'How Do You Know' doesn't seem to know itself

The film “How do you Know” stars Reese Witherspoon as a career softball player named Lisa, who, at age 31, was just cut from the all-American team. The explanation for her dismissal is that she is a tad slower than her fellow team hopefuls.

Lisa reels from being cut, and all she seems to do for the remainder of the film is take the “slow” insinuation to heart: she loses her focus and wanders around in an unshakeable fog that make many of her actions inexplicable.

Her first downfall is in starting a relationship with Matty (Owen Wilson), a baseball player for the Washington Nationals who is the epitome of many of the womanizing narcissists that we see in many pro athletes. Matty is too full of himself to respect Lisa, but she doesn’t care: he’s good for the purely physical relationship and she doesn’t want to bog herself down in a commitment.
That decision does not seem so out-there at first, since her commitment to the softball team had ended badly. She was just looking to take her mind off her troubles.

Almost as proof that she and Matty were just “friends with benefits,” Lisa agrees to go on a lunch date with George (Paul Rudd), who was set up with her through a mutual friend. George is also having a spell of bad professional luck. He recently received a document informing him that he was being indicted by the federal government for a wrong-doing at work.

So, the two sit in a fancy restaurant, each seemingly aware of the other’s job-related woes as one would be aware of a big elephant in the room; but, of course, they don’t address it. In fact, when George starts nervously rambling to Lisa at the restaurant because he is nervous about his feelings toward her or is just generally confused about the state of his life now that he is being indicted (or a combination of the two), she tells him to be quiet. She wants the two to sit in silence so she can clear her head.

The “elephant in the room” idiom (not addressing or ignoring obvious, looming truths) is, ironically, the best picture of how this film plays out. Many of the problems between the characters are never truly explained or thought through. Why does Lisa, who could possibly commiserate her woes with George, tell him to be quiet? If she doesn’t want to discuss her problems, she should have just stuck with Matty and not even bothered with George.

As for George, a federal case is made out of the fact that he is the target of…a federal case (investigation details are so bad that his secretary tells him she will be fired if she lets anything slip to him). However, the charge is never specified. Wikipedia’s explanation: he is “the target of a criminal investigation for criminal malfeasance.” Okay, then. It’s awfully lofty for a guy who seems like he tries to do well, but let a bad thing trip him up.

Perhaps Lisa’s telling George to be quiet was her way to try to regain power after her (and his) professional losses; a way to become more centered and move forward. But this is the only action in the film in which this could be an adequate description.

When the two meet back in his apartment in later days to talk, George pours his heart out about his feelings about life, people, his job woes, whatever, and all Lisa can respond with is “Huh?” or some other noise of incomprehension. Any moment between the two is lost. Lisa becomes so cloying that you want to yell, “snap out of it” to her mid-way through the film.

Lisa gains no more stability with Matty, with whom she decides to move in. Strange, again, as Matty has barely been able to distinguish her from one of his many other one-night stands (the man has closets full of women’s clothing so his conquests don’t have to leave his apartment to do the “walk of shame” with last night’s ensemble, for crying out loud). Now they love each other? It doesn’t take long for Lisa to realize that, gee, Matty is a self-absorbed jerk and she’s better off without him. So she leaves with her suitcases in hand and goes back to her one-sided chats with George (who, in another fuzzy plot point, may or may not be her new love interest).

“How do you Know” is as vague and frustrating as the question posed in the title (How do we know… what?) It is even more of an anomaly considering the leads. Witherspoon has found her niche in playing cute, bubbly girls who have to face obstacles and prove that they are tough cookies (who says cute girls are too weak to face their problems?) Simply think back to “Legally Blonde” where she played a ditzy sorority girl who managed to graduate Harvard Law School, or in her dramatic turn in “Walk the Line” as June Carter Cash, a woman who supported her country singer husband, but refused to be overshadowed by his fame. After considering those roles, it is hard to see why she chose Lisa, a woman who is completely unsympathetic in her actions and does not resolve to adequately solve her character’s problems by the end of the film.

As for Rudd, he comes close to playing his lovable average-Joe type (the man who isn’t the classic stud, but still manages to woo the ladies based on his charm and general cuteness), but considering George seems to have no more grasp on what a more positive direction for his life should be by the film’s end, he doesn’t quite endear as much as he should.

Finally, in the wasted talent category, we come to Jack Nicholson. Yes, THE Jack Nicholson is in this film as George’s executive father and boss. Normally, Nicholson has enough presence and clout to be mentioned much earlier in a review, but here he has been relegated bumbling old curmudgeon who seems to thrown his hands up at his son’s misfortune as if to say “what can I do?” He is not the rabble-rousing revolutionary we know from the likes of “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest” and other legendary works in the actor’s repertoire.

Alas, Witherspoon, Rudd and Nicholson can’t always play the same parts (but all three do niche performances so well). And perhaps these three wanted to try something different when they chose this script, but that “something” is not clear.

Overall, the film is flighty in every aspect of its development. Characters’ problems were brought up, but scarcely fleshed out, which is inexcusable for a nearly two-hour long film. It leaves more questions than answers, certainly what a film that seems to be billed as a light-hearted romantic comedy should never do.

'The Last Station' will pull you in

I am not what you would call a fan of period films, especially if the period the film is discussing is before the 1940. The elaborate costumes, flowery speech in everyday conversation, and the staunch propriety with which people of earlier ages seemed to conduct their lives nearly put me to sleep. These films, while definitely examples of the elegant beauty and craftsmanship that takes to design costumes and authentic sets, do not much hold my interest to what the characters are doing and saying because the aforementioned factors are too much to ignore.

So when I decided to watch “The Last Station,” a period film and biopic about late Russian author Leo Tolstoy, writer of two of the most well-revered, but lengthy tomes of the past century’s literature (“War and Peace” and “Anna Karenina”), I must have been out of my mind, right?

Well, not quite. The immediate answer of why I watched was the presence of James McAvoy in the cast. I have been a fan of his for quite some time, after enjoying his presence in many films, especially “Atonement” and “The Last King of Scotland.” (In “The Last Station,” he plays Valentin Bulgakov, a young, eager disciple of Tolstoy’s who comes to the author’s home in Yasnaya Polyana, Russia, to become his secretary.) And hey, a film’s nothing without a bit of eye candy to hold interest, right?

But after seeing the film, I realized that while he was integral to my enjoyment of the film, Mr. McAvoy was not the only stunningly beautiful thing in this film. I admired what the film portrayed as Tolstoy’s thoughts on love and a life free of material wants, and a struggle to keep the balance between those two ideals. These tales were culled from a series of diaries kept by the real-life counterparts of the characters in the film.

The plot is thus: it is 1910, the last year of over 80 successful ones Tolstoy (Christopher Plummer) has led on earth. His home in Yasnaya Polyana is surrounded by his disciples, who lovingly refer to themselves as “Tolstoyans,” and equate Tolstoy and writing and philosophies to Christ and his Sermon on the Mount. (Well, he is not “Christ,” as Christ is Christ, the characters confirm, but Tolstoy is the closest thing on earth to Him). It is the determination of the Tolstoyans, led by the author’s friend and advisor, Vladimir Chertkov (Paul Giamatti), that Tolstoy sign a new Last Will and Testament that will hand over all of the copyrights to his work to the people of Russia. His wife, Countess Sofya (Helen Mirren) is enraged by this prospect: she believes that if the Russian people have power to his work, she and their eight children will not receive enough financial support after his death. She also believes that she is as much an owner of his works as he; she helped him write many of them. As the feud between Chertkov/the Tolstoyans and Sofya widens, the elderly scribe begins to move to another location to finish his work, but falls ill on the journey. A train station in Astapovo (the “last station” for which the film is named) is where he makes his death bed.

Soon, it becomes evident that “War and Peace” is not only the title of Tolstoy’s famous work; these opposing themes seem to mar what become the last days of his life and cause pain in his marriage to Sofya.

The Tolstoyan credo preaches peace, love, and living in harmony without material possessions. This school of thought is so influential that it has been followed by later world peacemakers, such as Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. However, the man who preaches these ideas seems to do better with theorizing them than putting them into practice. Sure, he and Sofya have a long-lasting marriage, but they war over their philosophies. While Leo is embarrassed by living extravagantly and having material possessions, Sofya wants to hold on to them: she loves living in her large estate, wearing finery, and the overall status she has with being a countess. She wants to live this way even after her husband is gone.

The polarity in the couple’s thoughts may be why Leo seems to become more enamored with the Tolstoyans (he even went so far as to replace a picture in his study that had been of himself and Sofya to one of himself and Chertkov) than the woman he has spent decades with. It seems that Tolstoy is more at peace with the people who love him, rather than the people who love him and expect that love back in an equal amount.

But is Sofya really so selfish in her wants? She worked hard in their marriage--she bore him eight children, helped him write his books, and stayed with him even though his philosophies conflicted with hers. Shouldn’t she be able to enjoy the fruits of her labor?

In the midst of this, Valentin is between the bickering couple. Even though he was sent to the author’s home at the suggestion of Chertkov, he finds himself needing to mediate the opposing sides. Aside from this, his allegiance to Tolstoyan views on love are not matched by his first real lover, Masha (Kerry Condon), who does not seem to match his voracity for the mantras. Valentin must learn to make his own experiences and lessons with love.

You don’t have to shy away from this film if you know nothing about Tolstoy or his works; that’s not what the story is about. The beauty of this film to someone who doesn’t typically like period pieces is that it strips away may of the dull conventions of the typical “age” film. Sure, the costumes and sets are integral to the story (the Russian countryside is beautiful; and the costumes show the balance between Sofya’s fine taste and the Tolstoyans’ non-materialism), but the story is typical of what a real married couple goes through, making it more human and relatable to someone during any age. It goes to show that any married couple has to deal with milestones in their lives, and that they are at times difficult to contend with, no matter how long they have been together. It also goes to show that no matter how revered, no hero comes without their flaws. To show that such a respected figure had these struggles makes him even more relatable--he is a human trying to figure out life, just as the rest of us are, and that journey doesn’t end no matter how old we become.

The entire cast conveyed the story superbly: there was hope that giving Tolstoy’s works to the Russian people would bring peace, but this was not without the fury of a warring couple who needed to please themselves just as much as they needed to please others. Seasoned actors Plummer and Mirren are still on top of their game, and were much deserving of the many nominations (including a Golden Globe and Academy Award, each) that they garnered from their performances.

“The Last Station” is on DVD now.

'Juliet': Not quite letter-perfect, but still worth a view

“Letters to Juliet” begins to almost every girl’s showcase of an ideal romance: the main character, Sophie (Amanda Seyfried), is about to be married and sets off to beautiful Verona, Italy, to spend some time with her fiancé, Victor (Gael Garcia Bernal) before their marriage.

The couple must take this “pre-honeymoon,” as Sophie calls it, because Victor will be too busy opening his restaurant after their wedding. A “pre-honeymoon” seems a fair enough compromise if the destination is Italy with a gorgeous man at your side, right? That’s what Sophie is hoping for as she traverses the Italian city, but Victor has his restaurant on his mind. He is too consumed with going to wine auctions and cheese tastings, and other cities that are too far from fair Verona for Sophie to be interested in. So, he goes to them and she stays.

Many tourists, including Sophie, come to Verona to see Juliet’s house — Juliet, of course, being the tragic heroine of Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet.” Once she arrives at the house, Sophie sees many women in the courtyard who are crying and heartbroken and writing letters to Juliet asking her advice to restore their hope of true love again.

At the end of the day, Sophie sees a woman collecting the letters that have been pasted on the courtyard’s wall. She follows the woman and finds that she, along with three others, are a collective known as the “Secretaries of Juliet,” the people who write responses to the women’s letters. The idea of the secretaries is appealing to Sophie; not only do these women provide solid and experience-backed responses to the love woes of the letter-writers (with the distance Victor ignorantly creates between the two, Sophie could definitely use some of this advice), but also that the secretaries write such moving responses that the women who receive them could totally change their perspectives of love based upon them.

Using words as influence is what Sophie had been striving for in her career before she left for Verona—she was an employee of the New Yorker who wanted a promotion from being a fact checker to a certified published reporter.

The next day, when Victor leaves Sophie for this dealing or that, she once again visits the secretaries and helps them collect the letters from the wall. Doing so, she accidentally knocks a brick out of the wall and finds a letter that a girl had written to Juliet over 50 years ago.

Later, we find that the girl is an Englishwoman named Claire who had studied in Italy and fell in love an Italian man named Lorenzo Bartolini. When she returned to England, she regretfully never told Lorenzo her true feelings.

Sophie is inspired by the letter, and believes it deserves an answer, though she realizes that responding would be taking a leap of faith that Claire and Lorenzo are still around and are still interested in each other.

Lo and behold, the letter does reach Claire (Vanessa Redgrave) and she comes to Verona almost immediately with her grandson, Charlie (Christopher Egan). Charlie is none too happy that Sophie has dug up his grandmother’s fifty-year old past and love: he believes that her true soul mate was his grandfather. However, Claire is receptive to finding Lorenzo again and thanks Sophie for rekindling her old feelings of him. After doing a search and finding more than 50 Lorenzo Bartolinis spread across the Italian countryside, Claire, Charlie and Sophie (who tags along after Victor leaves her for business dealings yet again), set off to find which Lorenzo still has Claire’s heart. While Claire and Sophie are optimistic that Lorenzo can be located, Charlie grumbles at every Bartolini house they visit that turns out not to be the “one,” fearing that Claire will be heartbroken again not only from Lorenzo, but because she had already had to deal with the death of her husband.

Predictably (and happily), Claire locates the right Lorenzo (Franco Nero, Redgrave’s real-life husband) just as the group was about to give up and head back to Verona, and then home. The two fall back into their old feelings for each other, immediately loving the emotions that they had been transported back 50 years. In a vow not to let another 50 years pass them apart, the two marry a few months after their reunion.

The film places an interesting role reversal in terms of romance and relationships. Upon receiving the letter, the elder Claire instantly transforms back into a teenager in puppy love, remembering how handsome Lorenzo was, and undoubtedly how he caused her heart to skip a beat. Though she realizes that with such an amount of time that Lorenzo may not be located again, she certainly does not seem to let this bother her through most of their excursion (when they reach the place that she is almost certain he lives, she at first balks nervously, but then falls right into his arms).

Meanwhile, the younger Sophie, who herself is supposed to be exploring the beginnings of romance on her own, is forced to contend (and bicker) with the men in her life, the negligent Victor and the disagreeable Charlie. However, watching Claire’s reunion-in-progress is a happy diversion from the uncertainty of what Sophie’s fate will be at the end of the film.

However, though Sophie may seem downtrodden while interacting with these frustrating men, she still believed in the beauty of romance and conveyed that so well in her letter that Claire was inspired to feel the same, even after she had experienced the loss of her husband, and as we find out later in the film, her son (Charlie’s father, to a car accident). The perspectives on love from both the young and the old — the feelings of puppy love, and the time that is needed to foster a romance — is truly one of the heartwarming parts of this film.

Though it may seem odd that women are entrusting Juliet, whose fate was suicide after she learned that she could not be with her lover, to help them with matters of the heart, this device requires a bit of suspension of disbelief. Yes, Juliet had a tragic fate, but what she and Claire knew is that it is devastating to be in love with someone, but not be able to be with them because of time, distance, or other factors. But Claire never gave up on being with Lorenzo again. The fact that she could wait for him all of those years, and they fall in love again so deeply that they want to spend the rest of their lives together shows that she had much deeper feelings for him than the initial lust she might have felt as a teenager. This is also what Claire tries to teach Sophie: it’s not just a matter of being with the one you love, but having that person appreciate you for who you are, and what each person can add to the relationship.

Overall, “Letters” is a lightweight and agreeable slice of cinematic romance. The only thing you’ll really hate about it is not being in the middle of the lush Italian scenery yourself (the cinematography gives you such an envy-inducing view).

To watch: “Letters” is availabe on DVD on Sept. 14.

Read between the lines to uncover the lessons of 'Eat, Pray, Love'

Travel writers and those longing to escape everyday doldrums will be the ones most likely to place “Eat, Pray, Love” on their must-see movie list.

The film, an adaptation of author Liz Gilbert’s memoir of the same name, features Julia Roberts as Gilbert, who traveled to three different locales (Italy, India and Bali) over the course of one year, living for four months in each one.

After feeling broken from her decision to divorce her husband (Billy Crudup), Gilbert set off to rediscover herself after realizing that she could not, nor wanted to be, the kind of wife her (somewhat clingy) husband wanted her to be.

She had a personal connection to each of the countries she chose: Italy came from her desire to learn the language, a guru her post-divorce boyfriend (James Franco) had mentioned taught in an ashram in India, and Bali was the home of a helpful spiritual guide named Ketut whom Gilbert had met years earlier while visiting the island for a writing assignment.

Bali was where Gilbert found the most success. While there, she had met a Brazilian man who related to her story of heartbreak (he was also divorced) and they fell in love. Gilbert’s follow-up book, “Committed,” says the two later married.
The story sounds simple enough, right? Break-ups are common enough to relate to, as is the need to be whole again after sharing life with someone else. The film’s visual representation of Gilbert’s three overseas homes (shot on-location) is stunning, and Roberts continues to have a knack for portraying warm, friendly characters. What’s not to like?

The film seems enjoyable, but reading its reviews online will tell a different story. Despite coming from a best-selling novel, Gilbert’s story has some detractors. The negative consensus is that her journey is totally unrelatable. What average woman would have enough money to travel the world for an entire year? How many women would feel comfortable leaving responsibilities, such as children or a husband, to make such a decision? One could say that Gilbert’s purpose for sharing her story was to be a guru (not unlike the ones she sought out in her travels) for women who have experienced similar situations. Considering what she left behind (friends, a successful writing career and a younger lover), though, her story seems more a fantasy of many than a reality of few.

While “Eat, Pray, Love’s” naysayers make a valid point in that Gilbert’s story could be modeled exactly by only a small niche of women, many of its overall messages are something that can inspire women. Gandhi said that “you should be the change you seek in the world.” Gilbert knew she needed to change the unhappiness she had in her life and did so by learning from three different cultures. Though leaving may have been a difficult situation, she decided to consider her own happiness. This is something women often take for granted, as they are too consumed trying to make others happy first.

While she did at times stop to reflect on what happened with her husband back home, Gilbert still took her journey with an open mind and tried to quell the negative thoughts that popped into her head. Would she worry about gaining weight from a slice of pizza she ate in Naples? No. She would buy a bigger pair of jeans and continue on, focusing instead on the architecture and learning new Italian words.
Director Ryan Murphy told Entertainment Weekly magazine that “there are so many rites-of-passage movies for men, but not a lot for women.” Murphy is right about this, and “Eat, Pray, Love” should be celebrated as that type of film. What may be the ultimate turn-off, though, is the idea of seeing Gilbert as some kind of guru for women.

Though Gilbert is not the first person put in this position, it still does not change the fact that women are told they need “gurus” to help better their lives. Oprah, the most popular self-help guru, has advice on dieting, exercise, raising a family, and even on sex. The problem with these “gurus” is that they are often wealthy and can afford the five-star restaurants and personal trainers they suggest to audiences If the gurus are so well revered, isn’t what they are saying is that women should live beyond their means? By Gilbert having the ability to afford overseas airfare, expensive restaurants, and a place to stay for months in each new country, she seems to offer no more of a helpful solution to women in similar situations than any other “guru” has.

The intentions of these gurus are good, though, once you look beyond the price tag. If anyone has the ability that Gilbert did to travel the world should go for it. For the rest of us, it is important to remember that you don’t have to be rich financially to experience the same riches that Gilbert took in from her trip. Save money to occasionally eat at a nice restaurant. Volunteer in a homeless shelter or soup kitchen to get the same fulfillment Gilbert had in her Indian ashram. Take a cue from her Balinese love story by strengthening the relationships that are most important to you. By practicing such simple acts to gain personal happiness or just to escape the routine blues, all you have to emulate is Gilbert’s openness to adventure.

Dream a little dream: The phenomenon of 'Inception'

Try to remember the last dream you had; specifically, the central place of action in the dream. Do you remember how you got to this action? Can you remember arriving there, or did you just seem to fall into place? How did you wake up from the dream? Was it the result of some sort of action, such as falling or dying? Now think of the time it took to have the dream. The dream itself may have seemed to have lasted for hours, but you may have realized that in reality, you were asleep but for a few minutes.

People can create whole worlds, actions, and characters in their dreams, but because dreaming is such an incredibly complex process of the human mind, it is hard to pinpoint exactly how these dreams are created. Are they from real-life experiences, or are they projections based on the dreamer’s interpretation of their own world?

“Inception,” the new film from director Christopher Nolan (who has previously directed the latest films in the Batman franchise, “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Night”), attempts to answer all of the above questions about dreaming. However, what makes the film unique is that while dreaming is normally thought be an individual and personal process, it explores the notion that if someone else were to create your dream-world for you-- or perhaps to an implant and idea in your mind, without you knowing, consciously, that they did--it could completely change your life.

The film centers on a team of extractors led by Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), people who enter the dreams of others to obtain ideas and other information from the dreamer that would not normally come to light while the person is awake. The extractors work for clients and give the stolen ideas to them for use. While the extractors are in a dream, they construct an entire world where the idea heist takes place. While this process can be dangerous and even violent, none of the people who may become injured or killed in the dream are affected in real life. They simply use such actions as “kicks” that wake them back up.

Infringing upon someone’s unconscious mind is not so simple, however. The main plot of the film is the reverse of what the extractors are used to doing: rather than entering a dream to steal an idea, they must implant one (a process known as “inception”). Hired by a businessman named Saito (Ken Watanabe), the team must convince an heir, Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy), to stop his father’s company from monopolizing, which would put Saito out of business. To allow Fischer access to the implanted idea in a dream, the team must construct a multi-layered world, so the journey essentially becomes a dream-within-a dream-within-a-dream. In order to complete the layers, the team must heavily sedate both Fischer and themselves. Though necessary, this factor complicates matters, because if a person gets killed or injured at that level of dream depth, they do not simply wake up. They go into a sort of dream limbo, which depending on the length of real-time the team has to complete the mission, could result in being stranded for years in the dream-world (for instance, the team had ten hours in real-time to complete the mission, and if stranded in limbo, it would equal fifty years in the dream world).

In the center of all of this action is the story of Cobb, who considers the Fischer/Saito mission to be his final job. Though he thought to be one of the world’s most skilled extractors (which is why he was hired by Saito), his profession has completely taken over his life and has taken an immense personal toll on him. Naturally, stealing others’ ideas is an illegal maneuver, causing Cobb to be a wanted criminal all over the world. However, the toll of his actions on his family has been much greater.

Cobb longs to return to the United States to reunite with his two young children, who, because of his dangerous lifestyle, fear he may never come home. Practicing inception has already caused Cobb to lose his wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard). While Cobb was first experimenting with the process, he led Mal into inception, and the two spent years in a limbo dream-world, making lives for themselves. They too spent nearly fifty years in dream-time. Because of this extended dream time, when Mal awoke she was unable to determine dreams from reality. In order to escape her conflicted feelings, Mal committed suicide. Afterward, Cobb felt guilty, believing he caused her death. She begins to haunt him during his missions, her image nearly sabotaging them. His inability to shake her also has him questioning whether he has ever truly been back to reality or has been in one dream-world after another.

Because of its many layers, its shifting in and out of dream-worlds, and the intricate idea of dreaming itself, this film is a bit hard to get a grasp on only after one viewing, and for a fuller understanding, should be watched multiple times. However, this should not be a turn-off to the film goer. If you have ever had a vivid dream where you are jolted awake, all twisted in covers, heart pounding, and reaching to find your pillow, it provides a rush of emotion that is quite stimulating, no matter if the dream was a good one or a nightmare. The initial viewing of this film provides the same rush. However, subsequent viewings are as necessary as keeping a dream journal for later reflection on channeling those emotions into the dream’s true meaning.

In a world of remakes, spin-offs, and sequels (even “three-quels”), “Inception” is truly one of the most original works in recent film making. It showcases the ability to mix the thriller, action, and dramatic genres and it also displays stunning camera angles and visual imagery. Of course, the stellar cast, led by DiCaprio, also makes the myriad forthcoming emotions from the watching the film all worthwhile (his “dream team” also includes Arthur, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, his partner and the person responsible for researching the team’s targets; Ellen Page as Ariadne, a sort of architect who constructs the dream world; and Eames, played by Tom Hardy, who has the ability to shift into the identity of the dream’s targets). You also have to applaud Nolan for keeping the plot and details of the film to a minimum before its release; over-hyping it would simply ruin the uniqueness of the experience.

“Inception” is in theaters now. Go watch it and see for yourself how worthy it is of its critical acclaim and two number-one weekends at the box office.

Movie of the Week: 'Mama Mia!'

First Released: July 18, 2008
DVD Release: on sale now
Director: Phyllida Lloyd
Main Characters:
Sophie (Amanda Seyfried)
Donna (Meryl Streep)
Bill Anderson (Stellan Skarsgard)
Sam Carmichael (Pierce Brosnan)
Harry Bright (Colin Firth)
Tanya (Christine Baranski)
Rosie (Julie Walters)
Sky (Dominic Cooper)
Runtime: 1 hour, 48 minutes
Rated: PG-13 for sexual innuendoes

“Mamma Mia!” originated as a Broadway play that opened in 1999, and features the music of 1970s Swedish pop group ABBA. The two “B’s” in the group, Bjorn Ulvaeus and Benny Andersson were heavily involved in the play’s production.

The play is about a young woman named Sophie who is getting married in her mother’s villa in Greece. She has never known who her father is, so when she comes upon her mother’s old diary, she discovers that there might be three possible men that are her father. Being excited about this prospect, Sophie invites the men—Bill Anderson, Harry Bright, and Sam Carmichael—to Greece for her wedding. When Sophie’s mom, Donna, finds out about the invite, she is hesitant to face the men with whom she had unpleasant last experiences with. During the course of the film, Sophie tries desperately to find out which man is her father, but is having difficulty because she sees elements of each of them in herself. By the end of the film, Sophie still doesn’t know who her father is (Donna is not even sure herself), but values each relationship she has made.

While the story in the screenplay is interesting, this film/play would be nothing without the amazing ABBA music. My knowledge of the group’s music came about a bit unconventionally. I was in elementary school and was watching the Disney channel. A music video of “Mamma Mia” came on, and I was instantly drawn to the easy to dance to lyrics and beats. I knew I had to find out who was singing the song, and thus I came to experience A*Teens, another Swedish pop group who decided to cover ABBA songs with their debut CD, “The ABBA Generation.” (At the time, though, I had no idea who the real ABBA was and thought the songs were recorded originally by the A*Teens.)

This movie had all of my favorite songs: “Voulez-Vous,” “Lay All Your Love on Me,” “S.O.S,” and the wildly popular “Mamma Mia” and “Dancing Queen.” All of the main characters had songs to sing, and all of the actors did their own singing. This proved well for the women, especially Meryl Streep, whose character Donna was part of an ABBA-like women’s disco group with her friends Tanya and Rosie. For the men, however, this proved a bit disastrous. While Dominic Cooper, who played Sophie’s fiancé Sky, did well in his beachside duet with Amanda Seyfried’s Sophie during “Lay All Your Love on Me,” Skarsgard, Firth, and especially Brosnan did not fare well when all performed in “Our Last Summer.” Their voices were garbled and more of a mumble. (Rumors have it that Brosnan apparently wanted his voice to be dubbed by someone else, but since all of the other actors did their own singing, he also had to do his.)

Less than perfect voices aside (even though worse voices have made albums), this film was a very good fix for my ABBA craving. I only wish I could see the real Broadway play, but that’s for my next visit to New York. (For my first New York trip review, see tomorrow’s post.)

I give “Mamma Mia!” ***1/2 out of ****

Movie of the Week: 'Slumdog Millionaire'

Original Release Date: January 23, 2009

DVD: now available

Director: Danny Boyle

Characters:

Jamal Malik (Dev Patel)

Latika (Frieda Pinto)

host Prem Kumar (Anil Kapoor)

Runtime: 2 hours

Rated: R for violence, disturbing images and language

I must say that watching "Slumdog Millionaire" was a very pleasant surprise. At first I was not sure what to make of the film. It had swept the Oscars with all the big prizes like Best Picture and Best Director, as well as a slew of other technical awards, so critically it was very well acclaimed. However, all I had known about the movie was that it was about an Indian teenager competing in his country's version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" The show is just a multiple choice quiz show in which you answer questions that advance you in a dollar amount until you reach one million dollars, or in this case, rupees. Where in that scenario is a great story?

Yes, the game show is the epicenter of what takes place in the story. An 18 year-old man named Jamal Malik competes on the show and is advancing very rapidly, which is unusual for a contestant, as most others drop out of the game mid-way through. So unusual is Malik's case that authorities arrest him on the night before the final questions because no contestant has done so well before, and he is only a "dog" from the slums of Mumbai. He was orphaned as a child and received no formal education. Surely he must be cheating.

It turns out that the subjects of all of the questions he is asked are based off of events that happen in his childhood. The first is about a popular Indian movie star whom he had a chance to see face to face when he was small. The other was a god named Rama who he saw a vision of just after his mother was killed. Not all of these memories are positive, but they can provide him with the right answers. The questions are asked in the game show with 18 year old Malik, and the memories are presented as a series of flashbacks that tell the story. It is a very interesting introspective into Malik's life.

The story is heartwrenching, but heartwarming at the same time. As the movie was filmed on location in Mumbai, it shows how downright disgusting it is for people to have to live there. Malik was orphaned when he was a very small child, and he and his brother Salim were left to fend for themselves, resorting to violence (in Salim's case) at times to survive. Malik also falls in love with a girl named Latika who has no home or parents of her own. The two get separated at various points as they are moved around and eventually get older. But they reunite at the end of the story and are able to finally remain together.

A very good story indeed. ***1/2 out of ****

Movie of the Week: 'No Country for Old Men'

First Released: November 21, 2007
Directors: Joel and Ethan Coen
Main Characters:
Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones)
Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem)
Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin)
Runtime: 2 hours
Rated: R for strong graphic violence and some language

"No Contry for Old Men" won four Oscars, including Best Director, Best Picture, and Best Supporting Actor (Javier Bardem). It is currently listed as no. 103 on the Internet Movie Database's Top 250 movies of all time. "No Country" has also received a slew of other critical acclaim, with a 94 percent positive rating on rottentomatoes.com, a site which culls all reviews from top movie reviewers. With this in mind, I went into watching this movie thinking I could possibly be viewing one of the greatest masterpieces of all time. I thought that the way I viewed cinema would be forever changed. After finishing, though, I was left a little confused.

The supposed plot of "No Country" is about a hunter in Texas named Llewelyn Moss who stumbles upon $2 million and a lot of dead bodies in a drug deal gone wrong. Moss takes the money for himself, but soon a man named Anton Chigurh is on Moss's trail, and kills everyone in sight while trying to track Moss down. Meanwhile, Sheriff Bell tries to convince Moss to turn over the money to authorities in order to protect himself and his wife, Carla Jean.

I say "supposed plot" because this story becomes mere background as the film seems mostly as a vehicle for displaying Chigurh's violent and bloody killings.

Anton Chigurh is a strange man. Clad in a denim leisure suit and what can only be described as a Dorothy Hamill bowl-haircut (this film was set in 1980, so we can try to forgive him for this), he enters town carrying only a cattle gun at first and then a large gun with a hefty silencer, he naturally stands out. Chigurh is very unemotional. He has no sense of humor, and the victims that cross his path in any way (whether intentionally or unintentionally), he will shoot them square in the forehead, quickly and silently, leaving them to drop cold in a bloody heap. The only way a person who crosses him will live is if they win a coin toss. Chigurh, to say the least, is a big believer in destiny.

"No Country" is a Western at its core--it's set in the desert-like land of western Texas, and contains the hot pursuit of a cowboy by a gangster who is not shy about using brutal force to get his way. I have never been a fan of this type of genre, so maybe that is why I did not get the popularity of this film. Also, the Coen brothers (directors) are apparently fans of bloody gore, as referenced in two of the other films I have seen by them, "Fargo" and the end of their most recent film, "Burn after Reading."

I do agree, however, that Javier Bardem deserved the Oscar for Supporting Actor. I do not remember off the top of my head who the other nominees were, but after seeing Bardem's performance, the win seems like a "gimme" anyway. Perhaps he alone is the reason for this film. There have been many other serial killers in film, but none as chilling as a man who is completely stoic about his villains, and one who is not afraid to kill everyone in sight.

"No Country" is also not a typical Western in that Chigurh and Moss were the only two on screen at most points of the film. Most Westerns feature a gang of gun-toting cowboys shouting country catchphrases while on horseback and hunting down the bad guy. The fact that the chase is just between the two men, and the other characters seem powerless to stop Chigurh makes the hunt all the more sinister. Plus, the fact the film ends on a note that does not suggest "justice served" for the main characters.

I wish this film had been more than just killing. Perhaps I don't get all of the techincal aspects that may seal this film to be a masterpiece in some people's minds, but to me, killing was just all this was. Bardem's performance was the only plus for me in this film, and ironically he is portraying the character that does all of the killing. I was just left with mixed feelings by the end of the film, and do not exactly consider it a masterpiece. ***/****.

Movie of the Week: 'Across the Universe'

Director: Julie Taymor
First Released: October 12, 2007
Main Characters:
Jude (Jim Sturgess)
Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood)
Max (Joe Anderson)
Sadie (Dana Fuchs)
Runtime: 2 hours, 13 minutes
Rated: PG-13 for some drug content, nudity, sexuality and violence

I'm usually not one for movie musicals. It’s the whole mass of people just randomly breaking into song and dancing around on the street that is not very believable or interesting. But when I first saw the commercials for "Across the Universe," I knew something would be different about this type of musical. For one, all of the musical numbers were songs of the Beatles, so right off the bat they would be catchy.

"Across the Universe" is set in one of the most tumultuous years of the 20th Century, 1968, which was in the heart of the war in Vietnam and there were problems at home too. Race riots filled the streets of cities, as did protests about not drafting innocent young men into an unnecessary war.

After the "Let Me Hold Your Hand" period of the early to mid 1960s with cutesy pop tunes, the Beatles got somewhat political and changed their tunes to calls for peace. These songs fit perfectly with the tone for "Universe." “Happiness is a Warm Gun” was a reflection about how everyone was fueled by anger and hatred for one another. Oppositely, the song “Let it Be” became the anthem for stilling the animosity between fellow Americans. These songs and more were featured prominently in “Universe” to drive home the point that the year 1968 was all-consumed by the war.

“Across the Universe” centers on the family of Lucy and her brother Max, who represent the youth affected by the war. Lucy, who had been waiting patiently for her longtime boyfriend to return home from the war, but she receives devastating news that he had been killed. Around the same time, Max is being drafted into Vietnam, and is looking for any way to get out of it. The siblings meet Jude, a wanderer from England who came to America looking for his father. Lucy and Jude fall in love, and are brought even closer together by the turmoil of the age and become activists to save Max and other youths from having their lives cut short by the tumultuous war.

“Universe” is a love story in which the characters “come together” to spread peace and love in the face of widespread animosity. All of the 33 Beatles tunes fit perfectly into this colorful and sometimes dizzying display of what a long, strange, yet wonderful trip the 1960s could be.

***1/2 out of ****

Movie of the Week: 'Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist'

First Released: October 3, 2008

DVD Release: February 3, 2009

Director: Peter Sollett

Main Characters:

Nick (Michael Cera)

Norah (Kat Dennings)

Tris (Alexis Dziena)

Caroline (Ari Graynor)

Thom (Aaron Yoo)

Dev (Rafi Gavron)
Runtime: 1 hour, 30 minutes

Rated: PG-13 for teen drinking, sexuality, drinking, and crude behavior

Nick, a lonely loser with a penchant for making mix CDs, has just been dumped by his gorgeous girlfriend, Tris. Trying to get his mind off his troubles, Nick joins his bandmates (Thom and Dev) at a club one night to play a gig and listen to other acts. While at the club, Nick meets Norah, who happened to be there with Nick's ex. When Tris starts ragging on Norah for not bringing a boyfriend to the club, so she walks over to Nick, kisses him, and wants him to pretend to be her boyfriend for five minutes. Norah did not know that Nick and Tris used to date, but when Tris sees them kissing, she becomes jealous. But Nick had been tired of Tris's cheating during their relationship and not appreciating for who he is, mix CDs and all. Norah, on the other hand, always had loved the music he picked out, just could not link the creator to a face, since Tris had never really mentioned Nick to her. Nick and Norah decide to hang out together after passing Norah's drunk friend Caroline to Thom and Dev. When Thom and Dev manage to lose Caroline, Nick and Norah must run around New York City looking for her.

Nick and Norah may have some downfalls to their burgeoning relationship (mainly annoyances that neither one can completely get over their negative past relationships; Nick continues to mention Tris), but the two bond over their night together. Searching for both Caroline and a beloved band of the group called Where's Fluffy, the film takes on a sort of roadtrip format as the teens cruise through New York City and its music scene. But at its core, an affection blossoms between Nick and Norah because the two appreciate each other for who they truly are.

Whew! That, dear readers, is "Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist" in a nutshell. Because it can be done in a paragraph, we can conclude that it is not a terribly complex film, but I would say that it definitely suits its purposes as a teen romantic comedy. The characters, namely Nick and Norah, are easily relatable. Kat Dennings brings a steady, level-headedness to Norah. Even though she likes Nick's music (at one point the two consider each other to be "musical soulmates"), she won't soften to Nick until he completely abandons his relationship with Tris. As for Nick, he is the lovable loser that Michael Cera has played so well in many films (see: "Superbad," "Juno"). The supporting cast of the bandmates and Caroline provide the comic relief.

Even though this film centers around teens, it gives a fresh feel to the "teen rom-com" genre as it is neither aggressively crude nor overly mushy. The acting and the eclectic soundtrack make this film an easy night at the movie theater. ***/****.

Movie of the Week: 'Tropic Thunder'

First Released: August 13, 2008

DVD release: November 18, 2008

Director: Ben Stiller

Main Characters:

Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller)

Jeff Portnoy(Jack Black)

Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey, Jr.)

Kevin Sandusky (Jay Baruchel)
Alpa Chino (Brandon T. Jackson)
Les Grossman (Tom Cruise)

Runtime: 1 hour, 47 minutes

Rated: R for pervasive language, violent, sexual, and drug content

“Tropic Thunder” is a movie within a movie. Three high-powered actors, five-time Academy Award winner Kirk Lazarus, action hero Tugg Speedman, and funnyman Jeff Portnoy are starring in the book-to- movie adaptation of the Vietnam War-era soldier story called “Tropic Thunder.” Led by an inept first time director named Damien Cockburn (played by Steve Coogan), the movie’s lack of serious acting (especially the inability of Speedman to produce any tears when he is in a scene with Lazarus after his arms have been blown off by a grenade), which infuriates the movie company’s executive, Les Grossman. To get them in the mood for serious acting, Cockburn decides to drop them off in the middle of the Vietnamese jungle, without cell phones or other twenty-first century technology and secretly tape them. All goes awry when Cockburn steps on an old landmine and explodes. Some of the actors, like Speedman, think it’s a ploy to get them into acting, but the others know that they need somehow to get out of the jungle on their own. The veteran actors are too dimwitted to know how to survive, but are saved by the smarts of first-time actor Kevin Sandusky. They are put in further peril, though, when they are threatened by a Vietnamese guerilla force that captures Speedman and holds him for ransom.

After spending nearly two hours watching that plot unfold, I am baffled as to why Rotten Tomatoes has given it and 83 percent and why it was the number one movie for three weeks upon its release. I guess it’s because it has the stupid-funny quality that keeps Ben Stiller and Jack Black employed. While Stiller’s 2001 movie “Zoolander,” a spoof on dimwitted male models has consistently generated some giggles from me with each viewing, I usually find Stiller and Black to be annoying. I could say that their performances in “Thunder” were definitely annoying. The other characters, while not side-splittingly hilarious, had at least some comic moments. Brandon T. Jackson’s character, Alpa Chino, was a spoof on the rapper-turned actor and kept the character Kirk Lazarus in check. Lazarus is normally a white Australian man, but underwent a procedure to dye his skin so he would look like an African American, since his character in the “Tropic Thunder” movie-in-movie was also of that race. Being a real African American, Alpa Chino is offended by some of the mannerisms Lazarus uses that are only stereotypes of the African American culture. (Lazarus is one of those actors, that even when they are not shooting for the movie, stays in character. “I don’t break character until after I do the DVD commentary,” he says.) I also liked the hopefulness and resourcefulness Sandusky had to lead the others out of the jungle. He played the straight man to the other three bumbling actors.

One of the highlights to this film was Tom Cruise’s studio exec character. Loud and brash, he was everything you would expect a frustrated movie head to be when his film is failing so horribly. But in moments of comic gold, pumped up his stereo and started dancing to “Get Low” by T. Pain and “Get Back” by Ludacris, two rap songs that you would not normally find a middle-aged, overweight white man dancing to. Cruise’s ability to play a fun character surprised me, as I’m sure many other audiences. In the early 2000s, I knew exactly what made Cruise so endearing in his height in the 1980s. He was a very handsome movie star with a great smile and fun laugh. After about 2004, though, he started acting a little crazy. His affiliation with the odd religion Scientology came to light, and he married Katie Holmes, a woman much younger than he, which was not the problem, except for the fact that he made his affection for her too well known, what with his jumping on Oprah’s couch and the fact that he always seems to keep her just a little too close when they’re out in public. However, I’m not sure that what I just wrote is news to anyone, as even someone who only follows celebrity news occasionally is well aware of the coverage of Cruise’s antics. Nonetheless, his cameo character in “Thunder” was a surprising hit with me.

I also enjoyed the fake trailers at the beginning of the movie to show what other movies Speedman, Portnoy and Lazrus had been known for before they all joined on “Tropic Thunder.” Lazarus had a turn in “Satan’s Alley,” where he plays a priest with his eye on a fellow clergyman (another cameo here, played by Tobey Maguire. They were billed as Lazarus, the five time award winner, and Maguire, the winner of MTV Movie Award for Best Kiss). Speedman’s “Scorcher” series was reminiscent of any action movie of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s and Portnoy’s “Fatties” was a direct spoof of the Klump family from “The Nutty Professor” franchise.

On the down side, there was some controversy on “Thunder’s” release, dealing with another of Speedman’s movies called “Simple Jack,” in which he played a mentally retarded character. People were offended by the use of the word “retard.” The context was that because “Simple Jack” had been such a failure for Speedman’s career, he could not understand why in the success of so many other actors playing similar characters, like Dustin Hoffman in “Rain Man.” In a scene, Lazarus tells Speedman that he must not go “full-retard,” that success in that type of character comes with holding back a little. I did not think that this scene was a blatant attack on the mentally challenged, and “Thunder” has certainly not been the first movie to use that word repeatedly, nor will it probably be the last, so I’m not sure what all the fervor was about.

Because “Tropic Thunder” is not my favorite funny movie, but did have some slightly comedic moments, I give it **1/2 out of ****.

(picture found at impawards.com)

Movie of the Week: 'Step Brothers'

First Released: July 25, 2008
DVD release: December 2, 2008
Director: Adam McKay
Main Characters:
Brennan Huff (Will Ferrell)
Dale Doback(John C. Reilly)
Nancy Huff (Mary Steenburgen)
Dr. Robert Hoback (Richard Jenkins)
Runtime: 1 hour, 38 minutes
Rated: R for crude and sexual content, and pervasive language

“Step Brothers” tries to bring a comic spin to every parent’s worst nightmare: adult children living at home long past their time to leave the nest. But after seeing the star characters of this picture, it is clear why these “children” still live with mom and dad.

Brennan Huff is 39 years old, just got fired (or laid off, as he puts it), from his job at PetSmart and lives with his divorced mother, Nancy. Dale Doback, 40, lives with his widowed father, Robert, and is the manager of a fantasy baseball team. He also perfects his drum skills in a spare room of his father’s house, which he refers to as his beat laboratory. Brennan and Dale’s worlds collide when Nancy and Robert quickly wed. Nancy and Brennan move into the Doback house, and the sons instantly dislike each other. They are jealous that their parents no longer give them their undivided attention. However, they bond instantly with their intense dislike of Brennan’s younger brother, Derek. Rich, successful, and head of his own company, Derek can often be a haughty jerk, but at least he is one adult child that has created his life outside Nancy’s home, and is not so much of a burden for her, at least when he is not tormenting Brennan.

Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly seem to be the hot new comedy duo. They created success in their 2006 film “Talladega Nights” in which they played a pair of airheaded NASCAR drivers with an affinity for everything redneck: “Walker, Texas Ranger,” Kentucky Fried Chicken, and blonde, bimbo-ish women. Frequently shouting their catchphrase “shake and bake,” Ferrell’s Ricky Bobby and Reilly’s Cal Naughton were a bit obnoxious, but they grew on you. In “Step Brothers,” Brennan and Dale are just plain obnoxious.

If a person is 40 years old and still living at home, it is obvious that they are greatly immature, but Brennan and Dale are not shy about taking it to an embarrassing level. When the two are in rivalry mode after they first meet, they get back at each other by writing crude messages on each other’s clothing, rub certain unmentionable body parts on the other’s property and wrestle each other down a flight of stairs. Had the characters been in their twenties and behaving this way, it would have been a little more understandable. At 40, they really should know better.

The part of this movie that is the most frustrating is the way the parents enable Brennan and Dale to behave the way they do. At first they give the men ultimatums to get jobs and get their own apartments. They even do more than any other parents would and arrange their job interviews and put a deposit on an apartment. However, when Brennan and Dale finally do get jobs and change their attitudes to be more professional, if not a little stiff, Nancy and Robert say they wish they had their old, “fun” sons back.

None of the comedy of “Step Brothers” produced any laugh out loud moments from me; there were more eye rolls. Unlike their roles in “Talladega Nights,” Ferrell and Reilly in “Step Brothers” were not characters, but pathetic caricatures of spoiled, infantile “grown-ups.”

Because I wanted to keep shouting “Grow up!” at the screen, I give “Step Brothers” ** out of ****.
(picture found at baltimoremagazine.net)

(Horror) Movie of the Week: 'Suspiria'

Release Year: 1977
Director: Dario Argento
Main Characters:
Suzy Banyon (Jessica Harper)
Sara (Stefania Casini)
Madame Blanc (Joan Bennett)
Miss Tanner (Alida Valli)
Runtime: 1 hour, 32 minutes
Rated: R for gruesome images and violence

“Suspiria” may very well have been catapulted into twenty-first century filmgoers’ lexicons by the 2007 film “Juno.” In one scene, the character Juno (Ellen Page) is debating the merits of horror films and mentions “Suspiria” by name. She also says that director Dario Argento is “so the ultimate master of horror.” Personally, I was brought to the attention of this movie by Bravo’s 2004 countdown of the 100 Scariest Movie Moments, where it placed at number 24.

The plot of “Suspiria” is simple enough: an American ballet student named Suzy Banyon travels to Germany to enroll in a prestigious school for training. But as soon as she arrives, trouble starts. A young woman that Banyon saw running away the night she arrived was murdered. Banyon believes that the incident was just a fluke, so she tries to get settled at school. However, when she is overcome by an unexplainable sickness, faces the disappearance of her friend Sara and other mysterious deaths around the school, she discovers that the school is just a front for a coven of witches bent on destruction.

In some ways, “Suspiria” is like a typical horror film. It has multiple bloody murders, and of course, all of the murders overshadow the plotline so that it becomes shallow and cheesy.

What “Suspiria” doesn’t rely on, though, is a terrifying serial killer like Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhies. No, what makes “Suspiria” such a triumph of the horror genre is the startling use of Technicolor. Every scene Argento created gives a unique stimulation to the senses. This effect is so well done in the murder scenes especially are incredibly disturbing.

Another fascinating element to this film that is well represented in the above sample (besides how smoothly the assailant seems to stab the knife into the girl) is the score of banshee-like wailing from the aptly-named band, the Goblins.

The entire package of eye-popping colors, brutal murders and haunting music make this film an on-screen representation of your worst nightmare. This film gets such a high rating from me because it is 1970s horror, which is the best kind. Today’s horror flicks rely too much computer-generated effects, which may be technologically savvy, but does not work magic on the senses like something as fundamental as color did for “Suspiria.” Though the plot of this film was incredibly cheesy (though who goes to a horror film for the story?) the other elements of the film could most definitely satisfy any horror-fan’s scare fix. ***1/2 out of ****

Also check out the film's theatrical trailer, which is replete with excellent 70s creepiness:



(movie poster found at best-horror-movies.com)

Movie of the Week: '27 Dresses'

First Released: January 18, 2008

DVD release: now available
Director: Anne Fletcher

Main Characters:

Jane (Katherine Heigl)

Kevin (James Marsden)

George (Edward Burns)

Tess (Malin Akerman)

Runtime: 1 hour, 41 minutes

Rated: PG-13 for language, some innuendo and sexuality

Katherine Heigl stars as Jane, a woman who definitely fits into the sentiment of “always a bridesmaid, never a bride.” She is a selfless woman who hosts all of her friends’ showers, as well as served as their maid of honor. No matter how ugly the dress, Jane has slipped into them, and stood beside the bride-to-be no less than 27 times. Jane eagerly awaits the day she herself will marry, though she has had the groom in mind for quite some time: her boss, George. However, when her attractive younger sister Tess comes to live with Jane from having lived in Europe, she wins George’s affections, and puts to shame all of Jane’s many years of crushing. Jane must again play the selfless bridesmaid and plan Tess and George’s quickly decided on wedding, though she is fuming because she not only lost the man of her dreams, but Tess gained the respect of George through lies she told him. Meanwhile, a journalist named Kevin is pseudo-stalking Jane after having found her planner on the floor of a taxi. He is intrigued by Jane’s love of weddings, and wants to use her as the subject of an article she is writing. Little does Jane know from the cynicism toward weddings that Kevin displays to her, that he is actually the writer of the “New York Journal’s” commitments column, which is Jane’s favorite. When Jane realizes that she may never get George under her spell, she realizes that she has more in common with Kevin and begins to fall in love with him instead.

Before watching this movie, I had a bit of trepidation about seeing Katherine Heigl as the star of a romantic comedy. I was not overly familiar with her work, except that she is on the wildly popular ABC show “Grey’s Anatomy,” which I have also never watched. I only knew that she had made some rather ungracious, near-backstabbing actions toward the “Grey’s” writing crew when she withdrew her name from Emmy consideration this year, citing that none of the work she did this past season was worth considering. It was a bit of a turn off that someone of that caliber could bite the hand that fed her, so I didn’t make any quick moves to watch this film when it was first released on DVD.

I was home from school this weekend, however, and I must say that Katherine Heigl and this whole film worked well overall for me. After all, she seems to be the perfect lead for this genre of movie—she’s pretty, blonde, and can easily give off a perkiness in her personality. While I’m not a huge fan of romantic comedies, I like them every once in a while for an easy, schmaltzy film-going experience.

Like many romantic comedies, “27 Dresses” was not without its moments of cheese and unrealistic plot events. My favorite cheesy moment was when Jane and Kevin get a little tipsy and dance on a table at a bar to Elton John’s “Benny and the Jets.” “B-b-b-Benny” was certainly ringing in my head all night afterward. The most unrealistic part was that beautiful Jane could not be seen as anything more than an assistant by the attractive, but not necessarily drop-dead gorgeous George. However, Kevin was hardly a bad rebound. At least she found happiness in the end. Yes, of course “27 Dresses” is one of ‘those’ films. What I liked most, though, was that Heigl and Marsden were fresh faces to the genre. In the 1990s, people like Jennifer Aniston dominated romantic comedies, so I'm glad the torch was passed to some new leads.

Even though I liked the film enough, I’m not sure I could give it an “automatic” must-see status. Mostly only females would appreciate it, and males would pretend to, for their girlfriend’s sake. People that also love weddings can definitely relate to this film. But for an overall “don’t have to think about it” experience (seriously, writing the synopsis for this review didn’t take too much thinking back to the film on my part), I say watch it.

I give “27 Dresses” *** out of ****

(image found at impawards.com)

Movie of the Week: 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull'

First Released: May 22, 2008
DVD release: October 14, 2008
Director: Steven Spielberg
Main Characters:
Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford)
Col. Dr. Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett)
Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf)
Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen)
Runtime: 2 hours, 2 minutes
Rated: PG-13 for adventure violence and scary images

Indiana Jones is up for another adventure in this fourth installment of the “Jones” series. It’s 1957, during the Cold War, when Professor Henry Jones (Indy’s day job persona) receives a coded message from a demented colleague that sends him and a young sidekick to Peru in search of a legendary skull made of quartz. All Jones must do is return the skull to the right place, but he is tailed by the Soviets, whose forces are led by the brilliantly maniacal Irina Spalko. If she captures the skull, Jones must face reckoning with the supernatural.

I’ve only ever seen one “Indiana Jones” movie, way back in the sixth grade. It was so long ago that I don’t remember which film I had seen, but let’s just say that it was the first, 1981’s “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” But my time with the “Indy” series is not the only thing that’s been long. It’s also been about 20 years since the last release of a film in the series, 1989’s “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.”

A lot of things have happened in 20 years. First and foremost is the film’s star, Harrison Ford. Back in the 1980s, his Indiana Jones was a slick, whip-wielding adventurer who always triumphed over evildoers, whether Nazis or malevolent spirits. When Indy won, it was only natural. (Ford had also enjoyed superhero status as Han Solo in the 1970s “Star Wars” films.) With the dream directing/producing team of Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, the series was instantly a hit. Now he is reduced to is a man in his mid-60s who is trying too hard to reprise a role that only worked in his younger years (same to you, Sylvester Stallone). When the lines in your face are deeper than the canyons you used to jump over and you move at about half the pace you used to, Ford’s Jones would be better off sticking to his day job as a tenured professor at the fictional Marshall College.

Ford should also know he’s getting too old when younger blood is brought in to do all of the dirty work; this time in Hollywood’s new “It Boy,” Shia LaBeouf. As the film was set in the 1950s, LaBeouf plays staple teen stereotype of the time, a greaser named Mutt Williams who only cares about combing his hair back and beating anyone up who scuffs his black leather jacket. He’s also the annoying sidekick to ask all of the “What’s this for, Indy?” questions. He also echoes the audience sentiments with his dubiousness of elder Indy’s abilities. “You know, for an old man, you’re not bad in a fight. What are you, like 80?” I do not feel that this character should have been included, but some way was needed for Indy to re-unite with his lady fair, Marion Ravenwood. Marion turns out to be Mutt’s mother, and his father is revealed to be Jones.

The film in its entirety was lackluster. It was replete with lame story lines, mediocre action (falling over three waterfalls with not a scratch on anyone and a monkey see, monkey do by Mutt while swinging from vines in a jungle with real monkeys). The villain was a standard mad Russian doctor played by the uninspiring (but usually excellent) Cate Blanchett. Ford’s dialogue delivery was nothing more than him squaring his jaw and muttering the cheesiest of lines.

That’s the trouble with waiting 20 years between films and film series in general. Even the best characters get stale after a while. Even though there’s talk of a fifth film (apparently this film made so much money that George Lucas thought this was a good idea), but your own sake, Harrison Ford, hang up the brown fedora.
I give this film **1/2 out of ****

(picture found at impawards.com)

Movie of the Week: 'Wanted'

First Released: June 27, 2008
DVD Release: October 20, 2008

Director: Timur Bekmambetov
Main Characters: Wesley Gibson (James McAvoy)

Fox (Angelina Jolie)

Sloan (Morgan Freeman)

Runtime: 1 hour, 50 minutes

Rated: R for graphic violence and language; some sexuality

I will admit that I’m not the biggest fan of graphic novels-turned movies, which is what “Wanted” is, so maybe this was going to be a bad review before I even watched the film. I wanted to give it a chance, really, especially since one of its stars is the gorgeous James McAvoy, the man with the equally gorgeous Scottish accent. In this movie, McAvoy lost the Scottish accent in favor of an American one, and that was not even the most ridiculous part of the film.

“Wanted” opens with a frustrated office worker named Wesley Gibson. He has an annoying boss, a girlfriend who is cheating on him with his best friend, no funds in the bank, and constant suffering from panic attacks.

When Wesley is at the grocery store re-filling his anti-anxiety medication one day, a beautiful woman named Fox sidles up to him, claiming to have known his late father. At once, shots are fired, and being aimed at Wesley. In the chaos, Wesley is soon scooped up into a slick red sports car by Fox. Fox goes into action mode and fires back at the man, and a car chase and more shooting ensues.

Fox takes Wesley to an abandoned warehouse where he meets a man named Sloan. Sloan tells Wesley that his father was a member of his organization; a fraternity of assassins called…The Fraternity (how original) and wants him to become a member. Wesley learns that he can channel his rapid heartbeats from panic attacks into precision gunfire. The idea of becoming an assassin makes him panic at first, but when he has the ability to shoot the wings off of a fly, he revels in his newfound power. He is able to stand up to his boss, punch out his “friend” and has $300 million in the bank from his father’s funds.

As an official member of The Fraternity, Wesley must go through a brutal initiation ceremony in which he repeatedly receives blows to the head and gashes from a knife; basically, the most brutal few minutes of a film I have ever witnessed. He recovers in a soothing bath that heals his wounds in mere hours. When he is finally able to defend himself and fight back, he is given his assassination assignments.

The Fraternity was founded by a group of weavers, and its headquarters are in a textile mill. The threads being spun in the loom are laid out in a binary code system, which is used to decode the names of those assigned to be killed. Fate has chosen them.

Wesley is soon assigned to kill a man named Cross, who has left The Fraternity and betrayed them by assassinating many of The Fraternity’s members. Wesley encounters Cross and he escapes onto a train. Wesley follows him and their shootout becomes so dangerous that the train lingers on a cliff. Wesley is dangerously close to falling out of the teetering train. Surprisingly, Cross holds onto Wesley, and in a scenario that completely rips off the famous Luke Skywalker/Darth Vader scene in “Star Wars: Episode IV,” Cross tells Wesley that he is Wesley’s father. Not believing him, Wesley shoots him dead.

Back on ground, Wesley discovers that Sloan had been manipulating the thread that comes out of the loom and creating his own assassination assignments. The Fraternity must be shut down, and Wesley takes the advice of a friend that the most destruction will be caused by strapping explosives to 1000 rats (I’m NOT kidding). In the aftermath, he confronts Sloan who said his manipulation was because every single one of The Fraternity’s members’ names had come out in the thread. Each member would have been assigned to kill each other.

This movie was incredibly gory, but no more than you would expect from a movie about assassins. The camera angles were interesting, but not when they followed the path of a bullet into someone’s forehead. (They were also heavily influenced by “The Matrix” series.)
For its sheer ridiculousness (it wasn’t supposed to be a comedy, but sure seemed to be making fun of itself) and irritating use of the F-word prolifically in the dialogue, I give “Wanted” *1/2 out of ****.

(picture: impawards.com)

Movie of the Week: 'Get Smart'

First Released: June 20, 2008
DVD Release: December 2008
Director: Peter Segal
Main Characters: Maxwell Smart/Agent 86 (Steve Carrell)
Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway)
The Chief (Alan Arkin)
Agent 23 (Dwayne Johnson)
Runtime: 1 hour, 50 minutes
Rated: PG-13 for rude humor, action violence, and some language

“Get Smart” is a spy spoof movie based off of a 1960s television show that had Don Adams as the original Maxwell Smart, and Barbara Feldon as Agent 99. The character of Maxwell Smart is a secret agent for an operative known as CONTROL. He is also a simple, bumbling man whose only job well done is making comical gaffes while on a mission. While this is the second television show-turned movie adaptation I have seen this month (see “Sex and the City,” below), I approached this movie with the same skepticism that I have with many of these types of adaptations; that even though it may try hard to keep all of the show’s original elements, the modernized approach inevitably leaves behind some of the beauty of the original. This, I feel, was the fate of “Get Smart.”

I am by no means an expert on the 1960s show, but I have seen a few episodes and know the basic gist of it (not to mention, I was a huge fan of “Inspector Gadget” as a child, a cartoon in which Don Adams voiced the title character). The premise of the film version is simple: a group of bad guys, known as KAOS, is up to no good, and it is up to the agents at CONTROL to stop them from causing destruction. A trip to an international locale (in this case, Russia) ensues to try to track down the bad guys. Because he is a newly appointed agent, Smart makes some funny rookie mistakes, much to the chagrin of his more competent and street- savvy partner, Agent 99. Max finally gets serious enough to stop the bad guys and also gets the girl in the end. The film has a pretty standard plot.

The element of this film that I did enjoy was the casting. Steve Carrell is a brilliant comedic actor and is perfect for the self-deprecating humor that is required to play Maxwell Smart (see his films “Dan in Real Life,” “Little Miss Sunshine,” and his television show, “The Office.”) Also good are Anne Hathaway as the sexy, stealthy straight woman Agent 99 to Carrell’s Smart, and Alan Arkin, who is all business as The Chief. The role of macho, haughty Agent 23 was perfect for Dwayne Johnson (for those who don’t know, Johnson’s more famous persona is that of wrestler “The Rock”). CONTROL’s gadget techs Bruce (Masi Oka) and Lloyd (Nate Torrence) were also cute additions.

While the cast worked well together, I felt that the movie as a whole could have seen less action and been focused a little more on the characters. While all of the popular elements of the show like the cone of silence and the shoe phone were present, the film relied too much on big explosions and a nail-biting “missed it by that much” duel between Smart and Agent 23 on a train. If those elements had been toned down, and more of Smart’s attempts at suaveness had been shown, the spirit of the original could have been better captured.

I also felt that Agent 99 was almost too serious. I know she is supposed to be better put together than Smart, but she seemed almost annoyed at his blunders. To me, Max should be approached as an unintentional comedian, almost a “love me for my clumsiness” kind of guy.

“Get Smart” had many funny lines and plenty of Maxwell Smart’s signature pratfalls, but relied too much on the “forty years later, forty years greater” high tech updates.

I give “Get Smart” *** out of ****

(picture: www.cinemablend.com)

Next up: A look at subtitles in foreign films.

Movie of the Week: 'Sex and the City'

First Released: May 30, 2008
DVD Release: September 23, 2008
Director: Michael Patrick King
Main Characters: Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker)
Samantha Jones (Kim Cattrall)
Charlotte York (Kristin Davis)
Miranda Hobbes (Cynthia Nixon)
Runtime: 2 hours, 25 minutes
Rated: R for strong sexuality, nudity, and language

“Sex and the City” was originally a television show that ran on HBO from 1998 to 2004. Fans had been clamoring for a full-length movie of the show right after it had gone off the air. However, reports were rampant about a supposed feud between stars Parker and Cattrall over salary and billing. Alas, all of the original actresses agreed to reprise their characters and a movie was finally made. Fans rejoiced: the movie opened at number one and made over $150 million worldwide, according to rottentomatoes.com. However, Rotten Tomatoes also noted that critics were divided in their thoughts of the film, as the website’s meter rated the movie at only 51 percent positive.

I will admit that I was a little weary about seeing this film, especially since I had never seen the HBO show. (HBO was never subscribed to at home, and even though the show can now be seen on cable, I have never paid much attention to it.) Mostly, the entire premise of the show never really appealed to me. The fact that it was about four women who are only slightly younger than my mother (or, in Samantha’s case, slightly older) sitting around talking about their sex capades frankly disturbed me. Watching this film in its entirety, the elements of graphic nudity and sexuality were hard to stomach. This is not because of the women’s ages, but because this does not add anything to the film. Some fans may find this type of voyeurism a guilty pleasure, but if this is all the show (and movie) has to offer, it is not a very valid contribution to the world of media.

The other issue I took with these women is how vapid and materialistic they are. Aside from their sex talks and endless whining about the state of their love lives, all they seem to do is go shopping, and between that, name-drop designer labels and swoon over the size of their clothes closets. (The movie prominently featured a Vivienne Westwood wedding gown, a Louis Vuitton handbag and copious amounts of Christian Laboutin and Manolo Blahnik shoes, the latter of which was supposedly a show staple and catapulted the label into the public lexicon.)I mean, a 40-something woman carrying around a pink rhinestone-encrusted cell phone? I could not help but roll my eyes.

The element of the film I did enjoy was the friendship that the four women shared. For instance, they were all very supportive of Carrie when her long-anticipated marriage to “Mr. Big” (Chris Noth) fell through. Everyone should have a group of close friends that they can share everything with.

Overall, this is a good film to see with your girlfriends for a fun time without having to think too much about the plot.

I give “Sex and the City” **1/2 out of ****

(thanks to collider.com (top) and ign.com (bottom) for the pictures.)
Next Up: MTV VMA host Russell Brand

Movie of the Week: 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall'

First released: April 18, 2008
DVD release: September 30, 2008
Director: Nicholas Stoller
Main characters: Peter Bretter (Jason Segel)
Sarah Marshall (Kristin Bell)
Rachel Jansen (Mila Kunis)
Aldous Snow (Russell Brand)
Runtime: 1 hour, 52 minutes
Rated: R for nudity, sexual content and language

Touted as a movie from “the guys who brought you 'The 40 Year-Old Virgin' and 'Knocked Up,'” "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" is another production of the ubiquitous Judd Apatow, who in this film plays the role of producer. (Apatow’s other recent releases include "Pineapple Express" and "Superbad.")

Like most Apatow films, "Forgetting Sarah Marshall"’s main character is a lovable loser who has some sort of trouble in his love life. In this case, it’s Peter Bretter (Segel) whose five- year relationship with Sarah Marshall (Bell) has just ended because she admitted to cheating on him. (Sarah is a TV actress who stars in a sexually charged crime show that spoofs "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" and for which Peter writes the musical score.) Heartbroken and depressed, Peter mopes around the house until his brother Brian (played by "Saturday Night Live" cast member Bill Hader) suggests that Peter go to Hawaii to get away. As he is checking into his hotel, however, he finds that Sarah is staying at the same hotel with her new lover, moody British rocker Aldous Snow (played hilariously and eccentrically by British comedian Brand).
After seeing Aldous and Sarah together everywhere, Peter tries desperately to get over Sarah and falls under the spell of Rachel (Kunis) who runs the front desk at the hotel. But when Adlous proves to be more of a stud than a long- lasting love to Sarah, she starts realizing what she may have left behind in Peter.

What is most unique about many of the films that Apatow is associated with is the representation of the male lead. In short: men can be hurt by relationship woes, too. In many other movies, female leads are torn apart and miserable by the callous men that leave them and then flaunt their affairs. Some even go to their exes and beg to be ttaken back. "Sarah Marshall" is a total role reversal. According to the imdb.com trivia section for the movie, Jason Segel, who also wrote the screenplay, said many of the scenarios in the movie were based off of a real break-up that he had. It is in this experience that we can really feel for Peter’s plight. We can be glad when he finally begins to forget Sarah Marshall.

Overall, this is a witty film accented by the hilarious supporting cast, which also includes Apatow staple actors Jonah Hill, who plays a waiter named Matthew that is a super fan of Aldous’s, and Paul Rudd, who plays a loopy surf instructor named Chuck . Also funny are some of the islanders that Peter meets.

Though there are some gratuitous elements of crude humor and full-frontal nudity of the male variety (although the breakup that Segel based the film on apparently involved him being nude when it happened), the movie recovers with the hilarious cast of characters.

I give Forgetting Sarah Marshall ***1/2 of ****

IMDb’s page for the movie

(thanks to reelmovienews.com for the picture)

Next up: The featured actor, Daniel Day-Lewis