smart girls review stuff

Django Unchained

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 22:15:00 -0700

Django Unchained is Quentin Tarantino’s latest, a western. You have to admire a guy like Tarantino, who both somehow manges to have a style, but also variety in the kinds of stories he choses. I can’t not like him, because if I was ever inclined to actually be a screenwriter or director, he’s who I would want to emulate. He knows what works for him, and you get the distinct impression he makes the kinds of films he would want to watch.

Django Unchained follows the story of freed slave Django, who wants nothing more than to be reunited his wife, Brunhilda.

The Good:

Casting. I may be late to the Christoph Waltz game but I now love him. I was even able to get over Jamie Foxx. Leonardo was Leonardo, but what can you expect?
That humour. The past is scary, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be funny too. A Dentist Versus Candieland? Love it.
Can all films have Samuel L Jackson arguing with Leonardo DiCaprio?

The Bad:

It was a western. I love westerns. But can the woman in the film have more than one or two lines? Alternatively: I’ll acknowledge I probably would have been unhappy if he’d forced gendered roles that didn’t exist in those times on a modern film. I’m a hypocrite.
Tarantino’s Cameo. It took me to long to figure out that was an Australian accent. The End.
WHY DID SAMUEL L JACKSON NOT GET ALL THE AWARDS?

Everyone get over the use of the word nigger. Please. It is the 21st century. It was appropriate for the times, and just because it isn’t appropriate now, doesn’t mean it makes the film any less valuable.

Best Line: WHERE IS MY BEAUTIFUL SISTER?

Verdict: Worth it. Tarantino is worth it, because he clearly loves films. Oh and Christoph Waltz. Definitely a multiple view film. Tarantino has layers.

Liberal Arts

Mon, 08 Apr 2013 21:01:00 -0700

I came across Liberal Arts on my dear friend netflix. I may be in my mid 20’s but as a soon-to-be unstudent again, this movie struck a chord with me. What pseudo-intellectual doesn’t feel like their life is going no where. Liberal Arts is Josh Radnor (of How I Met Your Mother fame) second stint as writer/director/producer/actor.

It follows the story of a 35 year old university admissions advisor, and his struggle to leave his college years behind him. Not in frat boy way, but in an intellectual, I really liked school and miss it kind of way.

The Good:

Life is confusing. Adults need to admit this. Thanks Radnor.
The casting. Smart choice on Efron’s part, Elizabeth Olson is good, I reserve my judgement on her acting until I’ve seen her in a few more things, but this was solid.

The Bad:

It’s a little cliche. In a good way. Would you expect anything less from a film called Liberal Arts?
It’s hard to see Radnor as anything other than Ted Mosby.

Best Line: I flew you bastard.

Verdict: Surprisingly touching in a cliched way.

Wreck it Ralph

Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:07:00 -0700

Wreck it Ralph is a computer animated Disney film, following the story of a video game’s villain and his quest to overcome his “bad” image. What child, or adult child doesn’t know what it is like to imagine that their toys or stories don’t have a life outside of our interactions with them? Wreck it Ralph does just that, taking us into what happens after and arcade closes.

The Good:

Sarah Silverman didn’t irritate me. I enjoy her humor but her voice often gets in the way.
The story. Not only does it remind us that even people who appear to be villains have value outside of their appearance. The small interjections of the human characters remind us how little people understand about actual technology.
The references to real life video games and characters was just enough to ground the film in reality. I had wished they could have referenced two of my favorite games, Donkey Kong and Legend of Zelda, but that could get expensive.

The Bad:

This movie was robbed of best animated feature. Brave was okay, this, this is amazing. I could rant forever about why animated films don’t get the respect they deserve from the “bigger” awards. While the story doesn’t tackle the serious issues, for example: Terrorism, it teaches children and adults about the simple problems of humanity that many of us encounter on a daily basis. That, in my opinion is just as valuable as the stories of films like Argo.

Verdict: Amazing. Easily in my top 10 of films from 2012, and better than Brave.

The Life of Pi

Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:34:00 -0700

I’ll admit, I avoided The Life of Pi for a while. Not because I wasn’t drawn to the story, but because I have a deep and personal love for the book, having had to read it for the first time in my very first semester of university for the only english class I ever took. I was scared. I was scared that the story that “makes you believe in God” would somehow be less magical on screen than it is in my mind.

It tells the story of Pi Patel, named for a french swimming pool, and his exploration of his belief in God in India, and then journey of grief and courage across the Pacific Ocean with a Bengal tiger.

It’s not often I question which I like better, the book of film.

The Bad:

There is none. The story, in my opinion is flawless, the adaptation has the same life and soul that the book has, and the casting and acting was perfection. The direction of Ang Lee continues to amaze me, in the idea what he continuously picks stories with very different styles and it always delivers.

The very, very good:

The computer animation. It never steals the show. We know most of it is imaginary.
Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan and all the others who played Pi.
For a story to make you believe in God, I personally feel it illuminates the tendency in many people believe in the things that make them feel good, or happy. Which is perhaps the whole idea of faith and religion. Yann Martel created a brilliant ending which allows you essentially to do just that. The characters chose, and the reader/watcher can choose too.

Verdict: The story has a happy ending, and it may make you believe in God, and humanity.

GIRLS Season 2 Finale

Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:35:00 -0700

Hannah is the WORST PERSON EVER. She gets all empowered through her sexual encounter with Raoul (that’s what I’m calling him cause thats who Patrick Wilson is for me) ends and abusive relationship, and then proceeds to isolate herself from everyone, tries to manipulate her parents and clearly has severe mental health issues. Mental health issues they never mentioned before, until the finale, when Adam brings them up, so I guess we’re supposed to accept that means their sudden appearance is okay? WHEN A JUNKIE TELLS YOU YOU ARE A HORRIBLE PERSON, YOU’RE PROBABLY A HORRIBLE PERSON AND NEED TO MAKE SOME CHANGES.

HOW IS THIS SHOW SUPPOSED TO BE RELATABLE.

Is this supposed to be romantic and happy? that Adam is running shirtless because he loves and cares about her?

It’s not romantic. It’s two sad pathetic people who refuse to have any self respect for themselves.

GOD

This show makes me so ragey.

WHY DOES THIS SHOW MAKE ME FEEL LIKE THE BOYS ARE WINNING AND THE GIRLS AREN’T.

Ray gets his ass kicked romantically, but he’s also been motivated to do something with his life.
Charlie got rich and gets the girl that he “always wanted”-really? cause it seemed like you couldn’t stand her an episode ago. Also, you got rich off an app that it is implied you invented because you wanted to stay away from her. So you get her when you want, and don’t have her when you don’t want her because Marnie is just waiting around for you to make up your mind.
Adam, basically breaks up with a girl because she tells him to respect her while they’re having sex, and instead runs to Hannah because she needs him, and presumably will let him dominate her.
Jessa’s husband got rid of a crazy woman. I think it’s obvious who won there.

Like the only girl who mildly won this season was Shoshanna, who discovered her sexuality, but that pales in comparison to Ray who is finally getting his shit together because Shosh broke up with him. Marnie’s “worst year” included a massive pity party (where she didn’t actually appear to suffer financially from losing her job, so like either show me how she suffered or I’ll make fun of her pity party).

I sit around doing a lot of nothing and complaining about life. But at least I have some level of self awareness that allows me to not be a narcissistic girl, who makes her own problems worse. It’s also really frustrating to see girls “crying” over then ending because it’s romantic. It’s not. Like I said earlier: It’s not romantic. It’s two sad pathetic people who refuse to have any self respect for themselves, both with Adam and Hannah and Charlie and Marnie. /endrant

Verdict: I guess I watch because I like feeling smug and superior. Which I guess makes me a bitch.

Oz the Great and Powerful

Sun, 10 Mar 2013 09:02:00 -0700

Let me preface this review by stating I am not overly emotionally attached to The Wizard of Oz as many people are. I love the movie when it is on tv, Judy Garland is perfection, and the message of the story is exquisite. I also enjoy the musical Wicked which serves as a prequel to The Wizard of Oz. So I guess what I mean is that if I didn’t like the Oz the Great and Powerful, I would just ignore its very existence and any relationship it has to the original story.

Oz starts out with a powerful concept, it wants to show us how the Wizard left Kanas and came to exist in the land that bears his name. James Franco plays the title character (a third choice I might add on Disney’s casting part) with Mila Kunis, Rachel Wiesz and Michelle Williams playing the various witches of Oz.

Credit where Credit is due:

The homages to the original were nice, a subtle enough without slapping the audience in the face. We learn possibly that it was the wizard who created the cowardly lion.
I really like the black and white beginning, it had a wonderful feel to it.
Visual affects were stunning, and avoided an Alice in Wonderland affect it probably would have had if Tim Burton had helmed the project.
There was a definite attempt to act in the style of the original, and while I appreciated it, it doesn’t necessarily work (see The Bad).

Meh:

Casting in general. We all know Michelle Williams exudes kindness, and that Mila Kunis is hot (did we need the gratuitous shots of her but in those leather pants? I had to try not to laugh they were so obvious)
Why did Rachel Weisz have a half accent? Things like this always bother me.
The overall plot seemed to be to show us as much as Oz as possible, something I’m not sure we needed.

The Bad:

I’m not a James Franco Fan. I’m even less of a fan of his Wizard, although I’m not sure if that’s his fault or the writers. Oz is given repeated opportunities to realize his actions have consequences and ignores them. He is so good a convince other characters he is a worthless backstabbing fiend that they instantly believe when he runs off to escape, and yet they continue to give him opportunities to be his friend and do the right thing. His “transformation” at the end felt shallow, and left me not at all convinced he’d actually learnt anything. Sidekick characters are essential pushed aside and ignored for the sake of more shots of James Franco on screen.
The camera moved so quickly in some action shots, that my eyes couldn’t actually capture the information on the screen. This blurriness was unsettling in a film where everything else was so vivid and fantastical.
The dialogue changed frequently from a formal version of a movie era past, into answers like “yeah”. This doesn’t work and is distracting.

Don’t get me started on the idea that Oz needed a Man to solve its problems when there were three very powerful woman who could have done it all without him. I mean women are either overpowered by emotion so much that it makes them wicked witches (literally) or they don’t even deserve a name (China Doll).

Verdict: In terms of story, I prefer the Wicked version of events, but I didn’t hate this as much as I thought I did.

Alone with You-Jake Owens.

Mon, 04 Mar 2013 07:06:00 -0800

Disclaimer: toyed with the ideas of reviewing songs/albums and some inspiration finally struck me when my ipod was on shuffle. Please bear with me as I work through the kinks of how to review music.

I am a big country music fan, and it should come as no surprise that Jake Owen’s Alone with You caught my attention. But the reason for it is different. The meaning behind the song, is perhaps something we would traditionally associate with a female singer. The song follows the narrative of a man, who doesn’t want to be as attracted to the woman as he is because he feels like she is using her. It is a simple concept and I don’t think the song would be nearly as compelling if a woman was singing it.

The Good:

Twist on traditional gender roles in a love song.
Its simplicity. It is a simple concept, not over done or drawn out. This kind of simplicity is something a lot of songs these days lack.

Meh:

The song has a slower pace, something not typical of a Jake Owens song. It takes some getting used to, but in my opinion worth it.

Verdict: It will go on my “late-night driving playlist”

Warm Bodies

Sat, 02 Mar 2013 14:18:00 -0800

Warm Bodies is a 2013 romantic comedy that is set in a post-apocalyptic world. It uniquely tells the story of the zombie apocalypse from the perspective of a zombie. While not as self aware as Shaun of the Dead it is still an enjoyable film, even if it moves a little slowly. I love zombie movies, so I was excited to see one from the view of a Zombie.

The Good:

We see little of Dave Franco. The guy bothers me. I was glad he wasn’t in it as much as I anticipated
Strong supporting cast. John Malkovich? Check. Even the other zombies are hilarious.
Nicholas Hoult was exceptional. I hope to see big things from him.
I hope, from the ending it won’t be a franchise. Not everything needs to be a franchise these days.

Meh:

The story moves a little slowly, with a lot of the action left to the last third of the film. I am willing to believe that this was a direction choice to mirror the re-humanization of the zombies.
Teresa Palmer reminded me of Kristen Stewart. She was less irritating than her, but there was still an angst quality. I’m beginning to wonder if her blonde hair helped me ignore the angst.
I was really unsure how old everyone is supposed to be. Teenagers? Not teenagers?

Verdict: Some pacing problems, but an intriguing idea. A Light hearted-repeat viewing zombie movie.

The 85th Annual Academy Awards

Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:10:00 -0800

The Opening

ummm not impressed with Seth

I’m just more embarrassed for him. a lot of it the writers fault

“we saw your boobs?”

I’m not offended cause its true

it just mostly seems dumb, and there is no precident for making it into a song.

Why are Charlize and Channing dancing?

And why is it not sexy at all?

like that should be sexy.

Be our guest? See this is good.

I love all these clips for best supporting.

Best Supporting:

Tommy Lee Jones smiling is the best.

how is Christoph Waltz as old as he is?

Jack Nicholson was like “who is quientin?”

There are too few audience shots.

Bradley Cooper’s mother looks like a treat.

Misc Awards:

Paul Rudd and Melissa McCartney.

Your mom just said you inspired Brave. Good luck with having a better life moment than that.

Pictures 1,2,3

WHY THE FUCK DID REESE SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH?

Like, for clapping for her?

Oh god.

Now I need to watch Life of Pi.

This child in beasts of the southern wild.

way to make fun of a 9 year old and sexualize her. That bothers me.

His delivery is terrible. If he delivered bad jokes better, it might be less uncomfortable.

Avengers Assemble

RDJ.

what happened to Ruffalo?

Renner is eyefucking the camera.

eyefucking the FUCK.

Normally I am like oh there’s ruffalo, there goes my panties.

but no. He’s unrecognizable.

Having fun at prom Jen?

Her fillers aren’t doing her face any favours.

50 years of Bond.

YES

Halle Berry’s skin isn’t real.

It can’t be real.

What is Shirely Bassey doing?

Am I supposed to like this?

I kind of like this.

This song is sex.

Bond is sex.

SEX.

There is a lot of bad hair going on. But I don’t know how I’d fix it.

It is like they said hey celebrities, we want you all to act like uncomfortable teenagers.

Pictures 4,5,6

Liam Neison does not want to be there.

JGL was in Lincoln?

Who is DDL? He can’t be a real person.

Jessica Chastin is stupid beautiful.

150 years and it is still too soon.

Is it too soon to say that was my favorite joke of the night?

YES REMIND PEOPLE OF GIGLI.

Making fun of the Kardashians is a universal language.

Why were there no cuts to the audience during that?

Misc Awards

BEN IS PISSED ABOUT THE GIGLI COMMENT.

Best thing to happen in my life ever.

ARE THEY PLAYING JAWS TO GET PEOPLE OFF THE STAGE?

Mrs. Affleck is still campaigning on stage.

Sharp intake of breathe from Mrs. Affleck.

It’s like Ben will beat her if she doesn’t do this perfectly.

Why did she say Canada like that.

Musical Montage

Oh John Travolta.

When I came of age = came out of the closet?

No one can read.

She’s lipsyncing. But I still want to be her friend.

Once in my life I’d like to be lowered off stage while I stand on top of a piano.

I still don’t like this new song from Les Miserables.

Why is this awkward?

This is an awkward mash-up

They’ve used the weirdest camera shot choices.

Tommy Lee Jones = not smiling.

Awards that don’t get broadcast

This makes me so excited for Star Trek.

UM LIKE 50 YEARS TOO LATE FOR A SOUND OF MUSIC JOKE.

Best Supporting:

They should have had Christopher Plummer host.

This was a solid year for supporting actress.

Amy Adams standing up for her.

Love it.

Amy Adams needs an award.

Be less try Anne. I’m so happy for you but like, why are you whispering?

I feel like I’m reading her diary entry.

Skyfall

Adele is perfect.

She also has the best hair.

Like. This was just a day in the office for her

That took no effort for perfection.

Films 7,8,9

Nicole my girl.

Tarentio either hates or wants to fuck Nicole.

I can’t ever watch Amour. I’ll have too many feels

Misc Awards

WHY WOULD THEY SUBJECT HARRY POTTER TO BELLA?

LIKE.

JUST.

FUCK OFF.

And she’s doing the weird arm thing she does.

In Remembrance tribute.

“The hardest thing about writing is just writing” truer words never spoken Nora Ephron.

Chicago

We need to stop with the musical = gay jokes

why is Renee bobble heady? and slurring.

and so squinty?

She’s drunk = my conclusion.

She nearly fell over!

Hey Nora Jones, didn’t know you were still around.

I feel bad for every song not Skyfall.

Richard Gere had to like steady Renee there.

Directing

And the award for worst fake embarrassment ever goes too: Charlize Theron.

My mother’s fake laugh is similar.

I’m scared Charlize might hurt Dustin Hoffman when she grabs him.

Best Director

Jane Fonda is the best kind of bitch.

Stand up for Ang Lee guys.

Also, shout out to Yan Martel.

His wife looks fun. And he seems like a genuine nice guy.

Best Actress

Oh she falls.

and Hugh, ever the gentleman.

THE REST OF THE CAST IS SO HAPPY FOR HER.

Best Actor

QUEEN MERYL

Meryl Streep picks a wedgie and I don’t even care.

HUGH.

You’ll get your oscar Hugh. I promise.

Meryl clearly peaked at the envelope

Really, no one else has ever won three?

This Margaret Thatcher joke is brilliant.

Have DDL host the next oscars please.

Best Picture

And they bring out Jack, the unoffical mascot of the Oscars.

and FLOTUS.

Who now has bangs did you notice?

Ben’s probably all like yay, I can stop being photographed with my wife in public now.

I like the George doesn’t want or need to talk.

He sounds like a Jewish boy thanking his parents for the Bat mitzvah they just threw him.

He makes it sound like its hard to be married to Jennifer Garner.

Live Blog Verdict: That was 3 hours of watching really uncomfortable people read bad jokes.

Quiet: The Power of Introverts in World the Can't Stop Talking

Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:01:00 -0800

Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World that can’t Stop Talking is an interesting read. I initially picked it up because I confess, I am sometimes confused as to whether or not I am an introvert or extrovert.

If you’re on the fence like myself, you may not find the answers in this book. Cain doesn’t provide any easy answers about what makes someone an introvert or extrovert. Part of her argument is centered around the idea that personality itself is fluid, and human beings are remarkably adaptable.

The Good:

Some “scientific” reads are marketed for the average consumer are virtually unreadable.
It gives a good literary review of the theories that support her own thinking.

The Bad:

It’s not really a bad, but more a word of caution. Cain is not a psychologist or neurologist (which I think helps the readability of the book), however it did inspire a bit of skepticism on her recommendations for dealing with different personality types. She virtually has no qualifications for doing so, and while on the surface it sounds like good advice I think we should still approach with caution.
The book focused a lot on “western” versus “eastern” cultures. I think a broader range of cultural differences between these traditional dichotomies would have been more interesting and insightful. The Asian (The Chinese ethnicity is her focus) versus the European (even though what she really means in the American) seems little basic.

Verdict: An interesting, if somewhat shallow look at personality types and western society. “Perfect intro to” type book.

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:27:58 -0800

Beasts of the Southern Wild is a 2012 fantasy drama as told through the eyes of young Hushpuppy.

The Good:

Quvenzhane Wallis. It didn’t take long for me to fall in love with what this young girl was doing. I suppose you could make the argument that she was so young when this was filmed that she might not have even known what she was doing. Regardless. This girl has something. She is a Person with a capital P.
It’s imaginative. Here’s a child, who by all accounts, shouldn’t have nearly as much hope and imagination as she does. It practically makes your heart bleed.

I can’t actually think of anything bad to say about it. It’s a good length (I’m a fan of the hour and a half run time. The scenery is real and powerful. The acting is superb. It may not be something you need to watch repeatedly, in fact, you probably won’t. It is a powerful little film about braver, love, and imagination.

Verdict: Watch it. Be in awe of Hushpuppy.

The Passage

Sat, 09 Feb 2013 12:24:28 -0800

The Passage by Justin Cronin was published in 2010, part of an anticipated trilogy. Post apocalyptic books are a favorite of mine, so I was intrigued by the build up to the event and then dealing with the aftermath.

The Good:

The first section, or the pre-apocalyptic world is pretty exciting. It’s imaginative and engaging. More importantly, believable.

The Meh:

There are a lot of characters. I normally don’t shy away from books with a lot of characters. George RR Martin’s ASOFAI is an example. What’s different from ASOFAI’s abundance of characters is that GRRM doesn’t make us care about all of them. We’re not supposed too. It just felt too much pressure to believe that every character was very important. I honestly couldn’t get their names straight (perhaps because they all seemed to have similar “rebellious yet secretive personalities”).

The Bad:

The middle section of the book. In the post-apocalyptic portion we are introduced to a weird group of people in California (I think?). The point of this section is to highlight how people dealt with the threat of the vampire like beings. Instead we get a little society that isn’t working, and characters jumbled together. I like to think I am intelligent enough to remember who is who. We’re also given very little structural information about the society which adds to the confusion.

Verdict: Promising beginning, by the end it was a chore.

Pitch Perfect (2012)

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 12:05:25 -0800

I may be a little late to the Pitch Perfect train. I knew I would watch it eventually, having a soft spot for musical numbers, but I never felt compelled to rush out and watch it right away. Shame on Me. SHAME ON ME.

Anyways, Pitch Perfect follows the story of Beca who just wants to be a DJ, but her dad is giving her a free college education. She gets sexually harassed in the coed showers, and auditions to join the failing Bella accapella group. Cue rivalries, and built in love interests.

The Good:

It’s mindless Fun. With a capital F.
There are accapella versions of recent hit songs? Heaven.
This movie makes me wish I’d done more in University then study, and makes me wish I did more then study now that I’m in grad school. What are these kids grades like?
Rebel Wilson is great. Anna Kendrick, I want to be your friend. Brittnay Snow I forgot about you, how’s life? Hey Skylar Astin be in more things so I can look at you.
Elizabeth Banks is always consistently good in small comedic parts. She comes off perfectly funny and sad. (She’s also good in Zack and Miri Make a Porno)

The Meh:

Young adult angst is so cliche. But it works, so I’ll allow it.

The Bad:

I was confused re: everyone’s ages? Beca was a freshman, but had tattoos etc. I know that isn’t a reason to think she’s younger, but it confused me. Everyone else seemed a lot more mature than I think all the freshmen were back in my day.
Predictable Story, but then, we aren’t looking to rewrite the wheel

Verdict: If you don’t like fun then don’t watch it. But if you like fun, then why the hell aren’t you watching it?

Memoirs of an Addicted Brain

Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:57:00 -0800

Written by Marc Lewis, a developmental neuroscientist, Memoirs of an Addicted Brain is half science/half memoir. Breaking down his life-long struggle with addiction and drug use, Lewis uses his real life experiences with drugs to describe why they affect us the way that they do.

I chose this book because I was interested in the science behind addictions (I am a big fan of shows like Intervention). I thought the memoir format would provide a nice lay-mans description of addiction and its effects on the brain.

The Memoir:

The memoir portion, as I said earlier was not my motivation for reading the book. I think because of this, I found it more distracting then anything. While Lewis’ tale is a harrowing account of addiction at a young age, I found it un-relatable (this is likely because I have no personal history with addiction or mental illness). Gaping holes are left in Lewis’ story, which he seemed to tailor to describe the many drugs and their effects on the brain. My major issue was I did not find the writing style particularly engaging, and difficult to work through.

The Science:

I was expecting a more lay-mans account of the science behind addiction and the brain. I was disappointed. The parts of the book I was most looking forward to reading were too technical for a person with a limited scientific background. The only exception to this was the last chapter in which Lewis describes why addicts have such a hard time saying no. They simply exercise their brains to much in saying no, that the brain like any muscle when faced with a repetitive task can only preform optimally for so long. I may have found this part easier to understand because it can apply to a lot of this (ie: we can only read for so long, write for so long).

The End:

While it is a memoir, and Lewis’ story has a happy ending, I was not satisfied. While Lewis states he simply woke up one day without the desire to do drugs, this is not a typical reaction on the part of drug addicts. Had Lewis left some sort of disclaimer stating what regular drug addicts need to do in order to break the cycle of addiction.

The Verdict: If you are suffering or have suffered from a drug addiction, I feel this book would be more relevant to you, then me. Not a must read. As far as memoirs go, it was a little bland.

The Queen of Versailles

Mon, 21 Jan 2013 11:25:00 -0800

It may be hard for many people to push aside their pre-conceived notions about a family like the Siegels. Filmed over the course of two years, we follow David and Jackie Siegel as the 2008 financial crisis hits and begins to change perception of the American Dream. It isn’t just a film about the American dream. It also depicts the failing family dynamic in the western world, and deals briefly with the struggles of immigrant laborers.

The Bad (Figuratively):

Every film needs a villain. Even a documentary isn’t complete without one. Whether the villain is a person, natural disaster, or the issue about gun control in America, it always exists. At first, Greenfield’s villain appears to be the 2008 economic downturn. Not even a quarter of the way through the film, another, more real villain appears. David Siegel. It’s obvious why he’s now suing Greenfield for misrepresentation. Siegel comes off as a greedy, workaholic, power hungry asshole. As the film develops it’s clear that family ties are strained. He ignores his wife and openly admits to building a house valued at 100 million dollars without having a penny saved for his youngest seven children’s educations. Siegel’s eldest son, Richard’s interviews suggest that this role of absentee father isn’t a new one. Richard also points out that his father’s own stubbornness (greed?) is the main reason behind the company’s financial troubles. Based on my minimal knowledge of the business world, I question how

The Good:

Jackie Siegel. If her husband is the villain, Jackie is the hero. She comes off as genuine and uncalculating (the opposite of her husband). She serves as a refreshing reminder to not judge based on appearance (unfortunately the Real Housewives has poisoned our minds against the blonde hair, fake boobs and Roberto Cavalli outfits). While Siegel does have a penchant for expensive clothes and drivers, we also see how willing she is to help others. Her employees speak fondly of her, and her children seem to like her (even if she admits if she thought she couldn’t have afforded Nannies, she wouldn’t have had seven). Jackie admits she had no idea about the true state of her husband’s finances in the end. In the beginning Jackie states that she believes you can do anything if you work hard for it. By the end, it seems like she stopped working hard and let her husband do it for her. A shame given the warmhearted person she is.

I wanted more:

Interviews with the family’s nanny’s nannies from the Philippines. This is as far as I know an untapped market in the documentary world.
The children were eloquent and well spoken regarding their perceptions about life as a wealthy child. A reminder to all the children get it, even when we think they don’t.

The major concern with this film, is the vilification and glorification of David and Jackie Siegel. While I perhaps enjoyed watching those parts the most, it makes me wonder just how heavy handed Greenfield was in directing their appearances (vis-va-vis her prompting questions).

Verdict: A must watch. Relevant for people of all economic status and a reminder that the American dream can quickly become a nightmare.

Bowling for Columbine

Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:45:00 -0800

Always go with the gun

I’m a little late to the party in watching the documentary that launched Michael Moore into the stratosphere. I have however watched a few of his others, Capitalism: A Love Story, and Sicko. Both of which I thoroughly enjoyed. It’s an interesting dynamic that Moore was so praised for Bowling for Columbine by exposing a truth about the violence myth in America and then lambasting him for expressing his opinion on the war in Iraq.

This isn’t a movie about guns. It’s a movie about fear, and how we respond to fear.
Shock and Awe warfare is uncomfortable. Moore knows this, he also knows it is effective.

The Truth

As a history student, suffering through endless theory classes I’m very suspect of declaring there is any one truth, or overarching myth. Michael Moore isn’t afraid. That doesn’t mean his truth is always true. What I want, and what I suspect Moore wants is for people to question the myths that Americans have declared “truths”.

Why We need Michael Moore:

With any Moore documentary, I personally feel that if we pull anything out of it it should be the ability to question the idea of “truth”. I think this is why he makes so many people uncomfortable. Most people are content to live with the version of life that has been laid out for them. We get uncomfortable when confronted with a reality that conflicts with the truths we’ve built for ourselves. So much of our lives are governed by fear (I think even more so in the 12 years since this documentary came out), that we actually become afraid when this is pointed out to us. We can’t imagine a life without fear.

In case you don’t know, Moore loves Canada.

As a Canadian I see nothing wrong with it. While I can’t say I’ve ever had the experience of walking into a Walmart to purchase live ammunition, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Ask any Canadian, we don’t want to be confused with Americans. However, that doesn’t mean we are the perfect fetishized people Moore makes us to be. I’m also keeping in mind that this was filmed over 12 years ago. Things around the world have changed. Canada certainly isn’t the safe place it used to be. The Canadian “everybody is nice” myth is just as prevalent in the film as the American “Fear” Myth.

Verdict: Shock and Awe makes people uncomfortable. But we should be uncomfortable.

Mel Sees: Gangster Squad

Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:54:40 -0800

G-G-G-G-G-G-G-UNIT SQUAD!

I’ll admit that I don’t know anything about Mickey Cohen or the 1940s’ LA gang scene. I will also admit to being totally fascinated with Hollywood in the 1940s solely based on the “glamour” of the era. Even the gangs were glamourous. They wore zoot suits, for crying out loud, and they hung out at clubs called Slapsy Maxie’s. What’s not to love? (besides the violence and corruption)

Directed by Rueben Fleischer (Zombieland), and written by Will Beall (“Castle”), Gangster Squad is a solid film. The movie is based on Paul Lieberman’s novel of the same name, and while I do not know how much of it is actually true, I don’t really care. Obviously it is glamourized just like the era it takes place in (I think?). And what with the interwebs these days, I’m sure it’s easy enough to just Google, but it’s really not necessary to enjoy the movie. Parts were predictable, but not eye-roll worthy. Parts were funny, peppered lightly around the violence to give good flow and keep things light. Nothing was cheesy. Nothing was Tarantino violent (save one scene but it’s over quickly).

The tone was human, knowwhatimean? Probably not because I just made that up. Let me be more confusing: it was serious, without taking itself too seriously, but with taking itself for what it is. It’s not unlike Public Enemies (Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Marion HOTillard), but it is unlike it. Both are very entertaining war-era gangster movies, but made very differently. The expectation you built in your mind based on the trailers is exactly what you will get; G-Squad is a GOOD movie. Nothing more and yet no less.

What worked
-The clothes, the speech, the cars, the music (soundtrack is beautiful); they got the era.
-The cast. Everyone was fantastic. Josh Brolin delivered the kickassery. Ryan Gosling was his charming, handsome self but with a different voice. Anthony Mackie doesn’t get enough screen time. Emma Stone is divine. God she makes me wish I was a smoker. But not. But I get how easy it was for people to take up smoking back then. SO CLASSY & SEXY. Mireille Enos as Brolin’s wife is just adorable and devout and not annoying. Robert Patrick & Giovanni Ribisi were delightfully awesome. And of course Sean Penn is creepy and sinister as hell (and he was good in the movie too, HIYO!).
-The weird instagram-esque filter they used that was totally there but also not. Brolin, you’re an attractive man. When you reach 50 I’ll gladly add you to my “Hot Men in their 50s” list, but I know you got more lines on your face. Was the filter for everyone’s skin or to add glamour? I don’t know, but I liked it.
-Gun fights!!! Ok I know it is a sensitive issue right now. I mean absolutely no disrespect. But THIS is where guns belong: in a heavily stylized movie about the 1940s’ gangster scene. Got that, kids?

Didn’t work so much:
-The very beginning, and the very end. The voice over/narrative if you will. It really didn’t need to happen. This movie did not need to be told in Brolin/Sgt O’Meara’s point of view. Especially because he does a general, 2 minute voice over at the beginning of the movie, and then the rest of the movie is just a third person POV, until the end when you get a jarring voice over again. Sure, show O’Meara’s home life, that’s all fine and dandy. I know there needs to be a central character and O’Meara fits the bill, but the voice over wasn’t remotely necessary and sort of distracting. If throughout the movie they wanted to go for a classic beat era voice over where O’Meara just narrates everything that’s happening, that might have actually worked. But they didn’t, and I just felt distanced at the end. “Oh… ya, I guess it was about O’Meara? No it’s not.”
-Nothing was wrong plot-wise. Just a tad predictable. I don’t know if that’s because 1) I’ve seen too many movies, 2) it’s based on a true story & truth is boring which is why we have fiction, or 3) lazy writing to keep audience happy.

General thoughts, like my actual thoughts while watching the movie:
-Dayum, Gosling
-this car chase would actually be pretty slow
-HOW IS NO ONE GETTING SHOT
-it’s like Grand Theft Auto, minus the cars being stolen
-why is it taking them so long to find their hideout? oh right, no internet. what a dark time. how did they do anything?
-like seriously, dayuuum Gosling.
-dayum, Stone.
-dayum, Brolin?
-was that Anthony Mackie as Jackie Robinson in the preview before this movie? (it wasn’t, I looked it up after the movie. I’m just racist.)
-ya, no, you’d be dead.
-“don’t bring a knife to a gun fight” unless you’re Anthony Mackie.
-HOW DID THEY FIND HIM WITHOUT GOOGLE?
-god it’s a good thing cell phones didn’t exist. JUST SKIP TOWN, IDIOTS. by the time anyone knows you’re gone, it’s like 4 days later.

Verdict: 3/5
Good movie. Not amazing. Not award winning, except maybe in sound editing/mixing. Not bad. I’d definitely recommend seeing it in a theatre because it’s fun & exciting. Also because the 40s were the Golden Age of cinema so it’s fitting to see it in one.

ps. DAAAYYYUUUUUMMMM GOSLING.

pps. Here’s a clip of comedian John Mulaney (SNL writer) doing a bit about gangsters that I had running through my head during the entire movie. Legit. All movie. Just go to 11:55-end.

http://youtu.be/qgfC8QgVfwA

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:15:00 -0800

I will never forgive all of the people who have seen this movie and not recommended I watch it. Out of 2004, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is half love story in reverse and half regular love story. Following a man who decides to have his former girlfriend erased from his mind after she does the same, we see how people exploit memories, and how we create our own myths.

Kate Winslet

Winslet is a truly great actress. Thankfully, she has since one her Oscar (she was nominated for this film as well). You can’t flaunt her American accent. She is impulsive and explosive as the free-wheeling Clementine.

Jim Carrey

Call me crazy, but this marks as one of the best performances in Carrey’s career. While he usually plays the crazy/wacky guy, he is utterly believable as the depressing Joel. I like Carrey best when he plays this and other “Truman” like characters. It’s believable and endearing and just desperate enough for a man who realizes he doesn’t want to let the memories of someone he loves go.

The Goods:

The rest of the cast is pretty relaxed and spot on. A supporting cast of Mark Ruffalo, Kirsten Dunst and Elijah Wood adds to the film but doesn’t steal the show.
Kudos to styling for showing us where we were in the narrative by changing the color of Clementine’s hair.
The film actually deals with the way we romanticize the people in our lives. At some point in our lives, we love people because of who we remember them to be and not as they are. Joel feels this way about Clementine.
The screen play is clever, and earned a well deserved Academy Award.
The cinematography is brilliant and seamless. Nothing is more distracting then scene changes, that don’t have flow. This could have been tricky to achieve given they were mimicking the way the mind floats and moves from one thought or memory to the next. Instead it feels natural and logical.

The Meh:

The only slight problem for me, is after reconstructing Joel’s dreams and memories, we see why he loves Clementine. The audience understands why he’d have a hard time letting her go. She was a ray of sunshine, unpredictability in his life. We aren’t give the same for Clementine. Instead, in real life she is presented as a fragile, and probably mentally ill girl. While I’m not upset the film ends up with the two giving it another go, we don’t really understand her motivation.

The Verdict: I’ll watch it again. And again. And again. It somehow made me believe more in love then other romantic comedies I’ve seen.

Gone Girl

Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:09:00 -0800

Gone Girl is a thriller novel written by Gillian Flynn. Following the story of Amy Dunne’s disappearance on her 5th wedding anniversary, and the investigation of her husband Nick Dunne. Split into three parts, which each part getting shorter and shorter, the book is a page turning thriller that ends far from where it begins. I’m going to pretty graphic with spoilers here, so ye’be warned.

The Good:

I‘ve never started a book so sure of one thing, and ended with another. Sweet innocent Amy has fooled everyone in her life into thinking she is an entirely different person.
The writing style is clever. Switching between present day and the diary gives us a skewed view of the characters. It made me question why I was so quick to side with Amy’s written journal as opposed to Nick’s flow of consciousness.
It will make a good film adaptation. Really though, why hasn’t there been a film like this made already?
Some women are bad. It’s time we talked about that. We’re not all nice, and we’re not all non-violent. Amy isn’t.

Meh:

All the characters who aren’t Amy or Nick are shallow. They all fill the “archtypes” we would expect to find in an 20/20 or dateline murder special. Good cop, bad cop, parents (but only one set, we don’t want things to complicated), mistress, news people, crazy neighbors. It all felt cliche.
The End, but I’ll get to that next.
If Amy’s hated her parents her whole life, why did she wait until now to punish them? She punished everyone else in a more immediate fashion. While Amy claims the set-up is to punish Nick and her parents, it’s really about Nick.

The End:

I enjoyed the book up until the end. The end is not satisfying. I understand sometimes in life, people don’t change when they clearly should have. However, Nick to have been sadistically framed for murder, and then psychologically abused after his wife’s return it’s hard to feel sorry for a man who decides to stay. The only clever thing about the ending is you start the book thinking Nick is an asshole, and you end knowing he is an asshole.

Verdict: I have been this involved with a crime thriller in a long time. Must read.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:41:29 -0800

The Perks of Being a Wallflower is an adaption of Stephen Chbosky staring Logan Lerman, Emma Watson and Ezra Miller based on Chbosky’s 1999 cult novel of the same name.

It has been probably seven years since I have read the novel, so not much of my plot was in my head while I watched it. The coming of age tale, featuring a bad of misfits and mentally unstable teenagers.

The Good:

The casting is excellent. Ezra Miller was probably the standout performance, with Logan Lerman coming in a close second. Everyone was both young and carefree but also had the same self-concious loathing that many teenage misfits possess.
Cinematically it was a pretty film.

Meh:

Emma Watson’s accent. While she did a decent job, certain words at the end of a sentence had a British twang to it. Sometimes her “Charlie” sounded British too. It was like she was talking from the back of her throat. It didn’t sound natural.

The subject matter and eventual reveal at the end isn’t a light subject. However, it really does fail to address issues of mental illness and child abuse. Charlie’s parents are largely absent, and don’t seem to have a clue what is going on in Charlie or his sisters lives. Considering Charlie is mentally ill, it is kind of strange more family drama doesn’t enter into it. Kate Walsh isn’t very believable as a mother, nor does she have an chemistry with her on screen children.

Verdict: Depressing. I wouldn’t watch it again, but it was an excellent adaptation of the book.