Search This Blog

Sunday, February 28, 2010

Waitress

I was looking over the movies I've written about and realized that one genre was sorely missing and that is the conundrum that is the chick flick. The name in itself is kind of derogatory (and I apologize if I've offended anyone by its use) but in many cases, disturbingly fitting. So I thought I'd give it a try because, I'll admit, I've got some "chick flicks" stashed away that I'm none too proud to admit. It's not because I feel that they assault my masculine identity or that it's too stereotypically gay, it's pure and simple that there aren't too many god ones out there. Most of them propagate one-dimensional female characters (typically created by men) that are just so irritating and naive or per the latest string of chick flicks, just too darn quirky for my taste. That's why I was glad I revisited Waitress.

Adrienne Shelley, who sadly passed before she could see her film released at Sundance, wrote a truly fantastic script and directs beautifully. The writing of the movie has such a strong voice in representing its protagonist, Jenna (Keri Russell) which is something that's so unique to the genre. Most of these films tend to be very "lowest common denominator" in an attempt to draw in more folks, but Waitress is very at home in its niche.

The most compelling aspect of the film is undoubtedly its characters who make the small Southern town well worth living in for the duration of the movie. Keri Russell is in fine form with this movie. She seems to know just how to play Jenna with a mix of humor and actual depth. There are moments (specifically her interaction with Dr. Pomatter) that are an absolute treat to watch, whereas there are others that have such a strong emotional resonance. However, as previously mentioned, this wouldn't be possible without Shelley's fantastic script and the character of Dr. Pomatter (Nathan Fillion). He's handsome, he's charming, and most importantly, he's believable. He's so sincere in his affections that you almost forget your own hesitation to like him. I think the film treats him fairly, never praising or demonizing, but rather letting the audience be the judge.

However, in the end, it's not the charm or the look of the movie that won me over. It's the women. Jenna's support system (Adrienne Shelley herself and Cheryl Hines) offers both wisdom and compassion. It's rare to see movies geared towards women that share these qualities. It always seems like romance is sacrificed for friendship or the other way around, but ultimately, in the end, it's the decision of these women. Although it may take most of the movie for her to get there, by the film's close, you're totally aware of what a strong and positive woman Jenna has become. Its partially the strength of the women, never sacrificing their depth or characterizing them as "man-hating", that makes Waitress so enjoyable. Pair that with an enjoyable and emotionally sincere script, and you've got the makings of a memorable movie.

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Calling for New Picks?

Hey guys,
This is a quick call for any stuff out there. I've been busy trying to enter into the real world (which of course means a college degree and interviewing for positions typically involving being a clerk or something) which has left me with little to no time to check out new stuff. Well, let me specify. What I'm looking for is new stuff to ME. It can be old as dirt or a new release, but I'd appreciate some ideas on what to watch so that I can keep up with the writing. Any suggestions are valid suggestions so don't be afraid. Movies or TV shows are preferred, but I could always mix it up... please post your ideas in the comment section and I'll try to get back to them as soon as I can. Thanks!
Sincerely,
Calhoun

Friday, February 26, 2010

Psycho Beach Party

I know what you're all thinking. With a name like Psycho Beach Party, how can you go wrong? The answer is, you just can't. Is it a cinematic marvel? Lord no, but it's an incredibly enjoyable ride.

What I think I find most interesting is that most movie spoofs tire out at some point. It just becomes something you're so familiar with that it actually takes effort to laugh. With Psycho Beach Party, I never really lost focus on the movie. The premise of Gidget meets schlock and camp is admittedly pretty out there, but they manage to pull it off.

Perhaps one of the greatest strengths that they have is the cast. The movie was released in 2000 so it was before most of these people became big names (such as Amy Adams and Lauren Ambrose) or even people who were relatively big at the time (I could put the actors and actresses names here but I'm going to stick to the roles you know them as... Aunt Zelda from "Sabrina the Teenage Witch" and Xander from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"). It's easy, especially when doing a 50s movies spoof, to ham it up, but there's no real surprise in that. Anybody with a camera can do that. There's something to be said about knowing when to be incredibly over-the-top and when to pull it back just at the right moment. It takes skill and there's a lot of reliance on timing with this movie, but it's clear from the very beginning that this movie is in good hands with its cast.

Another thing that I brought to the movie, that most people probably don't, is my knowledge of the movies that it's spoofing. True, everyone has at least a minor understanding of the movies of the decade, but I took a class on drive-in cinema last summer. this doesn't make me an expert by any means, but I'm probably more aware of some of the mockery that's a direct reference to certain movies. Then again, this movie can still be enjoyed without having seen stuff like Beach Blanket Bingo and Gidget but it just adds to it.

Psycho Beach Party may not have anything new or important to say, but it's fun and doesn't pretend to be anything else. It's refreshing to see some old faces (especially when Lauren Ambrose goes all ghetto) in something so unabashedly pointless. I'm sure you could read into it and find some sort of socio-cultural message, but with this movie that's far from the point. For the first time in a long time, I can say just sit back and enjoy.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Creep

There's something so intimate for me about sharing music with someone. I know it sounds so lame and even borderline creepy, but there really is. It takes an understanding of the audience to listen to music together, let alone play for an audience. I've always been a fan of it though. I like recommending stuff to friends that I think they might not have heard and in turn, I love when people do the same to me. The trouble is, it's hard to find music for me. I'm not terribly picky, but I've gone through so many musical phases that I've heard a lot of it and even though music is an integral part of my life, sometimes it just feels so bland. I guess I just feel numb to the experience of hearing that one song that just totally blows your mind. It's been awhile after all.

Well, that all changed last night. A buddy of mine and I were driving back from a little excursion and lord knows what flipped the switch in his mind, but he told me to grab his iPod and look up Homeless Mustard. Initially apprehensive of what sounded like an indie reject band, I went ahead and did it. What followed was probably one of the most impressive displays of musicianship that I've heard in recent history.

I admit I'm not a huge Radiohead fan, but I'll listen to some here and there. I have an appreciation for what they do. But what they do pales in comparison to this guy, Homeless Mustard's cover of their song Creep. As it played, I was literally speechless. I can't remember the last time that an audio recording has made me speechless. Anyone who knows me, knows I'm a wordy guy. Words are my thing. I can't even begin to describe it though.

His gruff voice lacks the finesse of a professional, but it has such a heart. You can hear in his singing that this man has a story, he's lived a life that someone like me could never imagine. It was sort of similar to Tom Waits (one of my favorites) but there was a sadness that isn't there in Waits' music. Most of all, I felt that intimacy that I was talking about earlier. It was palpable. This guy was clearly bearing his soul in the most unflinchingly honest way, the way that music should be.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

From Hell Should Go Back to Where it Came From

You ever see those movies that were so chock-full of potential that somehow managed to be a huge waste of time? Welcome to my hell people, or more accurately, welcome to From Hell. The Hughes Brothers adapted an Alan Moore graphic novel (poor guy hasn't had much luck with Hollywood... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen anyone?) and managed to botch it. The story follows Inspector Abberline (Johnny Depp with muttonchops-in-training) who has a rather unorthodox method of connecting with a series of murders that famously came to be known as the crimes of Jack the Ripper. The graphic novel dives into the history of the murders full force and explores an elaborate conspiracy theory that, whether true or not, at least makes for an interesting story. While this incredible graphic novel is cited as the source material little of what made Moore's book interesting translates to the screen.

I know, it seems like I'm taking it especially hard, considering the movie came out in 2001. But I cite this film as a particular example of disappointing fare for a couple of reasonds. First and foremost, as a kid I had a borderline disturbing obsession with Jack the Ripper. I thought the mystery was so interesting, even if it was profoundly disturbing. You may think I'm exaggerating, but when my family and I went to London in the 7th grade or so, my tourist activity of choice was a late-night walking tour of the Ripper murders. Not what most people go for, but this kind of fascination gave me high hopes for the movie. My disappointment is only renewed now because, in a rather odd turn of events, I felt compelled to re-watch it. Even though it's nearing the end of February, I've been on a strong horror.slasher kick.

Let me be clear, From Hell works as that, a temporary cure for bloodlust. Sure, it's painfully dull in between murder scenes, but those murder scenes are pretty epic. Especially given that when the movie came out in 2001 (when I would have been about 14) and my dad agreed to take me to this movie, I was pretty amazed. Still, From Hell's gore holds up pretty well. It's the characters and the storylines that don't... which is a bit of a problem.

This isn't just me speaking as a fan of the graphic novel whose potential was squandered, but just as a general movie-goer. There's not much here to like. The characters aren't particularly involved or dimensional, the acting is pretty touch and go, and it's about 90 minutes too long, which isn't great news for a movie that's roughly 2 hours.

From Hell had the makings of greatness; interesting story and memorable characters but somehow got lost on the way. What remains is some awesome violence if you're a slasher fan. However, violence doesn't sustain this movie and it loses its steam quick. All in all, From Hell should go back where it came from.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Shedd

Today is the day of my interview with Shedd Aquarium about being a gift shop store clerk. Sure, it's not exactly what I'd hoped for and I'm pretty certain you don't need a degree for it, but times are tough on everyone. Besides, worst case scenario, maybe I'll end up like Jaye from "Wonderfalls" (If you don't get it, look into the series and I guarantee you won't regret it) but maybe that's just wishful thinking and unemployment talking... wish me luck!

Monday, February 22, 2010

Scream is Hardly Worth Screaming Over

Whatever possessed me to re-watch Scream is beyond me, but for argument's sake, let's call it nostalgia. So when this "nostalgia" washed over me and I felt compelled to re-watch the first, I had a couple warning signs that I chose to pay no attention to. First of all, when a whole trilogy is under 15 bucks on Amazon? True, there are some of those movies that end up like that on Amazon because they're misunderstood gems of their time. Scream is not such a case. If that wasn't enough, we're talking Neve Campbell here, okay? Aside from the occasional bi-curious threesome (thank you for that Wild Things) what other good things has she done in her life? These are the questions people, these are the questions to be asking.

As you can probably tell, I ignored good reason and common sense and watched anyway. It's an interesting premise, the whole "play up the conventions of the scary movie to re-create a scary movie" thing, but somewhere along the way, I'm pretty sure Wes Craven stopped caring. Does anybody remember when Wes Craven did care? Last House on the Left? Original mind you, although the remake is pass-able. I'll even accept the campiness of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies because at least then he knew what was meant to be scary to his audience and what was ment to be a joke. With Scream, that line is blurred. Things that I felt were meant to be scary ended up being laughable. I mean, was Rose McGowan's death supposed to be funny? I couldn't really tell you, but I laughed. Maybe that just means I'm going to hell. Adding to confusion is the existence of the whole Scary Movie franchise, which parodies various slashers, Scream being among them. But if Scream is a parody itself, what good is a parody of a parody? Does such a thing even exist? Well, I guess so because we're up to Scary Movie 4, but that just begs the question, isn't the existence of Scary Movie proves that Craven failed in objective of making a mockery of what the genre has become? I can't say for sure, but it seems it.

What I am certain of is that Scream suffers for its lack of clear definition of just what it is. Sure, it's enjoyable as an artifact of late 90s horror. It's even better as a movie to watch with a group of folks as a reminder of how lame you were to think that this was a horrifying movie. All in all, Scream is dated, but remains enjoyable mostly as a childhood memory. But if you're looking for something really scary and all you've got is Scream, check out Courtney Cox's green pantsuit. As just about every horror trailer says "There are some things better left in the past...". Let's count Scream as one of them.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Pieces of April

For those of you have seen the movie, you may be wondering why I'm choosing to write about it now. Well, I can't really tell you, it's just one of those random movies that's popped into my head. I guess I've been going through a nostalgic phase and looking back at movies that I used to watch almost religiously. For those of you who haven't seen the movie, it's about a family trip to visit their outcast daughter who lives in New York. It's different than any other Thanksgiving because not only is it April's chance to prove to her family she's not a screw up, but her mother's very sick and it could very weel be their last. By every sense of the convention, it is a Thanksgiving movie. It has the canned Hollywood sensibility and moral of a Charlie Brown TV special. That doesn't mean the movie doesn't have heart though. It seems that some of the best-said things have... well, already been said. This is writer/director Peter Hedges directorial debut (since then he's gone on to direct Dan in Real Life and nothing else) and at times, the film seems more focused on his trying to accomplish it than on originality.

Truth be told, the movie does have its flaws, including its rather predictable ending, but getting to the typical Thanksgiving ending is what it's all about. It's so much more about the journey that these characters go on than where they actual end up. It sounds like a terrible problem for a movie, but when you're dealing with such an established type of movie, such as the feel-good family "insert random holiday here" movie, it's difficult to find a truly original movie. Hedges makes the right choice by focusing instead on the journey and more importantly, his characters. One of the most memorable characters is the rather ironically named mother, Joy, played beautifully by Patricia Clarkson. That, to me at least, is already well-worth the rental of the movie. Joy is such a strong character, despite all of the issues she has with her life, and Patricia Clarkson knows just how to play it. personally, I'll watch just about anything that Patricia Clarkson is, but this is one role where it's fair to say that she excels. Other well-known actors and actresses make memorable appearances in the movie such as Oliver Platt, Allison Pill, and Sean Hayes.

Now for the news that typically turns readers and viewers off when they hear about this movie. The titular character, April? There's a reason I haven't said the actress playing her because people have a hard time giving it a chance. It's Katie Holmes in a post-Creek and pre-Cruise era. Granted, I wouldn't have chosen here to lead the movie, but she proves that she's quite capable with this movie. Sure, Clarkson steals the show, but that leaves plenty of screen time where Holmes has to carry the movie and she manages to do it.

Like I said, the movie is not without its problems, mainly its reliance on standards of the genre, but it's an enjoyable piece. Patricia Clarkson's heartbreakingly honest performance as a mother is what truly sells me on the piece, but there are definitely other aspects to enjoy. The supporting cast lends itself to the premise in a strong way and Hedge shows that he knows how to use his actors. Even for people who have an issue with Holmes, Pieces of April is an emotionally sincere directorial effort from first-time director Peter Hedges.

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Attention!

Hey guys,
this is gonna be a break from today's usual post. As most of you can tell, I'm losing the battle against cynicism. In order to be taken seriously as a writer you evidently have to be a populist, so consider this a sort of outreach. Please tell your friends about this blog and ask them to become followers if they wouldn't mind.
Also, from those followers that I do have or Facebook friends that read this, let me know what you'd like to see more of on this site. I'm always looking for new material and while I've got a ton of movies I could go through, I'd like to hear a little bit more about the stuff you'd like to hear about. Let me know what you like and what you don't like and I'll try to take that into account.
Until then, thanks for everyone who's been vocal in this endeavor. I'll try not to let the cynicism crush me...
Sincerely,
Calhoun

Friday, February 19, 2010

Post Grad

For all those looking for a review on the Alexis Bledel movie, hate to disappoint. Actually, I'm fine with disappointing since that movie is disappointing. Anyway, sorry to bore you all but this is sort of going to be a "woe is me" kind of post. Not self-pitying just self-deprecating. Are you ready? Okay...

It's been a while since I finished school. Sure, there were some setbacks like my professor getting hospitalized and not giving me a grade for a month (yeah, I still feel guilty about getting irritated that I hadn't received a grade when I heard about that one...) or my advisor not listing me as graduated for about 2 months after the fact. Still, I've been a confirmed graduate for a little while now. So why am I not getting jobs? No, I get it, I understand that it's a tough market out there, but seriously? Like I said, even Gap wouldn't return my calls.

The problem isn't really just the jobs though. See, what people don't usually account for is this idea that employment is directly related to a sense of self-worth. For those of you who have jobs, I'm not saying you don't have problems. We all have them which is why I try not to take my own to heart. But when someone pretty much says "you're not good enough even to fold clothes", you can't help but take it personally. It's true, I don't have a college degree in folding clothes or customer service, but I have a college degree! I think I can handle it... factor in job experience and you'd think even something would hire, even if it isn't in my field.

Because after all, I'm not naive. It'll be a long time before I'm paid for my writing (except that one fluke incident) but at least I'm still writing, right? I write 2 publications now as well as maintaining this. People are happy to look at my writing and use it, but pay for it? That's a different story. Once again, I know times are tough, but this whole writing for free still kind of gets to me. I mean, I'm more than happy to do it, it's just hard to invest one's self in a work like that. Then again lately, I feel like I've had a hard time investing myself in writing at all lately. I just worry that I'm no good at it and as much as I can blame the economy, that won't change the fact that if I'm not a good writer, I never will be.

I don't know if I'm just being melodramatic or I've just been given too much time to think. It's likely that it's a combination of both. Still, for those of you who continue to read, I appreciate it. For those of you who visit the page or read these posts on Facebook, please show your support by becoming a follower of this page.
http://selfproclaimedmegalomaniac.blogspot.com/
I think I'll end on an Eeyore note and say to those who have stuck with it and those who are reading now... thanks for noticing me.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Arrested Development: The One Time I've Never been Afraid to be Arrested

As the week draws to a close, I ask you, what TV list is complete without an ode to "Arrested Development"? Although it ran a brief 3 seasons, this show re-defined "cult status". It's difficult to say why it went off the air (without an incredibly offensive remark about FOX execs and/or American audiences at least) but it's good to know that such a show will not soon be forgotten.

At the center of Arrested Development is its incredible cast. While I personally could do with less Michael Cera in the present, he was the perfect awkward/funny (incestuous?) character. He rounded out an already stellar cast. True, he's probably enjoyed the most success since the show, but if it's difficult to say who the heart of the show was. Jason Bateman as the straight-laced levelheaded is endearing and adorable in all that he tries to do both for his family and to get away from them. Will Arnett, Tony Hale, David Cross and Portia De Rossi are perfect compliments to Bateman throughout the series. Each of them different, ranging from manipulative to flat-out dumb to the superficial and you have the makings of a memorable television family. However, as true of any TV "family" sitcom, blame it on the parents. Jeffrey Tambor is absolutely hysterical as the father of the family. Jessica Walters shows her true talent for comedy as the disapproving mother. Although it's hard to pick favorite scenes or characters, the dynamic between de Rossi and Walters is priceless.

Still, I could go on and on about the merits of "Arrested Development", but just about anyone who's seen the show could. Just as much as anything else, my attraction to the show is sentimental. When the show first made its way to DVD, I introduced it to my dad who in turn wanted to introduce it to just about anyone he ever met. He was pretty enthusiastic about it... but every so often he and I would hang out together in the basement watching the show entire discs at a time. There was no reason to ruin our "bonding experience" with talking to each other. Hell, that's what made me love it so much.

The came time for me to go off to college. When I made it here, I was lucky enough to meet some really cool people (as I hope everyone has a chance to do in college) but one of them, my dear friend Alexa, was also a fan of the show. We would quite it to each other all the time (we especially had a knack for inappropriate times) and would watch it over and over sometimes. Some of the best times I had in college where actually, as lame as it sounds, sitting around with friends watching the show. It sounds simple enough and it probably was, but what can I say? I guess I'm a simple man.

For those of you who haven't watched the show, I can't recommend it enough. In fact, you probably shouldn't even be taking the time to read this if you haven't already seen it. But why am I telling those of you who haven't seen it to watch it at the end of this piece? Would you really have read this far about a show you've never watched? Oh well, here's to hoping you will. For fans of the show, sound off below. Tell me some of your favorite characters and/or scenes from this dearly departed series.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Futurama We Hardly Knew Ye

It's hard to believe that with the long-running sitcom "The Simpsons" creator Matt Groening had any time for another show. Much less the time to lose that show, create 4 straight-to-DVD movies and revive that show years later. "Futurama" is pretty much the little engine that could of TV shows, and with good reason. I know some of you out there may be thinking "Yeah, but 'Family Guy' did the same thing" and I'll give you that, but let's be realistic, "Family Guy" has suffered its fair share of ups and downs in that time and it seems pretty clear, to me at least, that McFarlane's putting in his time elsewhere.

But with "Futurama", the show never really seemed tired. Sure, it recycled some gags but that's a staple of television. "Futurama" introduced audiences to a new world and a variety of characters that sort of grew close over the years, as strange as it may sound. It eventually became the highlight of my Sunday night line-up as a kid, eventually taking over the spot where "The Simpsons" used to be. Granted, I'm not sure I got all of it when I first watched it, but hey, that's the great thing about TV on DVD.

One of the things that always struck me about "Futurama" was the way that it could shift in tonality. The world of cartoons is often an under-appreciated one, but for all of its many quality attributes, it typically has one fatal flaw, and that is its flatness. Like I said, typically, but certainly not all the time. "Futurama" is one of those cartoons that kept you on your toes. It was always consistent in its storytelling and its characters, but every so often, they'd have an episode that would just about bring you to tears. "Luck of the Fryrish" is one or the episode about his dog? They're almost too emotional to relive. Well, that may be a bit melodramatic, but they get to me. You never really could tell because some would be absolutely hilarious and then they'd turn around at the last second and get you all choked up. It was that kind of dimensionality that stands as a testament to a great series.

Another thing, because let's be real I could never handle sci-fi, is that this show totally transcends all the stigmas of the sci-fi genre. Sure, there are some episodes that lay it on thick, but first and foremost, it's an enjoyable experience. It seems like there's a little bit there for everyone because there are definitely some "in" jokes aimed at sci-fi fans, but the majority is lowest common denominator sort of stuff. Normally, the term "lowest common denominator" is insulting, but with "Futurama" it's what kept me coming back for more. If they'd thrown all the material straight to the fanboys, I'd have been over my head, but thankfully, "Futurama" had a host of dumb characters who needed things explained to them... kind of like me, the dumb, non-sci-fi kid watching at home.

On one hand, I'm glad to be getting my beloved TV characters back, but I'll reserve further judgment till I actually see the new episodes air. Until then, I guess I'll keep re-watching my "Futurama" DVDs to tide me over like I've been doing for years.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Daria: the Voice of the Disenfranchised

Well, the day has finally come that I don't have to watch Daria (in varying degrees of quality AND sound) on my external. Actually, I spoke a little too soon, I still have to if I want my Daria fix until May 11, 2010 when the show finally makes its appearance on DVD. I wish i could say I wasn't having a bit of a fanboy moment and geeking out here, but who among you would believe if I even tried to pass that off as the truth?

For those of you who don't know (and I can't imagine who that would be) Daria was everyone's quintessential angst-ridden sarcastic teen from the late 90s to the early 2000s. In a weird way, she sort of came to represent the disenfranchised in the high school caste system. I say that it's weird because, popular or not, most people I know felt marginalized in high school at one point or another. But there was something so empowering about the character who chose to be a spectator, rather than involved. It may not be a healthy way to live life, but high school's not always the healthiest environment either and yet, most of us still go.

Anyway, back to the show and less about the emotional validation I received from a cartoon... Daria was one of those rare moments in television where there was no real stigma placed on being unhappy or dissatisfied with the way that things were. Life wasn't sugarcoated, because let's be realistic, sometimes things just aren't how you'd hoped they'd be. Sure, a lot of the times Daria painted an excessively dismal picture. It wasn't always true to life, but at least it had the audacity to suggest that wanting something more wasn't as awful as most people would have you believe.

Keep in mind, this show was also way before the whole jaded anti-hero became a television staple (if you're confused about what I'm talking about, watch just about any Bryan Fuller show and you'll see what I mean) so Daria wasn't really faced with a very welcoming audience. Still, it managed to last for 5 seasons so it didn't do too terribly. This is probably because she eventually became a pretty popular underdog. Like I said earlier, the universality of the high school experience is a pretty powerful component.

Still, perhaps the oddest part about Daria was the station it aired on... MTV. While I personally am not too big of a fan of MTV, I have nothing against them either. It's just not really my scene I guess. But at the time that Daria aired, MTV was pretty much the enemy. The merchants of cool trying to sell the "outsider" lifestyle? It was sort of ironic, if it hadn't seemed so insulting at the time. Then again, I was more of an angry youth at the time so, while my rage wasn't justified, it was a little more understandable. But years have passed and I'm over that. All of that really, high school and everything it represented. But that doesn't mean I don't have fond memories, and Daria was one of them. So MTV, I'd like to personally apologize for all the hostility, and say thanks for actually releasing Daria on DVD. Not a criticism, but I have to say, it's about damn time.

Monday, February 15, 2010

Veronica Mars: What Happened? It's Still a Mystery

My apologies for the unscheduled absence yesterday. I hope everyone took the opportunity to spend the day with loved ones and is enjoying the day off today.

Now on to today's events. Most people who know me had to have known that this day was coming since the very beginning. For those of you who didn't, my name is Calhoun and I'm a "Veronica Mars" addict. Sadly, I know for a fact that there are many others in the same boat as me since the spunky blond premiered on UPN in 2004. I guess just not enough to save the show from its cancellation, but in the case of season 3, that might not have been such a bad thing. Airing it the same night as "Gilmore Girls" somehow managed to cheapen the show in an effort to appeal to the same demographic. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

At the heart of the show are engaging characters, intriguing cases and just enough comedy and drama to make it worth your while. Kristen Bell, who since then has had the good fortune of making it big, leads the cast as the titular character. She's smart, quippy, and cute as a button, but that shouldn't undercut her sleuthing skills. It sounds like a weak premise for a show and there are definite moments where suspension of disbelief is an absolute must, but if you've got that down you're good to go. Along for the ride is her former-sheriff dad, who serves as an interesting addition. The interaction between the two ranges from heartfelt and genuine to the more quirky and comedic. It's not an absolute staple of the show past season 1, at least for me, but it's just so enjoyable that it definitely doesn't distract. In terms of friends, the typically anti-social Veronica has Wallace and Mac. Wallace is her go-to guy, but in terms of acting and character development, Mac comes out strongly in the lead with her "outsider" status and her comedic sensibility. Although there's a lot more to the cast than these 4 characters, they're easily the most notable and enjoyable additions to the cast.

However, besides the characters, the mysteries are the real reason to watch. the first 2 seasons follow a high-profile case throughout the season and each weekly mystery usually gets veronica closer to the truth. Once again, it sounds so lame, but to see it in practice is something entirely different. The witty solutions and the carefully unfolding plot are incredibly impressive, especially for a weekly show. The time investment in these season long mysteries is mind-blowing, but just a testament to the show. Season 3, as previously mentioned, is a departure from all things Veronica. The season-long mystery is abandoned for several mysteries that play out over the course of several episodes. Needless to say, the pay-off is less than astounding and the season as a whole suffers for it. Nevertheless, there are some fun episodes of season 3 such as Paul Rudd's guest stint, but the magic that kept the show alive for the first 2 seasons is gone.

Still, through it all, it is the tone of the show that kept me coming back for more. The quick pop-culture quips and the steely exterior and heart of gold Veronica are enough to win just about anyone over. Sadly, it became a casualty in the merging of the WB and UPN into the CW. When the world was forced to say goodbye to Veronica Mars it was all too soon, and now that the rumors of a movie have been indefinitely put on hold, it's looking even uglier. Still, I'll always have those 3 years...

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Sports Night: Getting Off Track with the Laugh Track

Day two of TV week.

In any list about television, it seems only fitting that Aaron Sorkin makes an appearance somewhere. While normally "West Wing" would have been my television show of choice, I think it's important to look at where Sorking started. The oddly titled "Sports Night" follows te professional and personal lives of the cast and crew of a late night sports show. Sound familiar? Well, that's because if we're being entirely realistic here take any Sorkin show, change the location and you have the same as the last one. This isn't a criicism. After all, Guy Ritchie's been doing it with movies since Lock, Stock and I'm still a fan.

Sorkin's trademark "walk and talk" began with "Sports Night" when the show first debuted. It featured fast-paced dialogue, quippy jokes, and rapid fire banter. While some people may question the reality of this tv show within a tv show, it remains enjoyable to watch. Even if the show's premise sounds a little thin for some of you, which I was admittedly initially a little skeptical, one of the saving graces is the cast.I'm not sure how they manage to do it, but the cast of "Sports Night" is endearing from the very beginning. There's such chemistry and charisma between all them and how they play off each other that the half-hour sitcom seems to fly by. Leading this cast are two TV favorites; Felicity Huffman ("Desperate Housewives") and Peter Krause ("Six Feet Under"). Although they may be the most recognizable names and faces from the show, the rest of the cast are equally engaging. However, it is Dana and Casey's relationship, be it professional or romantic or whatever, that keeps the show moving through all of its various plotlines.

While the show is interesting and funny and, at times, appropriately dramatic, it's not a perfect show. This may be off putting to some folks, and I can understand why, but for some reason ABC felt compelled to tell its audience when to laugh. Canned laughter has the ability to greatly distract from a show and "Sports Night" does suffer for it. However, I don't think that ABC's misguided decisions should discount from the quality acting and storylines. The show is still one of the stronger shows that I've seen, and an impressive television debut for Sorkin, but the laugh track does take some getting used to.

With its tagline, "Sports Night" dispels all fears for those of us who aren't necessarily the biggest into watching sports. "It's about sports like Charlie's Angels is about law enforcement". Showcasing that Aaron Sorkin wit, "Sports Night" is what it seems more shows should strive for. It's actively engaging with a little bit of drama and just enough comedy to make it a pleasant escape from our own lives. Sadly, the laugh track that I mentioned before proved to be a death sentence for "Sports Night" and it was cancelled after 2 seasons. However, that doesn't mean they weren't a hell of a 2 seasons. For those of you with Netflix or an interest in Aaron Sorkin, I recommend at least giving "Sports Night" a try. Even with the laugh track and all, at worst, it's a pleasant way to spend a free evening.

Friday, February 12, 2010

Six Feet Under: A Lesson in Loss and Grieving

Starting today until next Friday, I have designated this TV week. Not that this really affects any of you... except maybe some of you who I hope are still reading? Anyway, this will be, like, a graveyard of some of my favorite TV shows. I'm just now realizing the odd choice of words since I decided to kick off the week with "Six Feet Under"...

"Six feet Under" is probably the most ill-fitting in this category because this wasn't really a show that ended before its time. While it was around, it was a much beloved series which is why it's sort of odd for me to enjoy it. It's not this aversion to the "popular" thing to do. I mean, how middle school emo would that be? I just find that I usually have a different sensibility or sense of humor than most people. I usually go for something different, but "Six feet Under" is one of those shows I just couldn't deny myself.

I remember when it first came out, I didn't have HBO and neither did most of my friends so we'd have to wait till a season came out on DVD and pace ourselves because we all knew it would be a LONG time before we had more of it to watch. Jacob Haney and I would watch intently as the events on screen unfolded before us. However, like all good things, it comes time for them to end. I was choked up at the end of the series, but I was done. I was ready to move out of Wyoming and move on with my life and oddly enough, the series finale had me hopeful for that.

Revisiting the series 5 years after its end may seem kind of random to some folks. Hell, it even seemed random to me, but it was one of those things, I found myself with a lot of free time and no one eager to hire a young writer so what else was there to do? I remembered bits and pieces, usually more of the eccentric stuff like the occasional dance number, but by and large, it was a new experience to me. I don't want to say that I've matured since I first watched it or anything maudlin like that, but I can honestly say, it re-awakened me to what good writing and good acting could do.

To say "life and death are universal" is not only an understatement, it's pretentious as hell. The way that these topics were approached in the series, with such complexity, reminded me of why I loved the show in the first place. Sure, there are some absolutely hilarious parts and some depressing parts as well, but the sincerity of the show is what's most captivating on an emotional level. As with every show, I saw a little bit of myself in these characters, but more importantly, I grew with these characters. It sounds so new age-y, but I defy anyone to watch the complete series of "Six Feet Under" and not have an emotional experience. It's just plain fact.

As I watched the series finale yesterday, with two other guys in the room, I'm not even ashamed to admit, I was a mess. Not, like, blubbering and snotting, but the end of the series just leaves you feeling kind of emotionally drained and feeling sort of heavy. Don't worry, for people who haven't seen the series, I'm not going to ruin the ending, but suffice it to say, it's powerful. It's emotional in a way that's indescribable. It's honest and heartbreaking.

For those of you who haven't watched the series, I cannot recommend it highly enough. It's dark and at times depressing, but strangely life-affirming. I don't know if that just means I'm susceptible or easily influenced or if others agree. Regardless, "Six Feet Under" is a reminder of what life and death is in the most realistic way. Sure, some of the deaths are out there, but there is never a doubt in my mind, in the writing and the acting, that the emotion is sincere.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Hideous Men Hardly Worth Knowing

John Krasinksi's directorial debut, Brief Interviews with Hideous Men, is as ugly as the men that it exposes. The film centers around an attractive young grad student as she conducts interviews with all sorts of unattractive men ranging from the physically unattractive to the morally repugnant. What seems like the opportunity for a smart and funny social commentary on gender politics, soon is waylaid by its own cleverness.

Describing the general setup of the film is a difficult task, which is never a good sign. It ranges from the candid interviews, to vignettes, to breaking the fourth wall, and then back to interviews. The interviews are surprisingly the most engaging. What the film is dealing with is an intense introspection so these characters reflecting on their own actions and behaviors is almost therapeutic to watch. The whole film couldn't unfold like this, but a little more consistency to establish a tone and a voice would have helped the movie along.One example is, right after a man's monologue about his father and the racism he faced, a different character says "Ya know where the little boy's room is? I gotta answer Nature's Page, if ya know what I mean." This kind of shift in tone is drastic and unsettling not only because it discounts the character beforehand for a cheap laugh, but seriously, who says"Nature's page?" considering we're not in 1995 anymore. It sounds like semantics, but little bits like that distract from the whole piece. In between these different interviews and vignettes and everything in between, it's telling a rather simple story, about a girl whose lost her faith in men, in the most "artistic" and subsequently confusing way. There are scenes were conversations are pasted together from different vignettes as if the characters are all talking together, even though the backgrounds are recognizably different and the chain of events are incomprehensible. While some people may interpret it as "fresh", it came across as self indulgent and indecisive. Overall, the film asks some really good questions, but like any film with multiple story lines, there are some parts that are clearly better than others and the rest seems just filler.

One of the most distracting parts of the movie is how seriously it takes itself. It tackles all these social issues and condemns all these disgusting characters, but they just come across as flat. An 80 minute movie composed of multiple story lines can't dedicate itself to race and gender and sexuality and politics. It's exhausting to watch someone try, but it's irritating as well. It takes pride in asking the questions that no one seems to want to ask, but prompts the audience to answer for themselves, but there are so many questions, it's difficult to know which questions to ask.

However, more important than the questions themselves, is how these characters get to them. It sounds like nitpicking, but for the most part, these are supposed to be interviews which suggest a conversational tone. You'll be hard pressed to find a guy who refers to women as the "female genus" in everyday conversation. The language of the film ranges from everyday to suddenly academic and stiff. This isn't terribly surprising as the whole film struggles with voice but to watch it as it unfolds is tedious.

As the credits roll, one of the first things listed is "Based on the novel by David Foster Wallace". It suddenly seemed to make sense. Brief Interviews with Hideous Men works as a book. The introspection and character examination of a book is much more forgiving than a movie. In the end, it just seems like Krasinski bit off more than he could chew for his feature film directorial debut with this project. But it's not his fault, this seems like a dream project, but that it's pretty unattainable. Add this to the pile of un-film-able books. Until then, it's a solid effort but suffers from lack of an authoritative tone or voice that could have been a great help.

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm

Anyone who knows me, probably knows my weakness for cartoon movies. Even at the age of 22, I find myself drawn to animation in an almost childish way. Pair that with with my fanatical obsession with Batman (check the ribs, folks) and you've got yourself an addiction.

As a kid, my parents always tried to do right by, but that included a strict limitation on how much TV I could watch and what movies I could see. On school nights I was allowed only 30 minutes of what my dad ingeniously called "TV time". So much to choose from when you boil down the entire cartoon lineup down to a mere 30 minutes. But, let's be real, it was never a fair fight. Batman had won me over, every day after school at 4 PM, I would huddle in my basement to watch what The Joker or the Riddler had in store for the Dark Knight this episode.

So imagine my delight, and my dad's horror, when an animated movie came out in theaters. Mask of the Phantasm. If you haven't seen it, I'm honestly not sure if I can do it justice. It was everything I could have hoped for in a movie as a kid. Years later, and 22 years old, not a whole lot is the same. The value of the dollar, fashion, but there is one thing. That movie still holds the same childlike fascination it did when I dragged my dad to the movie theater that day.

I loved Batman the Animated Series, but there was always something in there that was lacking. "What's that? Bruce was trained as a samurai?" Things like that would pop up every so often (well, not if you read the comics, but that was another thing that was strictly verboten in my house). This movie seems to take itself more seriously than that. There's actual character development with some of these characters who went on to become staples in the animated series. Even as a kid, I was dying to know why these people did what they did and surprisingly enough, even at my age now, this movie provides some accessible answers for its younger audience.

Even more surprising, they embraced their dark side. The traditional dark animation is made even darker for the film, as is the tone. The animation itself is some of the finest hand-drawn I can recall in a long time. There's such precision to it and it looks like they cleaned it up more in post than they would've been able to do for the show. As an animation fan, I'm pretty particular about the animation that I'll watch, but Batman: Mask of the Phantasm does not disappoint. However, the darkness in animation isn't the only dark I'm talking about.

Everyone knows the inciting incident for why Batman became Batman (and if you don't, you probably shouldn't be reading this...) and this tragic event is revisited at length in this movie. It deals with a lot of emotional material such as love and loss, which was probably lost on me at the time. This dark tone is fitting for the movie and helps establish Batman as not just a physical force to be reckoned with, but a man whose heart is breaking behind the cape and cowl. It's sad stuff and probably not even for kids, but if you were ever a fan of Batman the Animated Series, i recommend re-visiting Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. Not only for old time's sake, but because it holds up, in presentation and in story, beautifully.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Adam

Hey guys, I'm trying a new format with a more generalized film review and typical film review (more expositional than personal). Please be sure to let me know what you think whether in facebook comments or the much preferred comment on my blog. I'm still toying around with finding a suitable voice and your help would be greatly appreciated!

Adam is a quiet film about a young man living with Asperger's and the young woman he forms a bond with in his struggle to become independent. While it advertises itself as a romantic comedy/drama, don't believe a word of its advertising. It's much more human than that and to fall for the trailer just cheapens what is truly a more universal story. Don't get me wrong, I fell for the trailer and enjoyed the movie, but as usual, the trailer offers a lowest common denominator interest and doesn't really speak to the actual story.

At the heart of the movie is Adam, played by Hugh Dancy, and Beth, played by Rose Byrne. Dancy is familiar to the rom-com crowd for his work in such movies as Confessions of a Shopaholic, but Dancy shows that he's not only got god looks, but charisma as well. Asperger's, which is essentially a high-functioning Autism, carries with it the stigma of any mental affliction. Hollywood's tendency is to gawk at those different or demonstrate them as objects of pity, but at no point is Adam reduced to such shallow dimensions. One of the beautiful things of the film is that the audience watches Adam learn and grow as time goes on, showing us how he used to be and how far he's come. It's inspiring to see a "different" character given this much depth in a world where it seems that most films about mental issues are simply Oscar bait. What Adam delivers is a sweet albeit complicated young man and the woman who loves him. This woman, of course, is Beth, a young school teacher who is new to the apartment building and finds herself intrigued by Adam's eccentric behavior. Rose Byrne does a beautiful job with the character of Beth, managing to be sweet and still withdrawn, which makes for an interesting and somewhat atypical romantic interest.

When dealing with a film like Adam, it's a bit like walking on eggshells. First and foremost, there are the tired stereotypes of the genre. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, when dealing with subject matter like Asperger's, you have to be respectful to the issue. While Adam does at times fall back on stereotypes, at its heart, it has good intentions and endearing characters to guide it along. Much like Adam's life, it seems to be a work in progress, but enjoyable nonetheless.

Monday, February 8, 2010

Movies with a Meaning

Remember when movies had meaning? Pepperidge Farm remembers... no, but seriously, do you remember when movies actually served a purpose other than to entertain? It didn't have to be "highbrow" or "indie" to actually tell a story that was relevant to its audience, but now there's a certain level of pretension in social commentary, a topic where "mainstream" directors seem to fear to tread. A notable exception is Avatar. Even if I'm not a fan, I'm aware of its supposed "merits" and definitely aware of its message. In fact, the preachy message is exactly why I don't like it. Let's just say if it really is the anti-capitalist tirade that so many people are taking it to be, maybe James Cameron doesn't have that much room to talk. Subtlety is a much beloved thing in my household, but with a budget like his, it seems Cameron can literally afford not to be subtle. Anyway, back to my main point, I understand that we're living in hard times and a lot of people go to the movies as a form of escape, but it wasn't that long ago that audiences could be both frivolous and have something to say.

In order to prove my point, why don't we journey back to a time of old, a time of simplicity if you will; the year 2000. Maybe it was because we were fresh off that kick of the whole world not ending with Y2K and everything or maybe it's because I was only 13, but 2000 was a good time. Of course, technically this story begins long before 2000, when Stan Lee introduced the X-Men to the world in 1963, as a commentary on the division that racism created in America. However, 2000 is when director Bryan Singer brought his own vision to the screen in, arguably, one of the strongest "comic book" films of our time. While Lee's original intention of the allegory for racism was topical at the time, racism didn't exist in the same manner by the time 2000 rolled around. Not to say that racism wasn't or isn't still a problem in America today, but Singer brought an element of himself to the film and instead decided to address another, perhaps more topical, issue by focusing his story on an allegory about the movement against homosexuals. Granted, he managed to find a way to do it while also blowing stuff up, so it could be argued that his film succeeded on multiple levels. X2: X-Men United continued with the allegory of the persecution of homosexuals, in an action-packed yet equally important way. X2 took the politics of the first movie to new heights in an inventive style that it seems only Bryan Singer could provide. I say "only Bryan Singer could provide", and feel it should be noted, because most of us know what happened next with X-Men 3: The Last Stand. Brett Ratner stepped in as director and any sense of importance was lost. The message was muddled and the characters were flat in comparison to the rich and dimensional characters I'd grown to love from the first film. I'm not going to be as melodramatic as to say that X-Men 3 is the downfall of all American films, but there was a palpable difference in the trilogy.

However, as much as I wish it was the case, movies don't begin and end with comic book action flicks. A staple of the American film industry, now more than ever, is the much-beloved remake. Now, remakes have a bad wrap. I mean, have you ever seen The Invasion? Oooohhh, that's right, nobody did. For those of you who are pop culture impaired, The Invasion was the 2007 Nicole Kidman remake of The Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Once again, we're talking source material that is rich with meaning. The original was at the height of the Cold War and the fear of communism, or more accurately, the fear that anybody could have been a communist. What was The Invasion afraid of? I couldn't exactly tell you, but if memory serves, it's biggest fear was plot. Or maybe it was having a point? Or maybe being too political? I swear, it's one of those p words, but for the sake of argument all of those will just have to do. It was too afraid of repercussion to actually say something meaningful.

Even though that was 2007 and this is now, the same can be said about any movie. Like I said, there are notable exceptions such as Avatar and Up in the Air, but these movies, in my opinion, come across as preachy and self-important. Movies like X-Men were improved by their allegories, but it also wasn't necessary that it be viewed as a social commentary. You could just ignore the important stuff and focus on Hugh Jackman shirtless or stuff blowing up. These movies had something to say and their own way of communicating themselves. Maybe that's what I mean when i say "meaningful", which I'm realizing now is such a subjective term. All I'm asking is for a departure from the self-important, topical Oscar bait and the brainless garbage that's out there now. It's been done before so I have faith, or maybe just hope, that someone soon will make something worth watching soon.

Saturday, February 6, 2010

Happy Birthday Nathan

For those of you that have been following me, that's right, all 10 of ya, I realize that this has been perhaps the most inconsistent period in my writing, what with the emotional death of JD Salinger (for those who are curious, yes I teared up when I heard about it on the el and yes, it was as mortifying as it sounds) as well as personal life changes. As the glory days of college have passed and the reality of, well, the real world is setting in, I feel it's important for me to go through some changes myself, ranging from the more formal to the informal, which is really just me typing how I usually talk, so if you notice a whole bunch of "ya"s and "gotta"s, I beg you to bear with me. It's been an up and down week of emotions and stresses, but please somebody tell me if I start monologue-ing like Valerie Bertinelli in a Lifetime movie...

But it's not about me today. Well, not entirely at least, because it's about a friend of mine so I guess that still is sorta about me... regardless, just about anyone who knows me, knows that it's important for me to have a support system. I mean, isn't that true for just about all of us? But I've never been much of a family man, especially after moving out here on my own to Chicago. I've met a bunch of great people over the years, and I hope these people know who they are, as well as maintaining close friends from back home, and you should definitely know who you folks are. However, lately all my life has been about life after school and while I have great friends to help me through it, there has been one guy who's invaluable to me. This is normally where people think I would name Jesse, who is great and always there for me, but I'd actually like to take the opportunity to thank my friend Nathan.

We both graduated at the same time and although are situations aren't entirely identical, it's been helpful to have someone who's going through all the same panic as me. Of course, for those of you who have read the title, I'm sure you've figured this isn't just a random post, but of course, it's his birthday. So while I feel like I've bordered on the same sappiness and melodrama one would expect from a Melrose Place reunion show, I've still gotta go a little further and wish Nathan a very happy birthday. Your birthday present, as I hope you actually read this, is that I've actual shown emotion in a public forum. Doesn't happen a lot, so don't get used to it, but enjoy it nonetheless. Happy birthday!

Friday, February 5, 2010

Manipulators VS. Manipulated

I swear this is the one time you'll have to hear me wax on philosophical about gender roles and relationships (because let's be real, I have very little experience in either fields) but here I go. I was sitting in on a class with an old professor, and let me tell you there's nothing more depressing than being a college grad sitting in on a primarily freshman class, called "Family and Society" or some such nonsense. The focus of the class is to examine the gender roles that are perpetuated in different societies, which seems like an interesting enough premise. The first week of class was dedicated to the reading of Ibsen's A Doll's House. The focus was on the character Nora, which for those of you who for some reason never took high school English, is the wife and mother who's essentially oppressed by every male force in the play. Soon, the discussion turned to whether Nora was sympathetic or pitiable. She seemed to be well taken care of, but not respected. But more importantly, she knew how to get what she wanted. Some girls in the class indicated it was that Nora knew how to play off of her sexuality to get what she wanted whereas others disagreed, saying that she was merely playing the part of the child, just like her husband always treated her. This brought the discussion to modern day gender politics. Are women treated differently from Ibsen's time? If so, how?

The astonishing thing was that the whole class was in agreement on one thing; that women manipulate. It didn't matter what we were talking about, girls openly acknowledged that they manipulate men and even the relationships they have with other women are based in part of their mutual manipulation. In a cry that would've made Camille Paglia proud, these women admitted their manipulative tendencies. However, as soon as the men in the room joined in them, talking about how women had manipulated them in the past, it became sexist. The good ol' double-standard, which always surfaces at one point or another when discussing gender, reared its ugly head. As the debate erupted, i began to think to myself, fearful of raising my hand in a class where I didn't belong, the discussion turned inward. I considered how women in this class had admitted manipulation, but shrunk back when the men recognized it.

As the discussion turned to whether men manipulate or not, which the females in the class overwhelmingly declared so, another idea came to mind. Maybe what was being asked in the class was the wrong question, a thought that I of course wouldn't dare express. The question of who's more manipulative is a debate that could rage on well past graduation day, and it honestly seemed a little off base. The real question is "who is easier to manipulate?" not "who is more manipulative?". Ask just about anyone around and that's a much easier question to answer.

Well, I've been putting it off for about 3 paragraphs now, but the fact of the matter is, it's us guys. This doesn't make it right when men are manipulated or mean that as guys, we're dumb or anything, it's just the God's honest truth. Let's be real, it could be due to a variety of reasons, but one factor that comes up time and time again, whether gay or straight, as men, we're visual. men have been proven to be much more visual when it comes to sexual attraction, and when we're talking about manipulation the two seem to usually go hand in hand (though not always) and women as well as other men are well aware of that. AFter all, they say knowing is half the battle and if that's the case, we called defeat before even putting our combat boots on. In the case of straight guys, you think a girl doesn't know that you'll buy her drinks if she wears the right dress? She's well-aware and while some people may make a case for that as manipulation, which it pretty clearly is, it's always empowerment. Women, and the right gay men, may be willing to bare a little skin but that's at the cost of their counterparts self-respect. For all those guys out there who claim that women are more manipulative, two things. 1) Don't act like it's a one-way street. Guys manipulate to. And 2) If women are so manipulative, stop falling for it. It takes two to tango after all.

Well, after roughly 750 words, I'm feeling a little too Carrie Bradshaw for my own good. I don't mean to dole out advice on the behaviors of men and women. I don't even think I'd be very good at it. But the fact of the matter remains, it's all about the battle of the sexes. Men vs. women is a never ending war. This whole battle analogy isn't meant to evoke some dormant hostility or anything, it's just an age-old saying. Regardless, as the battle of the sexes continues on, it looks like most of us guys are fighting a losing war.

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Saw VI Brings Back the Bite

Saw is a franchise that has given new meaning to the term "milking it", With the myriad of directors that have traded off the franchise I figured there had to be something wrong with the direction they were taking it in. The first Saw was a promising movie. It had brains behind its actions and just enough concentrated gore to satisfy the bloodthirsty horror fans. Saw II is perhaps, in my opinion, the most bizarre of the films. I don't really know what to make sense of it just because there was more gore, but there wasn't any real character development. As the franchise went on, it seemed to fluctuate. Some movies, like Saw V were burdened with plot, whereas others revelled in their bloody origins.

With Saw VI, there seems to be a happy median found. There's definitely a lot of exposition, in fact Saw VI is probably the best at catching you up with the franchise without boring you to death, but it never bogs it down. Whereas in most instances in the other films, the gore was something that was celebrated and enjoyed. In this film, the body count is almost torturous. It's agonizing watching this man decide who gets to live or die. However, there's an added element to that that adds weight to the film. The man in question, William, is an insurance man.

Just when I thought that Saw was beginning to lose its edge, director Kevin Greutert injects a spark of life into it by making it something actually meaningful. As the US continues to debate over universalized health care and the health care system in general, Saw VI surprisingly enough takes a stand. While it's unclear whether this movie was ever meant to be charged with this political meaning, it's hard to imagine that this was inadvertent.

Now whether the film does a good job of engaging the audience in this political discussion is an entirely different story. Just like so many of the other Saw movies before it, this movie does falter as it tries to stand on its own. The examination of the perpetrators backstory is very thorough and at times, that distracts from how the events are unfolding. Nevertheless, with this added dimension of the protagonist being an insurance man and literally in charge of who lives or who dies gives weight to the deaths in the film. It satisfies the bloodlust of horror fans, but at the same time, manages to make that sort of enjoyment shameful.

As per Saw tradition, there is a twist at the end of the film which does little to add or detract from the film. It provides a strong finish for the film, but to be honest, isn't really necessary. However, without giving it away, I will tell you that it adds insult to injury on the healthcare debate. Nevertheless, while I went into this film expecting very little more than gore and awful acting, I was pleasantly surprised. Saw seems to have found its voice and its soul again with Saw VI, it's just a shame that it took this long.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

500 Days Seems Like an Awfully Long Time

Marc Webb's feature directorial debut, 500 Days of Summer, quickly became an indie fan favorite. Perhaps it was the casting of indie darlings Joseph Gordon Levitt and Zooey Deschanel or perhaps it was the supposed angst of our lead male that attracted so many hipsters. Regardless, the film, which revolves around the relationship and subsequent breakup of Tom (Gordon-Levitt) and Summer (Deschanel) told from the viewpoint of a lovesick and heartbroken Tom.

One of the important things to note is that this is Webb's feature directorial debut, but far from his debut. See, Webb has been making a pretty comfortable living directing music videos. While 500 Days of Summer does have its charm with its quippy dialogue and its breathtaking visuals, Webb seems most at home when he's dousing his scenes with music. It's comfortable to watch as Tom dances around to Hall & Oates in a madcap musical number. Other times, when Tom's depression seems to take hold, Webb seems to have just the right music for it. However, there is also a third category, when Webb uses music as a way of storytelling. While the soundtrack is an enjoyable one, even on par with Garden State's soundtrack, this method of using music to cover up places where dialogue should be comes across as lazy sometimes. Pair that with the use of an omniscient narrator and what you've got is a beautifully shot, intensely visual student film. While this movie is a strong feature debut, it shows that Webb may not be able to leave his music video roots for a more cinematic form of storytelling, utilizing his actors more than his soundtrack. It will be interesting to see how he fares in his sophomore attempt.

However, the blame for the shortcomings of this movie doesn't entirely fall on Webb's shoulder. As much as it pains me to say, Zooey Deschanel was not the choice actress for the role of Summer. While Deschanel is beautiful and talented, throughout the movie she seems disaffected by what's going on around her. We see a heartbroken Tom in the beginning, who is distraught that this woman doesn't love him anymore. The problem is, we're never really shown what there is to love about Summer. She's not cold or unfeeling, but she doesn't have the kind of charisma that's necessary for us to invest in her. Once again, this could be anyone's game, perhaps the character wasn't written with a lot of depth to begin with, but somewhere along the way, the character of Summer just becomes so removed that it's difficult to imagine someone loving her.

Finally, although I enjoyed a great deal of this movie and its interpretation of the antithesis of the romantic comedy. It seemed empowering to people who had been dumped before or felt the kind of abandonment that Tom does. Then, at the last minute, there's a cheesy glimmer of hope for Tom when he meets a young girl named Autumn. I'm not sure if everyone watched the same movie that I did, but ending it on a note like that, while nice and certainly idealistic, seems to undo the power of the movie. Here we are watching an entire movie where people are defined by their horrible relationships and Tom finally establishes himself as his own man, but then, of course, he can't really be a man unless he's "completed" by a partner. It seemed so uncharacteristic of the message that the movie seemed to be giving and, for me personally, it completely took me out of the movie.

While it might be easy to get the impression that I hated 500 Days of Summer, you'd actually be wrong. I think it's an enjoyable film and shows potential for a first-time feature director. However, the movie is certainly not without its faults. While the soundtrack is enchanting, Webb needs to experiment a little more to make it work more with the movie than as two stand alone pieces. Also, the character of Summer definitely need some work to make us fall in love with her just as Tom does. Finally, although I'm sure most people wouldn't change a thing, the ending is not only a cop-out, but it's so artificial. All in all, 500 Days of Summer has some really strong points, but needs to be more grounded in the world that Webb is trying to convey, hopefully something Webb will take into account in his sophomore effort.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Oscars Nomination Nothing to Write Home About

Okay, so the Oscars nominations are in and without having seen most of the movies, I think it's pretty safe to say that we know who most of the winners will be (I say that with the expectation that Best Picture and Best Director will more than likely be interchangeable categories) and I gotta say, I'm not impressed. I mean, for starts, no Julianne Moore this year? Really? I think that's a mistake to begin with, but there's nothing I can do to change the voters' minds now. All I have to say is that it's beginning to look bad when I was more excited for the list of Razzie nominees than Oscar contenders...

Monday, February 1, 2010

Woman on Top?

If you're at all like me, you were dumbfounded Saturday night when Kathryn Bigelow was awarded for her work as director of The Hurt Locker. Not because she didn't deserve it, but because, we all know that Hollywood is very much a man's world. Note: I feel pretty comfortable in saying this as a man and also if you look at how many women directors have been nominated for an Academy Award versus how many have won it. Both numbers are far from compelling. That being said, is America ready to even entertain the possibility of Bigelow winning come Oscar night?

I mean, don't get me wrong, we're the land of the free and we voted for change in 2008 and all of that politically correct stuff, but what's really different? If you look around, the answer is not that much. This isn't me saying it's Obama's fault or anything, but I just think it's time we opened ourselves up to the idea that change is hard and it takes time. Bigelow already broke ground at the DGA for being the first woman afforded that honor, but ex-husband Cameron took home the honor at the Globes. So far, it's pretty much anyone's game.

I personally would be thrilled if Bigelow won. Part of it is because of her capability as a director and her knack for storytelling. However, I will admit to being somewhat spiteful and not wanting James Cameron to take it home for sheer spectacle alone. I swear, it's mainly the talent thing, but I'd be lying if Avatar didn't sneak in there a little. Anyway, back to the actual focus of Bigelow... while there has been a clear evolution of women in film, and some setbacks too, the portrayal of most women nowadays is largely positive. I say largely because it's clear that some directors still have some progress to make. Still, Hollywood's reputation as a man's town isn't entirely correct. While women are definitely present, few have ever graced the director's chair. Their presence is much more behind-the-scenes than the Spielberg's of the world. If Hollywood's shown that it's not that ready for female directors, how it's going to affect women in Hollywood if Bigelow ends up with that statuette? While it seems like the answer should be an overwhelmingly positive thing, we'll just have to tune in to the Oscars to find out. While few, if any, more deserving directors come to mind, I can't help but feel that Bigeolw's DGA and, hopefully, her win Oscar night would be a huge triumph for women in the film industry. The question is, will the men in the audience be able to take it?