How Do You Know?

I’m back from a wonderful vacation with my folks, and you know what that means!  Time to get back to it!  This weekend, we watched How Do You Know with Reese Witherspoon, Paul Rudd, Owen Wilson and Jack Nicholson.

The film is about a softball star (Witherspoon’s character) who comes to a crossroads in her life after being cut from Team USA.  That crossroads seems to coincide with the type of man she would like to date/spend the rest of her life with.  Owen Wilson’s character is athletic, fun, spontaneous and not overly thoughtful.  Paul Rudd’s character is awkward, lovable, and kind.  Both meet different needs that she has, and she spends the movie sort of deciding which needs are the most important.  

The film is packed with excellent one-liners and the awkward moments that I came to know and love from Rudd’s stint on Friends (“My name is Crap Bag.  If you have trouble remembering it, think of a bag of crap,” springs to mind).  

Overall, it was a typical romantic comedy.  It gave me everything I wanted, and I loved it for that.  I’m not so sure it would have been worth spending $9 per person to go see in the theater, but it was a great renter.  I say that because it wasn’t a laugh a minute or anything, and there really wasn’t anything in particular to make it stand out above and beyond any other romantic comedy on the market right now.  But, at the same time, those things shouldn’t necessarily count against it.  As I said, it met all my expectations as a romantic comedy.

One thing that did confuse me was Rudd’s relationship with his father, played by Nicholson.  Rudd starts out by saying his mom left them when he was 7, and Nicholson’s character raised him.  But, they have an odd relationship.  Nicholson is very manipulative and ends up getting Rudd in a heap of trouble with the government - the kind that generally ends in jail time.  I’m not sure that’s an overly realistic scenario for a father-son team that should have a fairly strong bond after experiencing such abandonment together.  I mean, you get straight from the beginning of the film that Nicholson’s character doesn’t have a whole lot of respect for Rudd’s character as he berates him for getting into this situation – even though later you find out the situation is because of Nicholson’s actions.  I just don’t think Rudd’s character would’ve ended up being so…normal if he’d experienced that kind of verbal abuse his whole life with no other parent to balance it, ya’ know?  

Anyway, that was my only real qualm with the film.  Overall, I think it’s worth watching as far as romantic comedies go.  Best romantic comedy ever?  No.  Those slots are reserved for movies like Sleepless in Seattle, Music and Lyrics, and so fourth.  This one was nowhere near “pecan pie” status, but it was still entertaining, it gave me some laughs and made me feel good by the end.  And that’s all I wanted it to do.    

Never Let Me Go...EVER

I just watched Never Let Me Go with Keira Knightly, Carey Mulligan and Andrew Garfield.  I actually really had high hopes for this film, but alas, I was let down again.

The concept of the film is kindof interesting.  It's about people who are engineered to be organ donors.  They don't survive much past 30, when they "complete" and donate their hearts and other vital organs.  The question the people in charge seem to be posed with is whether or not these kids/young adults have souls.  The subject is apparently debatable because they were grown for this purpose, and there fore many of the people who fathered this concept don't view them as humans.

Had the movie focused a little more on this subject, I think it would've been a little easier to swallow.  Instead, it focused on a sort of love triangle between the three main characters.  And even that wasn't well developed in my opinion.  It starts out with Cathy and Tommy in love and cute, then Ruth just swoops in and Tommy goes along with it?  That doesn't make sense to me.  Then, Cathy just forgives Tommy and takes him back 10 years later?

I really wanted this to be sort of a Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, The Giver type of film where the donors really fight back to have lives of their own and try to break free of Big Brother.  But instead they all just succumbed to their fates, like wusses.  You could almost argue, based on that reaction, that they didn't have souls.  Seems to me like a normal person would fight for their life, Rage Against the Machine so-to-speak.  Maybe there are too many movies and books like that, but it definitely would've made for a more interesting/engaging plot.

I'd say you can skip this one.  It was depressing and underdeveloped, a fatal combination for any flick.

Hungry Yet?

According to an article on Yahoo today, Jennifer Lawrence – of Winter’s Bone – will be the star of the upcoming Hunger Games film.

I was very intrigued by this news, because a) I didn’t know they were doing a film of this, and b) I don’t really know who Jennifer Lawrence is.  She did get an Oscar nod for her roll in Winter’s Bone, but I have yet to see that one.

I like that they chose an up and coming actress for the roll.  Someone like Dakota Fanning would bring too many expectations to the film.  Although she is very diverse, people might be looking for Jane in The Hunger Games, and I don’t think that’s the right approach to this heroine at all.

It will be interesting to see who else ends up in the film.

The Hunger Games is a young adult book by Suzanne Collins that I’ve had on my list for quite some time, and according to IMDB, the film is do out in 2012.  That gives me plenty of time to read the three-part series.

It’s apparently about an America gone bad, where contestants (chosen by lottery) are forced to fight against each other to be the last one alive.  The event is televised and it is mandatory for all residents to watch the event.  The story line reminds me a little of Brave New World except for teens.  I’m psyched to read it.

The beauty of this teen flick is it appears Collins is one of the writers on the film, so one would think it will follow her original storyline pretty closely.

Director, Gary Ross, also did Sea Biscut, Big – that one takes me back – and Pleasantville, so it will be very interesting to see what he does with a story line that’s so different.

It would appear the film doesn’t have a website, or a trailer (which would make sense, since they haven’t picked all their actors, but whatever) or anything yet!  So, I’m left to speculate that it will be awesome. 

New This Week

New DVDs

Yesterday, a few notable films were released to DVD and Blu Ray, just in case you missed them in the theater.

First up is The Fighter.  I haven’t seen this one yet, and I’m not convinced I need to.  Anyone want to argue the point?  I know Christian Bale got a lot of attention for it, but I need more than that.  I could go either way about Mark Wahlberg, and I dunno.  The story seemed a little…tired.  A poor fighter climbs to the top to become champion?  Didn’t Rocky do that like 768 times?  Meh.

Clint Eastwood’s Hereafter is also out on DVD this week.  This is one I caught in the theater, because I was pretty excited about it.  However, I felt sort of let down after seeing it.  It took way to long to get into the nitty gritty of the plot.  Then, when it finally got to the good stuff, 15 minutes later it was over.  I thought it was a great concept, and I love movies that have different characters and story lines that all come together in the end, but this one just didn’t do it for me.

The Switch is out this week as well.  I must say, this was a very enjoyable film.  A typical romantic comedy with a fair amount of predictability, but I’m not really looking for surprises from a movie like this.  It was full of great one-liners, and all around good writing.  I have to say, I’ll never look at Diane Sawyer the same way again.  Depending on what kind of mood you’re in, of the three that are out this week, I’d say this one is the one that’s worth renting.  

New Trailers This Week

The trailer for Beautiful Boy was released yesterday.  Holy crap.  This looks like an I-wanna-kill-myself kind of movie.  Although it looks amazing, and appears to deal with some tough issues (it centers around the parents of a gunman responsible for a shooting at a local college who took his life after the deed was done), this may not be one I want to see if I’m feeling a little down for any reason.  The trailer only provides a vague promise of “coming soon.”

Larry Crowne is another trailer that was released just today.  It seems to be about a guy who’s going back to college and falls in love with his teacher.  I’m intrigued, mostly because it has Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts.  With those two big names, you can’t hardly miss, right?  It’s due out July 1.  

I've Fallen and I Can't Get Up!

Holy crap.  I just finished watching 127 hours.  Dang.  I whole-heartedly support James Franco’s Oscar nod.  (I still think Colin Firth was the rightful winner – I’m just sayin’.)

I knew going in that he spends the entire movie trapped under a rock in a canyon.  Because of that, I thought the movie would be super slow moving, and sort of long feeling.  But it really wasn’t.  Even though he doesn’t really move for the majority of the film, the lengths he went to save himself kept me holding my breath and wondering how he would escape.

Let me just say, I’m really glad I did not see it on the big screen.  I may have vomited and or passed out at the part where he cuts off his arm with a CAN OPENER.  Generally, I frown on vomiting or any other break down in bodily functions in public.  The fact that this is a true story makes that scene even more gruesome and horrible.  I’ve seen films that were bloodier or more graphic – Saving Private Ryan, or Braveheart, or heck the first five seconds of that Blade movie – but when it’s real, it’s even more unbelievable and gut wrenching.  

I’d like to think, were I in a similar situation I’d prevail and find my way back home.  Realistically though, I probably would’ve died in that canyon.  He was so resourceful!  He hooked up a pulley system to try and gain some leverage and lift the rock off his arm.  He suspended himself with his gear so he could sleep.  He wrapped himself in everything he had to stay warm at night.  Every time he came up with some new idea, some new way to stay alive, I was amazed.  

I do have to say, that those people who never watched “I Shouldn’t Be Alive” on the Discovery Channel may have been confused towards the middle and end, when he started hallucinating because of dehydration.  Unlike “I Shouldn’t Be Alive,” 127 Hours had no narrator to explain what his body was going through, but I can forgive some ambiguity in favor of realism.  

One thing I missed was seeing a reunion with his folks.  They get him on the helicopter – which he walks to after 5 days without food and water, by the way – then it’s a montage of press appearances, swimming and hiking.  He talked so much about how he loved his mom and wished he’d called her back when he was stuck in the canyon that I wanted to see her relief, her joy.

I think my favorite part was the very end where it showed the real guy and his wife and newborn sitting on the couch.  It was such a comfort to see.  There he is, with his family.  There’s what he’s done with the life he pried from the jaws of death.  

I declare this movie a must see for everyone, except maybe those of you like my mom, or cousin who are a little squeamish about blood.  It was truly inspirational, made even better by the fact that it’s a true story.

P.S. If you ever go hiking alone, make sure you TELL PEOPLE WHERE YOU’RE GOING!  

Not too Dirrty

Since Dan is in San Diego for the foreseeable future, I decided to seize this golden opportunity and watch Burlesque.  I know Christina Aguilera has gotten a ton of criticism lately for botching the Star Spangled Banner at the Super Bowl, but overall, I really like her as an artist.  She’s gorgeous, she can dance, but more importantly, dang can she sing.  Cher, on the other hand, I have a sort of love-hate relationship with.  She’s great.  You can’t not love her.  But her vibrato gets on my nerves.  Is that a goat singing?  What is that?

The concept of uniting a legend with new talent isn’t new, and Cher and Christina gave me everything I wanted.  In fact, I was sort of surprised Christina was that good at acting.  She’s no Natalie Portman – think Black Swan, not Star Wars – but I think she’s better than most blockbuster singers would be.  

And, can I just say that I love Stanley Tucci?  He is fantastic in everything I’ve seen him in.  Julia and Julie, The Devil Wears Prada, The Lovely Bones (which I hated, but it was good to see him as someone creepy), I mean, the list goes on.  

Anyway, that being said, there were some minor problems with the film, I thought.  I mean, it’s Burlesque, I didn’t really expect it to change my life.  But, I thought the whole plot with Nikki was a little underdeveloped.  She had all this angst, and Ali prevailed every single time.  I find that’s not overly realistic, even for a movie.  Plus, Nikki throws this giant hissy fit, quits, comes back in like a day and Tess welcome’s her?  And there’s no conflict between her and Ali after that?  They just…share the stage?  No no no no.

I think underdevelopment was a theme for the movie.  Just look at Jack’s character.  He’s engaged to a psycho, apparently, and writes music.  What was the deal with that?  Why did Natalie just show up?  What happened there?  Did he break up with her or not?  Is she crazy, or was he lying?  

However, underdevelopment was not an issue for the musical numbers.  Cher had two, and Christina had…well, all the rest (five for the record).  And neither of them disappointed.  I particularly liked Cher’s “You Haven’t Seen the Last of Me” because it really helped to connect with her character, and maybe even her.  Christina’s numbers were all good, but were pretty similar – filled with impressive dance moves and vocals like only she can deliver.  It would’ve been nice to see something like what Cher had – a window into who her character was supposed to be, or a “Reflection” of some sort of internal struggle (I guess they couldn’t work that one in) – but maybe next time.

Overall, I actually really enjoyed this one.  It’s fun and entertaining.  It’s not going to win an Oscar or anything – well, ok, it didn’t win an Oscar or anything, but it was still worth watching in my opinion.  Girls, check it out!  Boys, if you’re still reading at this point, tell your wives/girlfriends/fiancé’s that I said you don’t have to watch it.  

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?

So, yesterday Dan and I saw Red Riding Hood.  Bearing in mind when I embarked on this adventure, I didn’t know much about the film – save for the fact that Amanda Seyfried and the guy from Harry Potter were in it.   That was enough for me to be intrigued.  Never mind the very cool trailers that portrayed the film to be a thriller and promised edge of your seat excitement.

So, how did I feel after seeing it?  Betrayed.  In place of an exciting flick, I got a hokey, Twilight-esque, movie with no reel identity (I had to do it – and you know what, I’m not even sorry).  Really, Red, do you want to be super artistic, or just cheesy?  Did you have a point, or were you just supposed to be entertaining?     

The movie opens with a horrifying scene of two kids – between 6 and 8 I’d say – in the woods who trap a rabbit and intend to kill it.  This is an awfully abrupt way to open a film, and the contrast between super cute made-for-the-big-screen kids and the violence of killing a rabbit didn’t set the right tone – at least not for me.  

The rest of the film follows suit with an odd mix of sweeping shots of the beautiful scenery and the brutality of the situation the village is in.  

Even more than the needless scene with the rabbit, the demise of Claude was unnecessary and awful.  Claude’s character reminded me a bit of Noah Percy from “The Village,” but Hardwicke fell awfully short of Shyamalan’s scapegoat character.  Claude’s death served absolutely no purpose, and was brutal to the point of cringing.  While I was saddened at Noah Percy’s death, I was outraged at Claude’s – and not with Father Solomon.

On top of that, two major elements really bothered me about the film.  One: That she falls in love with the new werewolf.  I’m sorry, when did Jacob and Bella enter the storyline?  What happened to having fresh ideas?  And, aren’t the teen girls vampired and werewolfed out by now?  Seriously, when I was a particularly annoying pre-teen it was all R.L. Stine all the time, and no one beat that dead horse to a movie pulp.  I know Hardwicke is probably laughing all the way to the bank, but still.  

And two: That the dad was the wolf.  What the bleep?  Where did that come from?  I would’ve been sort of satisfied if it had been the grandmother – although the setup for that scenario was so blasted blatant that it wasn’t really even creative by the end.  But no, he comes out of left field and “reveals” himself as the wolf.  It wasn’t even like, “Holy crap, thinking back there were all these signs that he was the wolf, that was such an excellent surprise.”  It was more like, “We wanted you to think it was these two characters, but it wasn’t!  Haha!”

I really wanted this to be an awesome flick, which is probably why I was so disappointed with it.  Here’s what I expected:  Red to be the wolf.  I wanted it to be this deep, psychological thriller where she has this horrible internal struggle, and slowly discovers who/what she is, culminating with the scene where she says “what big eyes you have” and she’s looking in the mirror!  Now there’s a great film.  What happened?

Overall, I’d say this is a good film to watch on TBS.  Possibly Netflix, if you’re super bored and it pops up for free.  It wasn’t the worst thing I’ve seen, but it was kindof a long way from being anything I would characterize as “good."  Proceed with caution.