailer it looked like another mediocre gangster story during prohibition; not exactly new territory.  My intention was to see The Bourne Legacy, but the lovely NJ traffic dictated otherwise.  I've been told by several people that Legacy is quite disappointing, so I guess some things happen for a reason.  I doubt Lawless will make it on my "Best of the Year" list, but I'm pretty satisfied with the it.  The "based on a true story" tale of the Bondurant boys was a little more personal than other films like it, there were some nice bloody "shoot 'em up" scenes, some nail-biting suspense and, best of all, a fantastic ensemble of actors. 

2. The cast - Let's start with Tom Hardy.  In the past 3 films that I have seen him in (Warrior, The Dark Knight Rises and this film - I'll ignore This Means War, for now) he has successfully conveyed heartbreaking emotion through his eyes and body language instead of relying on dialogue.  This amazes me.  He literally just grunted his way through the film and it was utterly brilliant to watch.  Shia LaBeouf is a little less subtle, but I've always stood by him as far as his acting is concerned.  Yes, in real life he's quite a douche, but on the big screen he has a charm to him that is hard to ignore.  He uses this charm well in this film, especially when courting Mia Wasikowska's character.   Guy Pearce is perfectly evil as a corrupt Government Agent, although the character is a bit overkill and probably the weakest link in the film. I would have preferred less of Guy Pearce and more of Gary Oldman (barely in the film at all). Dane DeHaan still reminds me of a young Leo DiCaprio, as he did in Chronicle (that's a good thing).  And Jessica Chastain.....Oh.....Jessica Chastain.  Simply stunning.  As an actress and, let's be honest, as a female specimen, she is just absolute perfection.  I'm not complaining that she spent a good portion of the film in very little clothing, but it was a little confusing when Tom Hardy was dressed in 3 layers of grandpa cardigans.  Is it cold? Hot?  Who knows! 

3. The running joke - *slight spoilers*  The film is based around the running joke that the Bondurant brothers were invincible.  A legend that started when they were kids, but became strong after certain events in the film.  I think this legend is what keeps the film interesting up until the very end; especially the end.  That last little scene with Forrest (Hardy) was a nice touch.  I think I will remember it for years to come. 

Fall TV Preview: 5 New Shows

The Fall television season has arrived!!  I admit that I watch an obscene amount of television, but I'm tired of investing my time on a new show and then having it cancelled after one season.  Last year, I picked 16 shows.  In 2010, I picked 14 shows.  Only 12 of these shows still exist and I only watch 7 of them.  So this year, I decided to be very limited in the amount of new shows I watch; I narrowed it down to 5. 

1. Elementary - The show had me at Jonny Lee Miller.  I was a big fan of the show Eli Stone (which was cancelled after 2 seasons) and he was superb as a psychopath on Dexter.  I think he'll make a damn fine Sherlock.  Adding Lucy Lui as a female Watson is an interesting move (but does that mean she's not on Southland anymore?  I can't remember what happened to her character. Help!).  I'm really not a fan of CBS shows.  Over the past few years, I've tried to give them a chance with Blue Bloods and Person of Interest but both have disappointed me.  I feel like CBS airs shows that you don't really have to pay attention to; there is no depth or full character development.  For Elementary to work, there needs to be some depth (like the BBC's Sherlock).  Here's hoping they try something new.


2. 666 Park Avenue - I really enjoy horror TV shows and with the success of American Horror Story and The Walking Dead, it's a perfect time for this show.  Set in an apartment building on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, the residents all are seemingly having their dreams come true, but they may have unknowingly made a deal with the Devil.  I'm going to throw it out there and predict that Terry O'Quinn (aka John Locke, aka Kendall) will probably be revealed as the Devil.  Or is that too obvious? I do know that would be perfect casting, but I guess we'll see. Other cast members include Dave Annable (HOT) and Rachael Taylor (HOTTER).  Also, it's being compared to The Shining, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's ridiculous. I'm just hoping for a fun, creepy, campy, soap-like drama.



3. The New Normal - Oh Ryan Murphy.  I love him and I hate him.  I love him for his crazy, brilliant mind that created Nip/Tuck and Glee and I hate him for being an arrogant, stubborn asshole that turned both those shows to outrageous trash (the jury is still out on American Horror Story, but I think it is very telling that he is doing the show as a "mini-series" each year which basically allows him to do whatever the fuck he wants, instead of a show that has to have consistency).  I think The New Normal will likely be funny, in the same vein as Modern Family.  Justin Bartha makes me laugh with his goofiness, Ellen Barkin is bat-shit crazy (in a good way) and NeNe Leakes was surprisingly funny on Glee, so I am expecting some good humor.  At least for the first 2 seasons. 


4. Revolution - I think everyone is tired of high-concept TV shows being introduced as "the next Lost".  After the failure of so many shows (Six Degrees, FlashForward, The Event), we should just accept the fact that such a thing will never exist.  Just like there will never be another Friends, there will never be another Lost.  J.J. Abrams is an Executive Producer on Revolution, but that doesn't mean much to me (especially since I don't like Person of Interest or Alcatraz).  I prefer him being involved in a writing capacity (Alias and Fringe are amongst my favorite shows of all time).  So, I will watch the show but with hesitation.  It seems like a really cool concept- set 15 years after an epic blackout.  There is the mystery of why the power was turned off, but also whether it should be turned back on.  I don't know....it could work. 


5. Animal Practice -  I admit, I am really unsure about this show, but I really, really love JoAnna Garcia and I really, really want her to find a project that showcases her talent.  Plus, Justin Kirk is hilarious in that perfectly dry and sarcastic sort of way (although him starring in this show is just a reminder that Weeds is ending.....sad face).  Wednesday night is sort of lacking on television shows (seriously, EVERYTHING I watch is on Thursday night) so I figure I could give it a shot.  I watched the preview episode that aired a few weeks ago and it was decent.  I didn't really laugh, but there was a nice set up of characters and plot.   I used to want to be a veterinarian so it's sort of interesting territory for me. 

Thoughts on 5 Films

1. American Reunion -  American Pie arrived in theaters the summer after I graduated from high school (1999 - the greatest graduation year ever!).  Along with 10 Things I Hate About You and Can't Hardly Wait, it was a film that sort of defined my high school years.  Not that my high school experience was anything like these films, but I think they represented what I wanted high school to be like.  The problem with the American Pie films is that, as they continued with the sequels, it became a sad reminder of how much time has gone by.  American Reunion was made for my age group as its target audience, yet it panders to a younger one.  It's no longer fun to watch and it certainly doesn't represent what I want my life to be like now.  There were no big laugh-out-loud moments, no memorable scenes, no quotable lines etc.  I did appreciate that they managed to get everyone from the original film, even if some of the characters only had a minute of screen time (Natasha Lyonne!!).

2. The Iron Lady - Not in the least bit interesting.  It's a bland biopic that tries to gain sympathy for a woman that is unsympathetic.  It doesn't succeed.  I love that the poster for the film has the words "Never Compromise". That really tells you everything you need to know about Margaret Thatcher.  As far as Meryl Streep's "phenomenal" Oscar-winning performance, I call "bullshit".  Meryl should have handed her Oscar over to Olivia Colman or Tilda Swinton (neither of them were even nominated for fuck's sake!!!). 







3. Wrath of the Titans - A significant improvement over the Clash of the Titans remake.  The effects were cooler and it had a bit of wit that the first was lacking (like how the supporting characters make fun of Perseus "release the Kraken and all that...").  My knowledge of Greek mythology is getting rusty because I had to look up the character Agenor, only to realize that his actual place in mythology has nothing to do with the movie.  It's probably better if you don't know the roots of the characters, at least it's less frustrating.  It's more enjoyable if you just go along with this pseudo-mythology that the film creates.  Sam Worthington is pretty lifeless as a demigod, but it's not as noticeable as it was with Clash because the supporting characters are given more screen time.  Zeus (Liam Neeson) and Hades (Ralph Fiennes) had some electrifying scenes together. I'm not sure why they replaced Alexa Davalos with Rosamund Pike for the role of Andromeda; neither are very memorable. 

4. Silent House - First, and foremost, kudos to the production team - the technical aspects of the film are fantastic.  Completing a film with one long take has to be a nightmare for all involved and it was extremely successful in creating a truly claustrophobic atmosphere. Had I seen it in the theater, I think I would have been grasping for air. Kudos to Elizabeth Olsen for her performance; she portrayed genuine terror brilliantly.  Her performance here solidified her acting abilities more so than Martha, Marcy, May, Marlene.  It's a shame that the filmmakers found it necessary to focus on her cleavage for most of the film (big distraction...I could not take my eyes off of her boobs).   My problem with the film is that it has one of the most frustrating plots of any recent horror film.  It made me so angry, that I forgot about everything that made it special and am left with what made it a disaster.  It should be said that the entire film has been done before, with the original Uruguayan film, La casa muda.  I do wish I watched the original instead of this version, but I have no interest now that I know how stupid the plot is.  I don't want to delve into it because I don't want to give it away, but if you really pay attention to the film, it is just one big foreshadow of events.   

5. Wrecked - This is one of those 127 Hours/Buried type movies with the actor trapped in a confined space with no one else to act off of.  Adrien Brody is a solid enough actor to pull it off (as opposed to Ryan Reynolds).  The story revolves around him, trapped in a car after an accident that has left the car seemingly in the middle of nowhere.  He wakes up, not only does he not know where he is, but who he is, along with 2 other passengers who are dead.  It's actually an interesting concept and the beginning is really intense, but the intrigue starts to wear off and the film becomes dull.  It's hard for me to watch these types of survival instinct type movies because I just wouldn't have the energy or will.  That sounds depressing, but it is totally true.  I liked that the film had a bit of a twist ending, even if it was a little predictable. 

Thoughts on 5 Films

1. The Hunger Games - Even after all the hype and the mostly positive reviews, I just couldn't get excited about this film.  I pictured it to be Twilight-esque and I hate all things Twilight.  I was wrong.  It's good.  Really good.  I thought the whole film was just a bunch of kids running around the woods hunting each other, which is what the last hour was, but the first hour leading up to the big "game" was really engaging and tense.  The last hour, the "game", suffered a bit from convenient storytelling (Katniss and Peeta's survival was based mostly out of convenient timing), which was frustrating.  The ending felt a bit rushed, but overall I was completely entertained and captivated. Having never read the books, I am clueless as to how the story continues but the movie left off at a pretty interesting moment in time.  I am intrigued by the relationship between Katniss and Peeta.  Surely, they will have a life-lasting bond after suffering such trauma, but is that enough to sustain a relationship?  I am now a fan of Jennifer Lawrence; she did an outstanding job.  It is a shame, though, that as much as I enjoyed the film, I still have no interest in reading the books. 

2. John Carter - I actually had a somewhat positive attitude towards this film, before watching it.  I knew that it was a box office disaster and that it had generally bad reviews, but it also had some surprisingly positive ones as well.  It also sat at the top of my Netflix queue with a "very long wait" message for over 2 months, so there is obviously interest in it.  After about 20 minutes in, I realized that it is, in fact, a terrible movie.  There were some decent scenes and the general story is interesting.  I think it just got lost in its own epic-ness that the narrative became confusing (at least it wasn't boring, though).  I thought, at the very least, that the effects would be really cool, but that was probably what I hated most about the film; everything looked extremely fake.  The acting wasn't horrible, but I can't look at Taylor Kitsch and not think of Tim Riggins.  I really like Lynn Collins, ever since I saw her in Uncertainty.  She is stunning (although I could do without the fake tan).  I don't think either of them can be blamed for the failure of this film.  I would blame everyone else. 

3. Margaret - I watched the 2 1/2 hour studio version, not the 3 hour director's cut.  It was still way too fucking long, but with such a powerful character study, I hardly noticed.  I didn't really know what the film was about, so I was a little taken back by the tragedy that sets the story in motion.  It's a wonderfully complicated story about the choices one makes in life and how those choices effect other people.  The film revolves around Margaret, played by Anna Paquin, but has a shitload of supporting characters that fill the screen at different points in the plot. At one point in the film, someone says to Margaret "we're not the supporting characters in your fascinating life", which is ironic, because that is exactly what they are. Some were really strong and necessary characters but some could have been cut out completely without notice (like Matthew Broderick's character).  I really, really, really don't like Anna Paquin as an actress - she seems like she struggles to get the words to leave her mouth and she has these weird facial twitches that drive me insane.  If she wasn't a successful child actress, I can't see her getting a job in the present day.  However, I will hesitantly admit that her annoying traits worked for this film.  Personally, I think the film would have had more impact with a stronger actress, but that's just me being overly critical. 

4. Being Flynn - This film was incredibly depressing to watch but I can't say that it had any resonating impact.  It deals with several heavy issues like depression, abandonment, homelessness, addiction etc., but never really digs in enough to become unsettling.  The acting is solid, with Paul Dano holding his own against Robert De Niro.  It's almost impossible to make me feel sympathy for someone who abandoned their child (even more so if that person is also racist, homophobic, narcissistic and arrogant), but De Niro almost did it. I can't help but think that many of the scenes with Lili Taylor were cut out of the film because she seemed like a glorified extra (I'm too lazy to look into it).  Overall, I think the film is worth watching, if only to gain insight into the fragile mind of a writer. 


5. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows - The first one was fun, but terribly unmemorable.  This one is less fun and even less memorable.  As in the first one, Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law seem to be have more fun making the film than the audience has watching it.  Their chemistry and banter is the only thing that keeps the film afloat.  I like Guy Ritchie (for the most part), but he seems to be stuck on a repetitive loop.  I'm all for a director sticking to a signature style, but they need to mix it up a bit to keep it interesting.  There was one cool scene - the forest scene, but it was still typical Richie style (slow-motion bullet's abound).  Noomi Rapace was a miscast - I don't buy her as a damsel in distress for one second.