UP

I know I'm a little behind on some of these, but with the Oscar winners as well as the nominees, I wanted to wait some time after the awards so I can find myself in that objective place again.

With UP, plain and simple, it's a difficult movie not to love. It shows an understanding of its older audience while imparting some difficult to say advice to its younger audience. The message, even for older audiences, is a slippery slope because as an audience member I found myself torn. I wanted Carl to move on, but at the same time, there's always that fear that it'll be equated with forgetting the other person. With such a message, I was incredibly impressed with the storytelling.

Because after all, that's what this movie is a return to, the art of storytelling. Sure, it did so with beautiful visuals but at no point did it surrender to spectacle. There are so many movies out there (I'm going to go ahead and name Avatar here) who have absolutely stunning visuals, but when paired with a mediocre or even lackluster script, I find myself indifferent. The characters in UP not only entertained, but engaged in a way that I honestly never thought animated characters could do. It was refreshing to see some credibility lent to the industry after some of the animated garbage that's being put out.

But to label UP as merely an animated movie is to do it a great disservice. It transcends the medium and, as I said earlier, brought such real and dimensional characters to the screen. It really is so much more than an animated movie. Don't get me wrong, I love animated movies probably more than any 22 year old man should, but there's a certain stigma with the genre. There's this pre-conceived idea that it should be something flat. This idea is constantly being challenged, like I said in my post on The Iron Giant, but with UP, it's proven to be a whole new playing field.

One can only hope that the same level of involvement and integrity is brought to future animated projects. UP found the courage to address an unpleasant topic in such a beautiful manner in its opening sequence. From there it proved that these kinds of movies can have heart and humor, the two aren't mutually exclusive. In the end, UP proved itself to be both an emotional and incredible journey, with the characters and the visuals, hopefully changing the way that animated movies are viewed.

Rules of the Haunted House Game

Okay, I know we all learned our horror basics from Scream but seeing as it was a slasher or a parody of a slasher or whatever the hell it was, it ignored some basics of the supernatural horror films. Of course, I watched one last night while on my horror binge.

But seriously, let's take a look at some of the conventions of the supernatural horror genre or more specifically, the haunted house movie. There are a lot of smart movies of this kind out there, but there's this reliance on building up the tension which makes your previously smart characters look really stupid.

First and foremost, when you're meeting with a realtor and you ask "what's the catch?" and they say "well, this house has a history...", ya know what that means? Yeah, it means dead people. They may be in the walls or they may be buried underneath the house, but "history" means "dead people". That's all I'm sayin'.

Secondly, there's always this moment where somebody sees like a charred corpse in the mirror or a crazy face in the window and they do a double take. Why a double take? You know it's not gonna be there when you look back! I mean, seriously, it never is! But here's my thing on this, if you thought you saw it once... you probably saw it. Don't waste time on the double take, just get out of there.

Finally, for today's lesson... GET OUT OF THE HOUSE! So much time is spent on creating tension in the movie with things not being where people put them last or little children creating imaginary friends that don't say very nice things. There are a ton of warning signs, just pick one and go with it.

Now I realize this would mean no more horror films, but seriously? I mean, how many times have you been watching a movie and the character that you THOUGHT was smart falls prey to one of these tired conventions? Granted, each horror movie does it in their own way, but you can expect to find at least one of these in your basic haunted house horror whether it's Amityville Horror or Poltergeist or even The Haunting in Connecticut.

Bitch Slap: Well, It Sure Feels Like One to Its Audience

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but that doesn't fool me. Imitation's also the cheapest way to make a buck. Riding high off the grindhouse/b movie craze comes Bitch Slap. With such a provocative title, you'd expect a titillating movie (no pun intended). What you'd actually be in store for is insufferable and unnecessary plot twists, drawn out fight scenes, and some pretty bad acting.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a bad flick as much as the next person, but somewhere along the road it starts to feel like the movie takes itself too seriously as an actual grindhouse film and at other times, it's clearly mocking the genre so it's difficult to tell what this movie is. Most times, what's really painful about the movie is the dialogue which is written in this un-realistic (I get suspension of disbelief, but come on!) overly-kitschy kind of way. "Ram this in your clambake, bitch skank!" It's really just one of the cringe-worthy lines. With lines like this, I understand the sense of humor, but it's difficult to call it appealing. Of course, there are a couple exceptions (I admit I loved "Lube my boobs, skank twat!" but that was one of the few) but nothing to warrant a 109 minute movie. This one easily could have passed, and even flourished, as a short film, but instead the whole process is drawn out.

Along the same lines, as I watched the movie unfold eventually getting to the "shocking" conclusion that I saw coming about 10 minutes into the movie, it became abundantly clear that the people behind this movie had either a) neither seen an ACTUAL grindhouse film/b movie or b) had completely missed the point of the genre. One of the confusing standards of the whole grindhouse/b movie/exploitation is the way it deals with women. They're intensely sexualized and often violent, but there's a sort of reverence to them. There may be several female villains, but they're also shown as strong and powerful products of the sexual revolution. Needless to say, when you have woman beating woman several decades later, it's just kind of disturbing. Its stripped of the empowerment and just seems like an adolescent male fantasy, much like most of the rest of the movie. Even worse than the violence itself, are the women. Ignoring the fact that they're flat one-dimensional representations, not a single one of them is interesting or even worth caring about. The whole movie pretty much does a disservice to the female gender.

So, let's say those past complaints can be overlooked. It's a stretch, but let's just go with it. Most of the movie takes place in the remote desert (Pretty obvious reference to Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!) but every so often, we'll have an unnecessary random flashback. These are annoying in and of themselves, but imagine for me, if you will, that you're standing in front of one of those backdrops of the Hawaiian oceanside that you see in tacky souvenir stores. That is the quality of the graphics. Now I'm not usually one to complain about special effects, but these scenes were not only drawing out the movie in an incredibly obnoxious manner, but the "importance" of that flashback could've taken place anywhere that would've been more in their spending range.

Bitch Slap suffers in a lot of areas that make a movie beyond repair. Like I said before, it could have survived as a short movie but as it is today, it's a travesty of film making.

All About Suffering Through All About Steve

You know those movies that think they're too clever for their own good? It can be a real problem for a movie. It really decides whether it's going to blow up at the box office or if it's just plain going to bomb.

The only thing worse that a box office dud that's universally panned is when you see the movie, just to see if it can really be as bad as critics are saying it is, and it turns out that it's even worse.

That's the lesson to be learned from the sandra Bullock comedy All About Steve. To call the movie a disaster of epic proportions really just doesn't quite capture the magnitude of this movie. At the center is Mary (Sandra Bullock in a "funny" Fatal Attraction type role) who after Steve (Bradley Cooper with frosted tips, who's supposed to be hot) leads her in, follows him cross-country in order to be with him.

It's this kind of creepy, misguided humor that keeps the movie going for about 100 minutes, which is about 99 minutes too long (I'm a crossword fan so I liked the opening titles, but that's about it). Somewhere along the way, Mary loses her charm whereas Steve never really had any to begin with. This is one of the main problems, at least for me. It's impossible to see in Steve what Mary does mainly because he's rude and shallow for the entire movie. As for Mary, she kind of functions like a female "quirkier" version of Rain Man.

As she continues on her cross-country journey in a feverish stalking frenzy, she just becomes pitiable. More so than that, even though I never cared for or about the character of Steve, it's pretty easy to see that this woman is mentally unstable. I wouldn't call her crazy or anything, but she's unaware of boundaries, doesn't know what not to say, and all these other social norms. While we're supposed to believe that she's a free spirit or whatever, those are characteristics of Asperger's Syndrome. Now I don't want to offend anyone, but I'm just saying that the way that the character is portrayed should be more concerning. One of the themes of the movie is "just be yourself" but if "yourself" is a person who drives cross-country to follow a man, it's just a little disconcerting.

The most painful part about All About Steve is that it wants to make you laugh, but you're never entirely sure why you're supposed to laugh. Some of the humor is stupid, while some of it seems so mean-spirited. You're never quite sure if you're supposed to be laughing with Mary or at Mary. Some of the jokes made are at the character's expense so it's a little confusing.

In the end, All About Steve suffers because it doesn't know what it is. It doesn't know its characters nor does the audience really. Sure, we get that Mary's wild and crazy or whatever, but we never get to know Steve or why he's attractive (besides his looks) so it's hard to fall in love with any of these characters. Then there's the whole issue of Mary being just plain creepy. She never really becomes endearing but much like a yogurt left out in the hot sun, she spoils with age. Finally, the movie never really knows what it wants to be with its humor. You're never entirely sure whether they're going for the laughs or if it's supposed to be a sentimental moment. All in all, All About Steve is all about nothing worth watching.

The 140 Character Collective Consciousness

We live in a digital age. I've come to accept that and honestly, anyone who hasn't is in trouble. So the fact that I'm saying this, as a member of the technology generation may seem somewhat ironic to some, but it's a legitimate concern. We live in the era of Facebook and Twitter, which I obviously have no problem with. As anyone reading this blog can plainly see, I have a twitter and a Facebook so I'm not one to judge.

But the issue of voice arises when we're talking about the internet and about Facebook and Twitter. These words are nameless and faceless if you choose them to be. We're always warned about whatever we put on the internet can never be taken back. In some way or another, it always exists. It's a precaution, warning us all to think before we speak. It seems a reasonable enough request, what with admissions boards and employers looking at people's pages (for all potential employers, it's okay, I gave up gainful employment when I used the word shit yesterday so you can move it along). I understand being careful about what you put on the internet, but there's something that still gets to me through all this.

I guess simply put it's the way that technology infiltrates our lives. Now I know that I sound like some 80-year-old prattling on about the days before the internet, but seriously, look at what the internet has doen to us. Sure, there's the whole argument that our increasing reliance on technology further isolates us from one another. Let me be clear, I don't entirely disagree with that idea, but it overlooks some crucial facts so let's put that one aside.

Look at things like Twitter, which is for all intents and purposes a glorified facebook status. Twitter gives you 140 characters to say what's on your mind. It can be anything you want, what you did that day, how you're feeling, what you're currently doing, etc. You get the idea (hell, most of us use it, myself included) The question is, twitter's 140 character policy and Facebook's own word count on Facebook statuses, are those limitations imposed on us? Are we being silenced? Or perhaps more frightening, is that all we have to say?

Can our thoughts, feelings, and our daily lives really be reduced to 140 characters? Sure, most people tweet (still think it sounds funny as a verb) multiple times a day, but the limit remains at 140 characters per tweet. Can we really boil our lives down that much? Obviously I have a problem with it (considering I'm nearing 450 words already) but there's something so devastating about thinking that we have that little to talk about or to say.

I understand the hypocrisy that Twitter simultaneously freaks me out while I still use it but I think it's the other creative outlets that maintain my (arguable) sanity. Needless to say, it's not really the technology itself that freaks me out, but it's how we crave it. It's just the fear that technology hasn't limited or taken away or speech, but that we really have nothing to say. Sorry, once again, another simple point made long. But if it makes you feel better, it could've been worse. For this simple point made even longer, you could've just watched the movie Pulse which believe me, would've been much worse.

How is There More Than One Way to Skin a Cat?

Alright, today's a kind of busy day so I'm gonna take the opportunity to re-instate my random thought/question of the week. It's not exactly mind blowing or anything, but then again, neither is what goes on inside my head...

So here it is. You know the expression "there's more than one way to skin a cat"? It's not exactly a popular one and I think it's more of a Southern thing, but some people may have heard it in passing. Okay, simply put, why is that a thing?

I mean, how did that become a statement where people are like, "yeah, ya know what? I think I'll say that"? Besides the fact that it's just plain creepy, I don't even really get what it means. On the basic level I understand that it means that there's more than just one way, but why don't we just say that and leave the cats out of the occasion? After all, they say that animal mutilation is one of the first signs of a serial killer...

That being said, I vote that we change it. From now on whenever I'm trying to convince someone that there's more than one way to do it, I'll tell them just that. Or maybe I'll say "Well, there's more than one way to peel a potato" since it seems a little less homicidal.

Anyway, that was my random thought/question of the week. Enjoy!

Emotional Stunting: An American Pastime

Happy 100th post everybody!!!
I'd like to return to my previous format of just writing about daily musings... sometimes it'll be about movies and other times it may be about things that most people could care less about. Use discretion when reading because I really don't feel like sorting through your bitching...

Here goes, have you ever noticed others' aggravation or frustration? Hell, even your own. It's a fact of life, sometimes something just rubs you the wrong way and it pisses you off. There's no harm in that, we're all human with a variety of complex emotions.

The trouble is, "negative" emotions (grief, anger, etc.) aren't every really afforded the complexity. They're simply bad or in some social circles "impolite" God forbid people actually emote the bad ones. But I've never really understood, what's indelicate about crying about something or getting upset? I'm obviously not advocating sobbing hysterics or hitting someone just because you're pissed, but there's got to be some middle ground.

I think the thing that I find most ridiculous is, let's be real, we all know that we all do it. Whether it be Old Yeller that sends you into sobs or some dick cutting you off in traffic that sends you over the edge, we have a right to own those emotions. Not own those emotions in a touchy-feely new age-y way, but it's true. I mean, for better or for worse, it is how we feel.

I dunno, I just don't really understand how we can just pretend like those emotions don't exist, especially when considering they're pretty much the most visceral. I'm not saying I'm only happy when I'm mad, but do I feel most alive when I'm actually pissed about something? Oh hell yeah, it makes you feel alive. Like I said, and I may be playing it safe with this one, I'm not saying everyone should be angry all of the time, but is losing your cool once really so bad? I don't think so... I mean, as long as you don't hurt anyone else, you're good with me.

But after all, I've pretty much answered my own question with that last statement. It's the "everyone else" factor. Even though we're denying ourselves, we tell ourselves that we're doing it for everyone else. Have you ever seen anything as uncomfortable as a genuine display of emotion? I'm talking about it all, the good AND the bad. It is legitimately pretty uncomfortable to see... It's just weird how we pride ourselves as humans as being capable of expressing emotions, but nobody ever seems to want to do it. God, that can't be healthy...

Where Does Gen Y Begin and End?

It seems like there's been a lot of talk about generations lately (or maybe it's just me) so I'm gonna take a break from my normally scheduled film kid thing and talk about my own perception of iGen, Generation Y, or simply put, my own. First off, nobody can even decide about my generation. It's true, there's usually some overlap in the whole "this generation starts here, and that one starts there" mapping out process, but for argument's sake, I'll go with the most common numbers and that's roughly from about 1977 - 1994.

Now, already something's up if you ask me because I'd argue that the 80s were an important time (culturally, socially, economically) to live through on your own. Those years (the fall of the Berlin Wall, Reaganomics) seem impossible to not have some serious clout in defining one's values. Even if we go with the more conservative number of 1982 to early 2000s, it ignores some key events both in our nation's history but more importantly, in our pop culture history.

You ask most people and we're defined as the pop culture generation or the technology generation. This is no exaggeration when I say that although we may technically be separate from someone born as "late" as 1993 (mind you, I was born in 1987 and a 1993 baby is still on the end cusp of "my generation") I share very little to nothing with them. We didn't grow up watching the same shows so our references to popular culture aren't even the same a lot of the time. You also have to factor in that most people generally believe that we don't start manufacturing memories until around the age of 3. That being said, someone born in 1993 doesn't even become culturally literate until 1996 at the earliest. By this time, I'd already left behind Barney and Power Rangers (while they were making time for Arthur and Teletubbies) and settled into things like Goosebumps and Animorphs. We may both be the product of the same previous generation, but we are not products of the same pop culture, which is a crucial element in defining Gen Y. This is my first issue with this talk of generations, this lumping together. Generation Y, unlike some other generations, hasn't yet received a category of sub-generations. We are by and large grouped together as one, when I couldn't possibly feel more separate than people born even 5 years before or after me.

Furthermore, when looking at the characteristics used to define Gen Y. (tech-savvy, family-centric, goal-oriented, team-oriented, and attention-craving) I couldn't disagree more. Unfortunately, the largely negative ones such as attention-craving are very true, but not much else. Yes, we are certainly the most tech-savvy generation but there's an obvious reason for that. The issue I take with these characterizations are largely the personality types such as "tolerant". Yes, it's true that we are a largely tolerant generation, but it's that kind of blanket characterization of our entire generation that's just not realistic. Many sources say we were brought together by the tragic events of September 11th, but that completely ignores the melting pot/salad bowl metaphor for America. Sure, 9/11 brought some Americans together. Predominantly the white and black ones though, while completely ignoring the fact that there are Middle-Eastern Americans that make up Gen Y. Once again it's this lumping together of cultural ideas that don't necessarily represent many or even most of us.

Most of all though, I consider myself to be a different Gen Y (which is in itself, a characteristic of the Gen X "individuality" complex) than the one I've been reading about. Sure, I agree with most cultural critics that Gen Y hasn't produced much of anything (anything new at least) and yes, I agree that 9/11 is an important aspect of defining our generation. Still, I'm Gen Y and I'm a recent college grad. I haven't had much of an opportunity to create outside of school which explains part of why Gen Y hasn't brought anything new to the table. Still, I think that people are quick to judge without affording us any complexity. Considering Gen Y only technically recently ended, it seems like people are in a little too much of a hurry to get us pegged, which seems like part of the problem to me.

The Iron Giant: A Tribute to the Nuclear Era

It seems like I've been in an animation mood these past couple of days so the streak continues. However, to simply label The Iron Giant as an animated movie is to do it a great disservice. See, whether you think about it or not, there is a reputation that precedes animated movies. Most people think of them as children's movies, which can be true but isn't always. Others tend to think of the characters as flat and unmotivated.

The Iron Giant shows none of these faults that most are able to find with animated movies. It's a beautifully told story with crisp animation that is reminiscent of the decade that it's portraying, but that's a point that I'll get back to later. The characters of the movie, sure there are some juvenile pranks to make the kids laugh, but by and large, the characters are deeply complex. However, rather than just have complex characters, there's also a certain reasoning to the movie. For the most part, we are given an idea of why these characters do what they do. That can't be said of all animated movies, or even all movies for that matter, but it just adds to the emotional involvement that I personally felt as I watched the movie.

These character nuances tell a great deal about the people's lives on the screen, but it also helps in establishing a different type of character. While not physically so, the time period (specifically the 1950s) also plays a major role in the way that the story unfolds. So much so that it would be unfair to deny its presence as a character. Like I said before, the animation style is reminiscent of the 1950s comic book stylings. Not only that, but we see the decade referenced in every possible way through subtle revelations throughout the movie. One of my favorite moments is the animated Duck and Cover sequence. It's a look at the old educational films about what to do in case of a nuclear attack. If that isn't the most 1950s thing fora "children's movie" then I honestly don;t know what is.

Furthermore, the story as well as the character's fears stem from a 1950s consciousness. There is this fear of the unknown which, although it still exists today, it was arguably at its height in the 1950s. The fact that the giant comes from outer space harks back to old 1950s films as well. This preoccupation with space and its limitless possibilities, as well as fear of it, is very much a part of that culture.

There are a variety of things that help to create a beautiful homage to the nuclear era. Too many for me to even list, but it's that commitment to detail that makes The Iron Giant stand out among the other animated films. The commitment to the characters and their complexity shows an understanding of the potential for the animated movie that is unparalleled. Furthermore, the story itself is emotional and compelling like few other "kid's movies" I've seen. Finally, the commitment to detail even in the animation style is truly mesmerizing. All of these factors combine to make The Iron Giant a richly rewarding, emotional, and enjoyable movie-watching experience.

Better Luck Next Time

Rejection. It even sounds humiliating. I mean, largely because it is, but it's one of those words that just leaves a bitter taste in your mouth. But, that's the name of the game today. I'm grateful for the job I recently got, but I was hoping that I'd eventually be able to segue into writing, but the odds of that aren't looking too good as of right now.

But ya know what it is? It's not even the "no" part. I've been told no before. Haven't we all? It's not just the no. It's the perception that goes along with that no. That idea that you're somehow not good enough. Eventually that inferiority eats away at you, and the self-consciousness and neuroses really take a hold of you. The problem is... this doesn't do wonders for you. I mean, they thought my writing was bad now? I can tell ya right now that it'l definitely suffer from this roadblock. Of course, there's the standard "we shall overcome" thing, which I'm sure will eventually happen (after I get tired of feeling sorry for myself and licking my wounds), but until then I'm stuck. Lacking motivation, inspiration, and let's just face it, self-respect, isn't gonna do wonders for me.

Finally, there's the condescension. "We're sorry we can't help you, but best of luck on your career path!" It's okay if you don't mean it. Just don't say it if you don't mean it. It's not re-assuring, it's not heartwarming, it's not proof that you "care". It's just bullshit is what it is. If you don't have the time or resources or to hire (or even if you just don't want me) tell me. At least have the decency to say it without forcing me to read a lengthy e-mail about "an unprecedented number of applicants" and "for unspecified reasons". Really? You made me read all that for the word no? I'm fine with just ripping the band-aid off. Oh, and just so you're aware, if you have time to read and look through submissions, you have time to specify a reason. Just on the level of human decency, I'm owed that. How am I supposed to fix what I'm doing (like the condescending e-mail recommended) unless I know what I'm doing wrong?

This wasn't so much of a post today as it was an undignified rant on personal life problems. Sorry guys. In between the rejection and the overall condescension of getting told my writing is shit via e-mail, somewhere along the road, my "fragile ego" took a hit. I know, most of you didn't think that was possible. Well, here it is. The only way that I see fit to end this rant is with one of my least favorite platitudes (always used in a situation like this, oddly enough). Better luck next time.

Hellboy: Blood and Iron

I don't think I need to tell most of you who Hellboy is. While he isn't one of the most popular comic book/movie crossovers, the name Guillermo Del Toro gave it some recognizability. Blood and Iron is the second Hellboy animated movie to be released straight to DVD. Now I know what most of you are thinking, that straight to DVD is very rarely a good sign, but rest assured, there are some gems out there. For those of us who are comic book fans, most of us are well acquainted with the straight to DVD movie, seeing as most comic book animated movies really only get released in this format. Hellboy:Blood and Iron may suffer from a forgettable release, but is definitely worth checking out.

The animation is solid enough to carry the movie. It has that angular, heavy look that made Mike Mignola's creation famous. There's an excellent use of color, as well as the establishment of light and shadow. These may seem like minor details, but the animation style greatly influences the way that the story is told. Most comics either suffer from poor storytelling and good illustration, vice versa, or the rare combination of good storytelling and animation. While a style that was more influenced by Mignola's work may have been a little appropriate, the animation of Hellboy: Blood and Iron is solid enough that it doesn't distract.

However, another note to make about Hellboy: Blood and Iron is its use of characters. These are not the characters some of you may have seen in the movies. Hellboy still has that caustic charm, but Liz and Abe are much more hands-on. This obviously means something to those of who have seen the live-action film or films, but for those who haven't, this animated movie finds a way to utilize other characters besides just Hellboy. It's a relief because Liz and Abe are deserving of their own storyline (which they sort of get). Hellboy: Blood and Iron also introduces some new characters (besides the villainess) that are nothing too special, but an enjoyable contribution to the series.

Finally, what makes Hellboy: Blood and Iron so interesting as a comic book fan is that, it doesn't forget its heritage. Most comic books deal with such abstract theories as good and evil, fate, and identity. These are all important ideas in establishing Hellboy's conscious. At no point does the issue of his identity or where he came from (summoned by the nazis to help them win WWII, for those of you who don't know) fall by the wayside. He constantly struggles to assert himself as a good guy even though it's quite clear that he was born out of evil. Hellboy: Blood and Iron once again returns to Hellboy's struggle to overcome his birthright as an instrument of destruction.

All the factors of Hellboy: Blood and Iron, the animation, the characters themselves, and the comic book mythology are here in this animated feature. True, it has its imperfections, but this DVD is worth looking out for if given the chance. It's fun and engaging as a comic book piece. Most importantly, Hellboy: Blood and Iron never forgets that it's a comic book piece. It's true to its origins from Hellboy's own story right down to the struggle between good and evil.

Work

So work pretty much officially began yesterday, with my first day of "training". Of course, this was the first of 5 days of training. Why 5? I couldn't honestly tell you because I'm pretty sure after about 3 hours, you've got a pretty good handle on it.

All in all, I think I'm gonna like it. I like the work atmosphere (which for those of you who know me know what a rarity that is) plus everyone I've encountered has been really nice and/or helpful so it looks like things are shaping up. Still, it keeps me busy for things that I otherwise like to do... for instance, write or watch a movie that I can then write about it.

In fact, this little note is for you people out there that read me regularly as a sort of heads up. This whole training and maintaining a personal life thing isn't the easiest RIGHT NOW. This is not to say that I will stop writing (although I'm sure that idea just tears you up inside) but to say that, with a new job, there's got to be a given adjustment period.

Even though it may take a little time (especially with all the morning shifts), writing is still one of my priorities. Even with this job, I remain through and through, a dedicated writer. Please bear with me in this transitional period and I hope to have something to write for you all tomorrow or Sunday at the latest.

Wish me luck! Thanks.

Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead: Pop Culture Artifact of the 90s

Okay, let me start with a bit of a disclaimer. You can enjoy something and it still not be good. I'm not talking about nostalgia (how I can have nostalgia for a movie I'd never seen before yesterday) but there are just some allowances. Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead is such a movie.

The movie is riddled with plot holes, but as a pop culture artifact, it's interesting to watch how frantic it is. I mean, the movie starts off pretty quickly with a power struggle. There's the whole "independence being stifled" thing with her mother, which is made even worse when the babysitter comes into play.

But as the movie progresses, the issue of power becomes even less and less important, and it becomes a story about coming to terms with adulthood and responsibility. It's weird how the whole movie is about Swell (worst. name. ever.) transforming into the very thing she hated.

I mean, I understand how it's partially about what we have to do vs. what we'd like to do, but there's just so much going on, that there's not really enough time to drive any one point home. Instead, it's content to wander around directionless until it's neatly wrapped conclusion. It's a terrible way to make a movie (no focus, no direction) but for Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead I was kind of just content with what was happening.

That's probably largely in part due to Christina Applegate. She doesn't really bring anything to the performance (although it's hard to really consider this a performance) but she's enjoyable as she is. The other Crandell children are fine, particularly Keith Coogan (Kenny), who is Applegate's only real "competition" in the movie.

All in all, Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead has a little too much going on for its own good, but it's forgivable. One example of this is... does seriously no one care that the babysitter's dead? It gets about 5 minutes screen time at the beginning and a quick scene at the end. The point is, its deeply flawed. No one's expecting it to win any Oscars, but it's fun and frivolous for what it is. Maybe if they'd tried to cut down on some of the storylines there might be a little more fluidity, but as it were, I can't honestly say that I care too much. I watched it not expecting that much and was pleasantly surprised by the talent and some of the humor. If you haven't seen it or if you're an 80s/90s child, it's worth a look, but little else.

It's the End of the World As We Know It

I'd been avoiding 2012 like the plague really since the movie came into production. I'm a John Cusack fan, but he hasn't done enough good stuff to make me want to actually see most of his movies. If the movies looks good AND has John Cusack in it? Double whammy for me. If it's just a John Cusack me? No dice... Same goes for Amanda Peet, who totally changed my mind about her in "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" (RIP). I like her when I see her, but I don't always like what I say.

That's pretty much what this movie's counting on. There's minimal character development, but if you like any of these actors, of course you'll like their characters. they're thinly developed one-dimensional people, but for some reason, we invest roughly 2 and a half hours of our lives. "Okay, um... we got John Cusack... wanna make him a terrible father figure who comes through in the end? Eh, why not?" That's how I imagine the scripting process went as they assembled these characters, but maybe that's just me. It just felt lazy.

Was it visually stunning? I'll give it that. It takes a little too long to get to the action and even the action seems to go on too long, but it's fun for a time. There is that undeniable obsession most of us (certainly myself) with watching the world fall apart around us and 2012 definitely provides that. Just make sure that while watching this around-the-world roller coaster, you pack your suspension of disbelief. God knows you'll need it.

Finally, and I hate to change notes like this, but it seems so true of just about every disaster movie. There's the undeniable politics. Everyone always jokes that there always seems to be a black president in charge when a disaster strikes in the movies. Of course, Deep Impact, no matter how terrible, always comes to mind for me. 2012 is no exception with Danny Glover (really?) playing the president. I was settled in for another patronizing account of the world falling apart on his watch.
SPOILER ALERT.
Naturally, I wasn't shocked when things came crashing down around him and I was impressed with the nobility of the whole "him going down with his people". However, the real shock came at the very end of the movie when they set sails for Africa, the promised land. Not only are some of the two strongest people in the movie African-American, but Africa is a sought after destination. Now, I feel pretty confident in saying that Africa and the African people being seen as "desirable" does not happen a lot so when it did, you can imagine I was shocked. Not in a bad way. Pleasantly surprised even, but taken aback by how different and even progressive this notion was.
END OF SPOILER.

In the end, 2012 is a mixed bag. It certainly wouldn't hold up to my standards without a decent size TV and blu ray player to view the destruction, but it's enjoyable for the most part. Boredom may strike at any given moment so it was nice that I had my laptop handy to get me through the lulls, but if you're looking for escapism, intense special effects, and an alarmingly political message at the end, 2012 may be your ticket.

In & Out in Retrospect

It's hard to watch a movie like In & Out without offering up a little perspective first. First off, the film is 13 years old so watching it now that I'm older than 10, it makes a little more sense. But what's most alarming about In & Out is that looking past all the stereotypes and Barbara Streisand jokes, it's actually surprisingly progressive.

One of the most enjoyable parts about the movie is Hollywood bashing itself for being so self-congratulatory. I mean, after all, that's sort of the set-up for the whole fiasco. I'm not sure why, but self-deprecating humor always strikes a chord with me so when Hollywood was showing some much needed humility I couldn't help but laugh.

But back to the film's main point, the much discussed topic of sexuality. Sure, the movie doesn't take itself too seriously, but it presents some pretty forward-thinking ideas for a time when homosexuality and Hollywood were less than ideal bedfellows. Like I said earlier, there are plenty of jabs at the stereotypes of the gay community. If I was playing a drinking game every time they referenced Barbara Streisand, I would've been drunk about 20 minutes. Naturally, some of the material is lost on me, although I understand the basic stereotypes. Barbara loving, well-dressed, loves to dance? Let's be real, I grew up in small-town Ohio, I've heard all the offensive ones before, but it doesn't make them ring any truer.

Beneath all that though, there's a strong message of tolerance and acceptance. Looking back at when it was made, there weren't a whole lot of other movies like it being made. True, The Birdcage had proceeded it, but with The Birdcage, there was a strong fear of sexualizing the characters. In & Out featured the kiss between Kevin Kline and Tom Selleck that was pretty progressive at the time. It's true, a kiss doesn't seem that radical now, but at the time, for two mainstream actors, it was pretty much career suicide.

Watching In & Out, sexual politics aside, was surprisingly enjoyable to me. I wasn't expecting to enjoy it as much as I did, but there's so much going on with it that, although the whole homosexuality thing is the main focus and selling point, there's enough going on that sexuality doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Plus, with such a strong supporting cast, you can't really go wrong.

Although the main focus is Kevin Kline, there's a lot more to be enjoyed beyond that. Interesting and eccentric caricatures of small-town life make for an entertaining and somewhat frivolous time. All in all, In & Out could simply be described as a movie about a man trying to prove himself to his friends and neighbors as well as to himself. However, that would be ignoring some of the most enjoyable elements. The self-deprecating humor of Hollywood, the comedic small town, and the ridiculous characters that In & Out has to offer make it a surprisingly progressive yet comfortably frivolous Hollywood comedy.

Can't Hardly Wait

I've been in serious indie overhaul mode recently, and after a lot of consideration, I decided it was high time for something a little more frivolous. I'll admit, I'm a sucker for the 90s teen flicks, even though I know most of them are no good. Can't Hardly Wait is no exception. I have no idea why but it makes me feel nostalgia for a time and a place that I never even knew. I didn't get into high school until 2002 and I certainly didn't graduate until 2006, but there's a mix of teen movie cliches and universality to it.

This could probably be attributed to the use of stock characters, which doesn't work for many movies, is kind of what makes this movie enjoyable. Sure, there's not a whole lot of thinking involved, in fact it's probably better if you don't think about it too much, but these blanket characters i.e. the jock, the pretty girl, the sarcastic girl, all have some relatability. Just about anyone from our generation knows people like most of these.

Even the premise of the final end of senior year is pretty true to most high school life. Granted, not that much happened at those parties to warrant a movie, except the occasional drunken rap session by yours truly. However, like I said before, the true feat of Can't Hardly Wait was making me nostalgic for a place that I spent every day of my high school career wishing I could leave behind. When you hail from Wyoming, Ohio it's not easy to make you miss a place, or even some of the people.

Still, Can't Hardly Wait is far from a perfect movie. In fact, the whole "Preston's in love with Amanda because they both eat strawberry Pop-Tarts" thing is pretty disturbing. That whole storyline is definitely the most important of all of them but the directors made a wise decision to highlight other people at the party as well, perhaps to distract from the "To Catch a Predator" feel of the main love interest.

Another part of the movie that I never really understood is the demographic. Sure, it's a teen movie, but it doesn't really feel like one. I mean, it does in the sense that it's got the trite love story and the stereotypes, but it's also making fun of it all. It drew in a teen audience just to have them sit there for an hour and a half making fun of them. I don't know, maybe we realized at the time just how petty we really were, or arguably still are. Regardless of why it was, Can't Hardly Wait remains a staple for me in late-90s teen cinema.

Amreeka The Beautiful

With so many overblown productions about America and what it means to be an American, it's hard to wade through the populist, patriotic garbage and find something actually halfway decent. Most of the time, I'm not even interested in sifting through that whole "coming to America" genre because it's so full of cliches and heartbreak. Most importantly, it's typically an outside perspective on what it means to be American or at least what they think Americans want to see and hear.

Amreeka gains its strength from its departure from these norms. It's a movie that's full of heart and engaging, believable characters. One of the most compelling aspects is that it manages to be unflinching in its portrayal while also maintaining an inexplicable optimism. It begins in Palestine, showing the conditions that Muna and her son, Fadi, are subjected to day in and day out. Yet, like every "coming to America" movie, she longs for a fresh start. She and her son pack up everything and move to live with her sister. What she is greeted with, when she arrives, is not a new start, but prejudice.

Amreeka is never really condemning of America, there is no sense of hope lost, but there is the reality of the situation. America is admittedly not friendly to Middle-eastern immigrants and, despite her constant objections that she is Palestinian, Muna sees the racism that's been felt by people of Middle-Eastern descent since the attacks on September 11th.

Although the actual events of September 11th are never discussed, the aftermath is felt and the American effort for "liberation" in the Middle East is discussed. Most films are too terrified to discuss the war until it's unpopularity was pretty much universally agreed upon. However, Amreeka does it with a certain fervor, where it not only becomes objectionable, but something personal to these characters. Alia Shawkat, who most people may know as Maeby from "Arrested Development", plays Fadi's cousin in the movie, and the actress herself is of Iraqi heritage, which adds an interesting element to one scene where she argues the war with her classmates.

Still, at its heart, which Amreeka has plenty of, it is in the vein of the "coming to America" genre as well as a coming-of-age story for Muna's son, Fadi.It's themes are relevant and beautifully presented as both Muna and Fadi try to find what it means to live in an America that defied their expectations. Amreeka is both heartbreaking and hopeful in it's examination of what it means to be Middle-Eastern in a post-9/11 America.

It May Not Be Rocket Science, But it's an Art

So much of a film is not only the story that it tells, but how it tells it. The authenticity of the voice is such an important aspect of the film. The film Rocket Science is a unique story about finding that voice. It sounds like such a cliche and the whole concept of "finding one's voice" is so abstract, but quite literally it's about a kid who stutters and his foray into the world of high school debate.

It's one of those things that's so difficult for me to describe because it can most simply be described as a coming-of-age story, but those types of tales tend to lend themselves towards melodrama. Rocket Science has such a potent mixture of angst, drama, and the dark comedy that seems so much a part of one's teenage years. There's such a strong understanding of the characters that writer/director Jeffrey Blitz has brought to life. Especially in the genre of the "high school film" it's easy to stereotype and to create caricatures, but there's such dimension and complexity to even the smallest players in the movie that to label it seems completely unfair.

As previously stated, this thanks largely in part to Jeffrey Blitz, who previously directed the documentary Spellbound. A fair portion of the material, or at least the premise, is based on Blitz's own life so it's understandable how he can be so thorough with his characters. However, this shouldn't be mistaken as a self-laudatory semi-autobiographical film. I only mention Blitz's own life as evidence of his commitment and familiarity with the story to create such interesting characters and to give strength to a voice that truly resonates.

However, as with any movie, the credit doesn't lie only with the director, but the incredible cast that's been assembled for the project. Rocket Science is certainly no exception. Reece Thompson plays the stuttering protagonist. His ability to play up with the comedic aspects of the film with equal parts emotional sincerity and the heartbreaking reality of adolescence and young love is incredible. The character is so thoroughly realized that it's hard to believe that it's only an actor playing a part. However, another brilliant addition to the cast is Anna Kendrick, who most people may know from the Twilight movies or her Oscar-nominated role in Up in the Air. She brings the same offbeat charm that makes her so watchable in these other roles, but with a hardened cynicism about her that should be alienating but manages not to be. Even the smaller roles are handled with such depth, which is so unusual for most movies these days.

In the end, Rocket Science is a beautifully acted character piece well-worth examining. It manages to articulate the complex emotions so many of us struggled with in our own adolescence. Most importantly, it's a movie about finding your voice. It manages to avoid cliches and condescension, making it a charming, yet equally heartbreaking, film about one young man finding the words to say for the first time.

Precious: A Performance Piece at Best

I can't speak for most film kids, but I'm still flying high off the buzz from the Oscars. Sure, I don't take them that seriously especially given how political they've been, especially after 2005, but occasionally, they hit the right mark with me. So, I've been going over the films in my mind and some could stand a re-watching. One such movie was Precious.

I was admittedly a little shocked after I finished the movie. It's definitely a powerful movie, but that's not what I mean. I'm not saying that awards are everything. In fact, I believe quite the opposite, but in this day and age, awards still have clout. That's why I was so surprised to see that Precious had not only won best supporting actress for Mo'Nique, which was totally warranted, but that it won Best Adapted Screenplay.

I thought the movie was compelling, emotionally engaging at parts, but ultimately inconsistent. The storyline is all over the place. There's just no decipherable passing of time in the movie which, at certain parts, it's important to have. This took me out of the movie a little. It may have been that it's simply emotionally exhausting at times so I was also sort of hoping for it to be over, but it was just all over the place. I recognize that it had to be in order to fit everything in, but it took me out of the world when bombarded with obstacle after obstacle. It just seemed like they were clamoring for more things to keep her down.

This is why I say this, and I do not say it lightly, that Precious is most memorable as a performance piece. Gabourey Sidibe and Mo'Nique are just of the two standout actresses in this piece so it's understandable that they be hailed for their performances. And yes, I guess it's true that the material has to be at least somewhat good for them to draw out these performances, but they are the saving graces of this movie. Don't get me wrong, I think it's important that people see this movie for the story it tells and the performances given, but that doesn't mean that I have to like everything else.

In my personal opinion, the editing is inconsistent. It starts out as a strong and palpable figure in the movie and slowly dwindles as the movie plays out. I felt if it had a more established pace, it certainly wouldn't have hurt the movie. But honestly, every movie has its flaws, but not every movie has the heart that Precious does. For all intents and purposes, it is a good movie from an acting standpoint and for the story it tells, but it is recognizably the work of a director who is still establishing himself.

This One is For the Ladies

Women in Trouble follows a variety of women through their daily lives. At any given point, at least one is in at least some degree of trouble. No, I don't mean a scolding or a damsel in distress. The most immediate and most recognizable one, albeit pretty hysterical, is porn star Elektra Luxx, played by Carla Gugino. She's getting work, she's the number one selling celebrity vagina mold domestically, but there's only one problem; she's pregnant. This is just one of the many women presented in the movie.

The movie flits from person to person with a certain ease. These women are all connected through varying degrees of separation, but it doesn't share the same characteristics of an interweaving movie. Most of them seem so strained, but Women in Trouble is relatively careless. There are moments of drama, or perhaps more accurately melodrama, but all in all, it's a pretty comedic film with a strong cast.

It's honestly the cast that makes the film. At times, the situations that Sebastian Gutierrez presents his audience with are hackneyed, but the actresses, and on occasion the actors, manage to breath life into it. The segment I'm thinking of involves Marley Shelton who is probably most memorable in Planet Terror. That movie showed us her ability to overact, which I'm hoping was the point, but I'd never seen Marley Shelton in a comedic light before. Even though most of the material in her segment was somewhat contrived and "been there, done that", I found it enjoyable because of her contribution to the movie.

One of the most charming things about Women in Trouble, besides its adorable vulgarity, is that the title is so misleading. When I first heard the name, I was expecting a standard interweaving drama about the mess that women make of their lives. Instead, even though all of these women encounter some danger in their lives, these are proud women. They don't need men to save them. They save themselves or when it comes down to the worst of it, there's always another woman to rely on them. So many films prop themselves under the guise of being feminist, but so few really are. Women in Trouble presents a variety of women, some more sordid than the others, but this film is a celebration of their lives.

The film is obviously not without its problems, but as a slice of life, interweaving movie it holds its own. With just the right blend of fantastic actresses and interesting characters, Women in Trouble is honestly unlike most movies I've seen. Women in Trouble is strong, proud, at the right times comedic and other times dramatic, but ultimately unforgettable.

The Business of Sexuality and Celebrity

So if any of you have been paying attention to the world of politics, you know that Roy Ashburn recently came out. Sure, before he did, he did a lot of damage against Prop. 8 but good for him that he finally was able to publicly come out. However, since Ashburn is a political figure and a hate-mongerer at that, his coming out overshadowed that of Sean Hayes, who played Jack on "Will & Grace".

When Sean Hayes came out, most people I know, including myself, all said something along the lines of "Is that really that surprising?" or "It's about time..." because it seemed so obvious. But after thinking about it for a while, I'm a little embarrassed he acted that way. Sure, I was right to suspect he was gay all along, but just as much as I have the right to live as an openly gay man, he has the right to choose differently.

Until he publicly came out, I had no business commenting on his supposed sexuality. Aren't we the country that says innocent until proven guilty? Sure, the two cases aren't the same at all, but at their core, they have some striking similarities. Repeatedly Sean Hayes said that he was straight and/or declined comment on his sexuality. To most of us, declining to comment is a big red flag, but why should someone have to comment? What business is it of yours or mine?

I'm not saying people who weren't at all surprised about his sexuality are right or wrong. I'm just saying that if someone chooses to not comment, that doesn't automatically make them gay and closeted. They have a right to live their life as they see fit without fear of other people's judgment. I'm glad that Sean Hayes came out, but until he came out the other day, he's straight until HE states otherwise.

The Vicious Kind

Picture Dan in Real Life without the goofy, quirky characters and instead a palpable emotional sincerity. That's how I think it's easiest to describe The Vicious Kind. The two films have no other similarities besides one brother falling for the other brother's girlfriend. I'll admit, it's a pretty thin premise, but with the characters that are established over the next 90 minutes, it's well worth looking into.

Adam Scott plays Caleb, the abrasive brother who falls for the girl. Until now, Adam Scott had been playful and enjoyable to watch, but by the end of the first scene, I was nervous. I mean, there was no question that he was a talented actor, but after a character performs a diatribe against all women, it gets a little hard for me to watch. I just wanted to see if there was something more there. Misogyny has been done before. It's even been done well (not, like it's a good thing, but it's been portrayed by actors well) but once again, that can't sustain a movie. It was when the movie begins to get to the core of this character, his misogyny, his narcissism, his abrupt and awkward social interactions, that it becomes noticeable that the first scene discounts so much of what this man is about. The slow and calculated unveiling of a character isn't a very appreciated way of doing things these days in most mainstream movies (people want moral certainty, for the most part) so The Vicious Kind never found much of an audience. Nevertheless, Scott's performance alone is worth watching.

The woman in question is Emma, played by a raven-haired Brittany Snow. I was a little alarmed at the casting, but I'd seen her in the TV show "American Dreams" so I knew she was capable. I was honestly floored by her performance. Her interaction with the character of Caleb is uncomfortable and tense, but there's so much more to it than that. It's very understated and subtle in the way that her relationships are established, but watching the way she plays off of these other people is amazing. Rounding out the cast is J.K. SImmons as an absent father to Caleb, who glorifies his other son, Peter. I found myself wanting more of the relationship between Caleb and his father, but the movie makes it clear that by the end of the film, their story is far from finished.

The Vicious Kind isn't a perfect movie. In fact, it's an ugly movie. Most of these people aren't people that you would want to meet, but the fact of the matter is that they're human. They're dimensional in a way that I've rarely seen. Stand-out performances from Adam Scott and the rest of the cast make The Vicious Kind the understated character drama that it is, and well worth watching.

82nd Annual Oscars Recap

It seems like there just about no surprises at last night's Oscars. Well, not no surprises (like best documentary short subject? Yeah, i think I missed that one n my Oscar pool) but I'm talking about the big ones. However, for the most part I was okay with it. For instance, did I get a little overly excited that Avatar didn't win best picture and James cameron didn't win best director? Sure, I'll admit to that one. But nothing really matched my feeling when Sandra Bullock won her Oscar.

I understand that The Blind Side is kind of controversial and I could see why some people didn't like it, but if there were any doubts beforehand, Sandra Bullock's Oscar acceptance speech really won me over. Not only was the level of sincerity and gratitude almost unparalleled that night, but there's something to be said about the men and women who know they've only got those few minutes up there and choose to honor their fellow nominees. It sounds weird, but it's just a gesture of good faith that really speaks volumes about the person.

However, while I was feeling the love for Sandra, the most ridiculous moment of the night belongs to Mo'Nique. While I did think she was very impressive in Precious and truly felt that she gave an award-worthy performance (I mean, if we're not including Julianne Moore that is...) her acceptance speech was laughable to me. Not all of it, some pf it was genuine, but when she said something along the lines of "It's nice to know that it's about the performance and not about politics..." What? Did I hear her right? Did she realize that she was the only black woman representing the supporting actresses category? I'm not saying she won it because of that, but don't dare for a second pretend that it's not about the politics.

The Oscars are always about the politics of the process. maybe it sounds jaded, but look back over the awards last night. Most of them represented something political. I mean, forget the obvious win for The Hurt Locker, look at the best director win. Once again, I truly believe that kathryn Bigelow deserved it, but that does not change the fact that it is a politically charged act. Even best animated short, which went to Logorama was an incredibly political statement. So I'm just saying Mo'Nique, enjoy the Oscar because you earned it, but don't even pretend like the Oscars isn't about politics.

Wild Thing Song

So I've been falling off of the whole movie thing this past week and I figured what the hell, a little variety never hurt. In place of movies, I've been on a really big music kick, which I expect will continue for most of March (or at least till the second She & Him album comes out).

While I was checking out random stuff on Youtube I came across "missyrenemusic" and was lucky enough to catch her "Wild Thing Song". Going off of the line, "I'll eat you up I love you so", she managed to put together an entire song. It's impressive to be able to do that and especially such a beautiful song, but the line itself is such a beautiful piece.

The singer has a beautiful voice, which certainly doesn't hurt the piece, but it's the heart of the piece that makes it so memorable. It's a relatively simple song when you listen to it, but I think it speaks for itself. Check it out for yourself with the video below.

Fantastic Mr. Fox is Far From Fantastic

I'm not a big awards person. I think it's little self-masturbatory, but I can see why people get caught up in the excitement. Me, personally? I doubt I'll even watch the awards show itself, but there's still a hint of curiosity. I've been trying to make it through all of the movies (God knows it's hard) so this is more for those looking forward to the Oscars this Sunday night.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox is Wes Anderson's attempt at stop-motion animation. Anderson has always been regarded as a highly visual director and this film is no different. The tones are rich and very Autumnal. Truth be told, it was a very soothing movie to watch based mainly on the color palette. However, the color palette alone can not save a movie. The progression of the stop-motion is supposedly intentionally fractured as an artistic choice. The problem with this is, I went to art school. I took film classes where I did the exact same thing to create a jarring effect and I will ask of Mr. Anderson the same question I was asked when I made this "artistic choice" in school. Why? Why is that important to the story or to the characters. I have a feeling (although I can't say for sure) Mr. Anderson might not have an answer. However, as time goes on, the jagged effect wears off. I just found myself not really being bothered by it or even thinking about it at all, but it did take some time.

Another aspect of the movie that i couldn't entirely get behind, although I'm sure it's the same reason many people went to see it, is the casting. Meryl Streep does have a beautiful voice and it's able to convey sympathy and frustration. True, this is expected of any voice actors or actresses, but as is typical of most of Meryl Streep's work, there's a certain indescribable elegance to it. Jason Schwartzman is also wonderful as the son of the Fox family. The voice articulates so much of the comedy that makes the film worth watching. I've always been a Schwartzman fan, but I'd never thought of him as a voice actor. I'm glad he was cast though and I hope he does more voice acting in the future. George Clooney however, left me flat. His voice has that certain charisma to it, but it's not enough to carry the character of Mr. Fox. It wouldn't be so bad if George Clooney wasn't in just about every scene. I'm not sure what was seen in him that secured him the part, but voice acting is not his talent. He's not all bad, but it's just so recognizably "George Clooney" that it's difficult to leave it behind and focus on the character.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox is alright, but it's far from fantastic. The story is a difficult one to make visually interesting, so it's through no fault of Wes Anderson's, but this adaptation left something to be desired. To be put simply, it's not the book. This is an instance of imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, but not the most... well, flattering. For what it's worth, it's an enjoyable piece and if you have a chance, give it a rent, but it's not an absolute must-see before the Oscars this Sunday. Besides, with the success of Up, not many other animated films stand much of a chance.

The Ups and Downs of Parenthood

I don't know how many of you tuned in last night for the premiere of the star-studded NBC show "Parenthood" but I know I did. With names like Peter Krause and Lauren Graham attached to the show, I had high hopes. After all, they've done right by me before. Based on the promos I was expecting a light sitcom about the daily trials and tribulations of parenthood. Granted, it's not new territory, but if it's done well, it's done well and that's all that maters.

After watching it, I'm not sure if I could have been any more wrong. Sure, there are some funny parts to the show and yes, I was right that Peter Krause and Lauren Graham were entertaining as usual. But in terms of the material, there's not a whole lot to laugh about. I was overwhelmed by how surprisingly emotional it was. "Parenthood" is a tribute to all of life's messes and complications, some funny and some more serious and both resonate.

At first I didn't know how to react, but as I think about it more and more, I'm a little upset with NBC for luring me into it with the promise of a return to comedy for Krause, who I loved in "Sports Night". But I'm not sure if it would have packed the same punch as it did had I known what I was going into.

The more dramatic story lines have a sense of emotional sincerity about them that's difficult to achieve with a pilot. Most pilots dip their toes into the water, allowing audiences to get comfortable with these characters before forcing them to invest in their lives. "Parenthood" packed quite a bit into its hour, which was certainly a bold move.

I can understand why people may not enjoy it, especially if they were going into it expecting a comedy, but for me, "Parenthood" took a chance and it paid off. I'm not committed, but I'm interested and that's not an easy task to do these days. Only time will tell, but for now "Parenthood" is showing some real promise.

Generation Kill

It's taken a lot of time and a lot of me to do it, but last night I finally finished the HBO mini-series, Generation Kill. For those of you that don't know, it follows a group of marines in the early stages of the Iraq war.

Now HBO has always prided itself as being innovative (who knows? Maybe the's why they chose marines instead of traditional army) but there's not much to be said about the mini-series. It's incredibly realistic, but that element of realism is the exact thing that makes it hard to watch. It's not that I don't have appreciation for the experience but at the end of every 67 minute episode, I found myself emotionally exhausted and putting off watching the next installment. Luckily, it's only 7 episodes, but it still took quite a bit of time.

Generation Kill has an interesting perspective. It seems to praise the men who fought, while also being a pretty staunch opponent of the war. Even the men themselves behave reprehensibly (another factor making it painful to watch at times) but in time, they wear down your defenses. In the first episode everyone's saying "fag this" and "fag that" and I'll be realistic, it takes a lot to offend me. Maybe offend isn't the word I'm searching for, it's simply obnoxious. It adds nothing but machismo to the characters and that kind of one-dimensional, stereotypical (even if its realistic, it's still called stereotyping) characterization that I was just not in the mood for.

Over time, there's a sort of rhythm developed with their language, which is truly some of the most offensive I've heard on TV. I began to be able to see past it as I began to live through this experience with these men. True, I'll never really be able to understand, but Generation Kill gives a better idea than most depictions have so far. Which is interesting, but far from entertaining. In the end, Generation Kill is appreciated, but difficult to be enjoyed. Nevertheless, I'm glad I watched it, but I don't feel the typical sense of loss after finishing a show or a series. I'm glad these characters and representations were shown but I can't say I'm sorry to see them go.

Where the Wild Things Are Is Not Where I Want To Be

I know this issue's been a divisive one since the release of the movie (I mean, it's no Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but people definitely got heated when talking about it in class) but I did not enjoy Where the Wild Things Are. I bring this up because tomorrow is it's release on DVD/Blu-Ray and I've been trying to go over it in my mind just what I didn't like about it.

Let's dispel one myth that I've seen on countless message boards on IMDb (and yes, I'm one of those nerds that reads them). I did get it. I understood the premise of the movie and what Spike Jonze was trying to do with it. I just didn't enjoy it. The movie is certainly not without its merits. The camera work is impressive and the performances are incredible. So this isn't me trashing the movie, it's just me thinking out loud as to what was missing.

The character of Max is an interesting place to start, seeing as the whole movie revolves around him. I'm not sure how, but I got a completely different idea of who he was from the book. I think that's one of the issues I had with the movie is that, in the book, sure he threw tantrums and caused all sorts of trouble, but none of it stopped me from being able to relate to him. Maybe it's an issue of time? Now that I'm older if I see a kid like Max (and as a youngest child this saying a lot...) I would just want to smack him. It was the crying that got to me. He'd pick a fight or throw a tantrum and then he'd start crying. I understand he's a product of divorce and his life is hard and he's been forced to grow up too fast, but that was something I was faced with in my childhood and I still saw nothing of Max that i could identify with on any level. It wasn't the same boy that I read about before I went to bed as a kid.

I understand that's my issue and this isn't an assault on the movie (although I could have done without the Karen O and some of the self-masturbatory indie moments) but it does a lot to take you out of a movie. Still, whether I liked the movie or not, I did appreciate some of the things that it had to say (plus Lauren Ambrose was pretty awesome). I was upset to see parents criticizing the movie because they took their kids to it and found out it wasn't a children's movie. While it's true that the book was a kid's book, it also dealt with some pretty intense stuff albeit in a more accessible manner. Nevertheless, I did appreciate the movie for its perspective on childhood without being a children's movie. It takes a lot of courage to do something like that and while I could argue whether or not Jonze succeeded, I give him credit for trying.