tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45816106642646706242024-03-05T01:36:35.848-08:00Because I Saw The FilmA blog by an average teenage film lover who has to Wiki 90% of filmmaking terms and IMDb the names of 70% of French New Wave directors. Beware.Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.comBlogger116125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-73732238416234423252011-09-07T12:41:00.000-07:002011-09-07T12:53:40.268-07:00My new film blogI haven't written anything on here in ages, so I don't expect anyone to care about this recent turn of events, but I now have a new film/television blog (which is a disguise for me to post whatever I would like to post) called <a href="http://criticalescapist.wordpress.com/">The Critical Escapist</a>.<div><br /></div><div>In the past few months, I basically came to realize that Twitter isn't a sufficient enough outlet for my rants and I need an entire blog for it.</div><div><br /></div><div>R.I.P. Because I Saw The Film. We had some good times, but things I start during my sophomore year of high school just aren't meant to last.</div><div><br /></div><div>So long live The Critical Escapist? We'll see, my dears. </div>Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-63051977246273472432010-12-14T10:41:00.000-08:002010-12-14T10:51:39.338-08:00The Movie Blogger SurveyLove the <a href="http://www.priceminister.co.uk/nav/Video_Region-2-DVD/f1/Classic">classics</a>? Or just films in general? Take the <a href="http://www.wix.com/olivermoss/the-movie-blogger-survey">Movie Blogger Survey</a>!<br /><br />If you're a fellow film blogger, you can also promote this survey on your blog and receive a free DVD.<br /><br />Have fun, guys.Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-64139269423873995732010-09-03T08:56:00.000-07:002010-09-08T16:58:31.719-07:00In defense of Two and a Half Men<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.beeek.com/media/images/Two_and_a_Half_Men.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 294px; height: 219px;" src="http://www.beeek.com/media/images/Two_and_a_Half_Men.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Internet's most unpopular title card.</span></span><br /></div><br />I can feel the bullet wounds already.<br /><br />Somewhere between the time <span style="font-style: italic;">Two and a Half Men</span> became the highest-rated sitcom in America and to the time <span style="font-style: italic;">Two and a Half Men</span> remained the highest-rated sitcom in America, it has become cool to hate the show.<br /><br />In a recent bout of depression, I <span style="font-style: italic;">finally </span>watched a rerun in its entirety. I pretty much live on syndication. And it wasn't too bad. In fact, I watched other episodes and they weren't completely horrible either. I don't even remember why I hated it so much in the first place other than the fact that, while channel-surfing, it <span style="font-style: italic;">seemed </span>really stupid. I am about to swallow my words.<br /><br />Let's acknowledge what most of the Internet (15 to 35 year olds) and I agree about this show: It's not brilliant, it's not groundbreaking, it's not special, it's probably aimed at ordinary, middle-aged men and 10 year boys (your parents and your baby nephew), it's surprising that it's the number one sitcom in America, and it has more cheap potty humor than it <span style="font-style: italic;">should </span>have.<br /><br />But here's what we disagree on: I find it rather endearing, entertaining, full of potential, and occasionally, very funny. Shoot me, please.<br /><br />I don't understand how anyone can fault the actors in the show because they are not the problem. The Emmys seem to agree with me.<br /><br />Sheen was painfully bland in his Golden Globe-winning (?!) performance as Michael J. Fox's replacement in <span style="font-style: italic;">Spin City</span>, but in his own vehicle, he is a reliable lead. His acting style epitomizes the title of Jason Alexander's book in the <span style="font-style: italic;">Curb Your Enthusiasm</span> episode, <span style="font-style: italic;">Acting Without Acting</span>. Having said that, Sheen does a very good, effortless job of playing himself, minus the more controversial aspects of his real-life self. Comedians have been playing caricatures of themselves for years and while Sheen is not a comedian, he is pretty funny in the show by being a self-centered, often drunk, irresponsible, lazy bastard, commitment-phobe jingle writer with some sort of questionable heart.<br /><br />Considering all the negative reaction to Jon Cryer's Supporting Actor Emmy win last year (and nomination this year), I wonder: <span style="font-style: italic;">Has anyone actually seen Jon Cryer's performance in Two and a Half Men?</span> Cryer, as Alan, Charlie's divorced chiropractic brother, is technically co-lead, but submitting himself in the supporting category is basically a stroke of genius. While the point of being a "supporting actor" is to impress the audience with limited screen time, Sheen will always be seen as the real "star" of the show. Especially since Cryer's paycheck is almost half of Sheen's.<br /><br />So back to my original question: Is the quality of Cryer's performance really so much worse than Jack McBrayer (<span style="font-style: italic;">30 Rock</span>), Tracy Morgan (<span style="font-style: italic;">30 Rock</span>), Kevin Dillon (<span style="font-style: italic;">Entourage</span>), Neil Patrick Harris (<span style="font-style: italic;">How I Met Your Mother</span>), and Rainn Wilson (<span style="font-style: italic;">The Office</span>)? I've seen all the performances except for Dillon's in <span style="font-style: italic;">Entourage</span>, and Cryer's doesn't pale so much in comparison. While Harris was widely considered to be robbed that year, and yes, Harris is a <span style="font-style: italic;">fine </span>actor, but his performance doesn't strike me as so much more superior than the performances of his fellow nominees. Harris now has two Emmys, anyway.<br /><br />However, Cryer's performance conveys all the anguish of a desperate, self-pitying, middle-aged loser trying to cope with the dating scene and the antics of his playboy brother. A George Costanza with morals.<br /><br />Angus T. Jones as Alan's son, Jake, is very good. In the earlier seasons, Jake is pretty much there to be confused about the sexual double entendres, but he watches and learns. Is that appropriate? Well, Jones' parents seem to approve. Jones is much more natural than most Disney child stars and has chemistry with all the actors in the show, except that as he ages, he seems to lack an essential father-son rapport with Cryer. As Jake ages, his dialogue is dumbed down to miserable potty humor, but Jones manages to surprisingly deliver his lines with an odd deadbeat charm.<br /><br />This show has often been criticized by many for its portrayal of women. Yes, the women who comes in and out of Charlie's life are often shown as bimbos. Guess what? Bimbos exist. And there are also men who objectify women. Charlie is one of those men. And these women voluntarily, <span style="font-style: italic;">willingly </span>sleep with Charlie. Those kind of women also exist and those kind of men certainly don't mind.<br /><br />But the other regular female characters on this show are far from being bimobs. Yes, they are flawed, but again, who isn't?<br /><br />Judith (Marin Hinkle), Alan's ex-wife, is probably the most unsympathetic recurring female character. Judith divorces Alan because she's questioning her sexuality and after the divorce, she makes Alan pay for everything because she doesn't seem to have a job. But besides her obvious bitchiness, she does seem like a good mother who cares about what is best for her son.<br /><br />Evelyn (Holland Taylor), Charlie and Alan's promiscuous mother, is a strong, independent woman. Evelyn's dominance of the Harper household--after her husband's suicide--is probably what sways her sons to weaker, more docile women. It makes sense. Taylor's multiple Emmy nominations are due to the fact that she's a masterful scene stealer. Her false attempts to spend time with her grandson, only to roll her eyes at an episode <span style="font-style: italic;">SpongeBob SquarePants</span> and proclaim that "Life's too short" is the stuff comedic wonders are made of.<br /><br />Berta (Conchata Ferrell), Charlie's housekeeper, is also a strong, independent woman who is able to get the job done and keep the family in place. And some people believe Berta's character is demeaning because she's a unpleasant, overweight maid. While she's not a young hot thing, she's sensible and cuts all the bullshit. Ferrell adds a dose of magic to even the simplest line readings. Even to something as simple as "Bite me."<br /><br />I am particularly impressed with Melanie Lynskey's performance as Rose, Charlie's stalker and Jake's occasional babysitter. While Rose is probably one of the most manipulative, disturbing characters that has ever graced television, I don't think I can ever hate her. Lynskey plays her with such innocence, sweetness, sharpness, and wonderful comedic timing that it's a surprise that the writers never bothered to expand her role. Every time she is on screen, she brings the best out of all the actors. Lynskey (and this show) manages to make a stalker work as a character <span style="font-style: italic;">and </span>a potential love interest.<br /><br />The story lines for the episodes has often been criticized as being "unoriginal," "repetitive," and "formulaic." Here are some sample story lines:<br /><br />- Charlie meets up with an old flame, only to find out that she has undergone a sex change (and is now Chris O'Donnell). They agree to be friends. When the ex-girlfriend--now a man--meets Evelyn, they end up dating. Charlie and Alan need to decide how to break the news to their mother.<br /><br />- Chelsea, Charlie's girlfriend then fiancee, sets Alan up on a blind date. Charlie and Alan soon realize at the restaurant that Alan's blind date is Rose. Rose proceeds to pretend that she doesn't know the men and Charlie and Alan play along.<br /><br />- At first, Rose's father (Martin Sheen) seems like an authoritative man. When he becomes too attached to Evelyn, Rose comes in and deals with her father, who seems to show the same mental instabilities that Rose possess.<br /><br />These are arguably solid sitcom story lines. Sure, these story lines aren't complex or clever, but they're mildly creative, simple, and fun.<br /><br />The jokes are a different story. Some of the jokes are sometimes just tasteless, many are predictable. There is a conversation in the season seven finale where Jake describes what he does to his butt and compares it to a hot dog; Sheen's disgusted reaction looks extraordinarily genuine.<br /><br />Creators Chuck Lorre and Lee Aronsohn are above that kind of humor. I know that because the story lines are occasionally creative, the dialogue is occasionally witty and sharp, and I see random bursts of brilliance in this show all over the place. But its good qualities are not being embraced or harvested. It's like CBS comes in and tells Lorre and Aronsohn that the show is a big hit with a particular demographic--the mainstream blue collar/middle-aged men and 10 year old boys--and as condescending douchebags, they convince Lorre and Aronsohn to add in a penis joke here and a fart joke there. Because apparently, the mainstream cannot live without those.<br /><br />But I don't know what 10 year boys like. Maybe 10 year boys do like fart jokes. I don't know.<br /><br />The thing about <span style="font-style: italic;">Two and a Half Men</span> is that it's one of the few network sitcoms right now that's not "cute." It doesn't aspire to be cute, unlike Lorre and Aronsohn's other project, <span style="font-style: italic;">The Big Bang Theory</span>. <span style="font-style: italic;">Two and a Half Men</span> appeals to the beer-drinking, working class forty-something and the sons of those beer-drinking, working class forty-somethings. That's a large part of America, if ratings prove anything.<br /><br />Still, it breaks my heart seeing all the potential go to waste. This is a show that could be about a goofy, modern family unit that could only exist in sitcom-verse--the matriarch, the polar opposite brothers, the son of an unconventional family, the ex-wife, the ex-wife's husband, the maid, the stalker, the occasional new girlfriend, etc. While the show isn't clever, it certainly has a clever set of characters.<br /><br />There are sitcoms that are as good as they ever going to get. This show could be so much more than the cheap, disposable humor wasteland it sometimes is. Take away all the potty humor and here's a show with tons of potential. Yeah, I like this show for what it could be more than what it is. But haters can hate. And I know there are a lot of you guys out there.Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-19878427407250252212010-08-09T12:29:00.001-07:002010-08-09T16:36:15.828-07:00Being sentimental about 'North'<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWYVnkdAzS1twtDXZV1zLVfCb2Rfsg7zcORMuqipOfMq2NMv5ZFg_qnhO5jNH4g1t11EL1cN01b1F0cBBKY2yrsfK45zpx8zJhWIoiMB7sY6o8ikry0HPaW8-SM9MypbLYyWPfQvEQ5tw/s1600/north01.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 247px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWYVnkdAzS1twtDXZV1zLVfCb2Rfsg7zcORMuqipOfMq2NMv5ZFg_qnhO5jNH4g1t11EL1cN01b1F0cBBKY2yrsfK45zpx8zJhWIoiMB7sY6o8ikry0HPaW8-SM9MypbLYyWPfQvEQ5tw/s320/north01.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5503516439347666706" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >Elijah Wood is the outstanding, but neglected child in North. Photo courtesy of an <a href="http://always.ejwsites.net/ms-north.html">Elijah Wood fan site</a>.</span><br /></div><br />When I was younger, my mom told me this great bedtime story. It was about a bunny whose mother made her a homemade backpack for her to bring to the first day of school. But when the bunny saw some other animal's backpack (they're all anthropomorphic animals, I guess), the two traded backpacks. And the bunny keeps trading backpacks and she's still unsatisfied. She goes to a wise, old anthropomorphic animal and he helps her to get her original backpack that her mom made for her back.<br /><br />Okay, the story was better coming from my mom. And I was five, so I wasn't too difficult to impress.<br /><br />Anyway, I've always loved that story because I love the fact that the bunny was able to get her original backpack back in the end. Regrets can be reversed. I wished the real world was like that.<br /><br />So even though my mom told me bedtime stories (I think that is the only one she's ever told me) and I lived in the suburbs (could've been worse, right?), I eventually had this phase where I wanted different parents. Now, I understand that most children don't really want different parents; they just want their original parents to be different, like, you know, not as annoying and demanding. You know, the usual. But I was 10. I didn't know the difference. I just wanted my parents to be different--different attitudes, different personalities, different jobs, different <span style="font-style: italic;">people</span>, if that's what it takes.<br /><br />It's a selfish, horrible thought, but a thought indeed.<br /><br />Which brings me to Rob Reiner's 1994 family film, <span style="font-style: italic;">North</span>. A critical and financial failure, the film tells the story of a young boy, North (Elijah Wood) who wants to emancipate ("divorce") himself from his parents (Jason Alexander, Julia Louis-Dreyfus--OMG I KNOW GEORGE AND ELAINE) who just don't appreciate him like everyone else does. He's an excellent student, athlete, and actor--so why can't his parents just stop screaming at each other at the dinner table and pay some attention to him?<br /><br />After North is emancipated, he goes on a worldwide, two-month search for new parents. He goes to Texas, Hawaii, Alaska, an Amish community, China, Africa, France, and New York. Let the ethnic stereotypes, celebrity cameos (Kathy Bates, Reba McEntire, Dan Aykroyd, John Ritter, Faith Ford, etc.), random Bruce Willis appearances (as some sort of mentor who dresses for the occasion), nervous laughter, and "what the f---"s run loose!<br /><br />Back at home, his parents are comatose and are displayed at the Smithsonian. Children across America are threatening their parents: if the parents don't fulfill their wishes (one kid commands him mom to clean his room for him), they will, like North, emancipate themselves.<br /><br />This revolution is led by North's journalist friend, Winchell (Matthew McCurley), who is like 10 or something and he's this expert stalker (it's his job!) who gives these Hitler-esque speeches on podiums across the nation. I wonder what his parents think about that? Anyway, Winchell works with North's lawyer (Jon Lovitz) so they can take over America. Or something like that.<br /><br />When North begins to have second thoughts (I don't want to actually spoil anything), Winchell tries to murder North because North getting new parents is the key of Winchell's success. The kids are listening to Winchell, and in turn, their parents (who are being threatened) are listening to the kids. Winchell even hires a hitman. Yeah, that's right, KIDS STUFF. I DON'T EVEN KNOW ANYMORE.<br /><br />And why is North named North? Because that's a really, really strange name.<br /><br />It's probably cliched if I wrote about all the problems with this movie and how horrible it is. So I won't do that. Mainly because I don't hate this movie and I don't even think it's horrible? The reason I wanted to see this movie for the longest time was because of <a href="http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19940722/REVIEWS/407220302/1023">Roger Ebert's infamous review</a>. I bought the VHS from Amazon for $3 plus shipping. But good thing I ended up liking it, right? Sorry, Roger Ebert!<br /><br />Honestly, I would be lying if I said I didn't like it. I actually think it's a very funny, sweet, touching movie, minus the jokes about the dead fat kid, dying old people, ancient Chinese hairstyles, barren wombs, Jerry Lewis dominating French television, the Amish, and topless African women. There are also weird sex jokes and unnecessary shots of prostitutes? I DON'T KNOW. The ethnic jokes are often awful and awkward, yet pretty harmless. However, I totally understand why many people would find the jokes offensive.<br /><br />But I <span style="font-style: italic;">connect </span>with the movie's message, which is pretty much that you don't appreciate what you have until you lose it. And that message is very personal to me. I guess I'm just being sentimental, but who said criticism was objective?<br /><br />The opening scene conveys a sense of wonder that I haven't seen in recent children's films. Elijah Wood is particularly wonderful as North; he's just so natural, authentic, and convincing. Matthew McCurley is entirely too convincing as the full-blown evil mastermind in a child's body, but he manages to be very funny. And this movie is basically non-stop entertainment; even when there's a terrible joke being uttered, there is still something going on in the movie (the terrible joke being uttered). It's never boring.<br /><br />So I like <span style="font-style: italic;">North</span>. I also like <span style="font-style: italic;">Batman and Robin </span>and <span style="font-style: italic;">Gigli</span>. Oops? JUST BEING HONEST.Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-78164226412168804912010-08-08T14:31:00.000-07:002010-08-09T18:57:22.181-07:00How I wanted to care<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguZddJXCPyFkJG0LbeviLgvdEALkXxPQ0ScMC2JqEw18k3gXvPMlW18uRTMNgxPHMy2ZCkXszz-c3zUXt5prCXn8XVhzuZ3fzdLjDXJD0TylJvSG1latHb1Owqds-jx9hMgZSFyrdxV7E/s1600/19157737.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguZddJXCPyFkJG0LbeviLgvdEALkXxPQ0ScMC2JqEw18k3gXvPMlW18uRTMNgxPHMy2ZCkXszz-c3zUXt5prCXn8XVhzuZ3fzdLjDXJD0TylJvSG1latHb1Owqds-jx9hMgZSFyrdxV7E/s320/19157737.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5503165172524275074" border="0" /></a>A few months ago, writer/director Joe Leonard sent me a screener for his film, <span style="font-style: italic;">How I Got Lost</span>. (Thanks! Free movie!) Yesterday afternoon, when I was sitting around doing nothing, I thought, well, why not watch it?<br /><br />Here is another film pondering the meaning of life and what it's all about. Why is it that the filmmakers of my generation and the generation before mine so obsessed with that topic? And why haven't any of those filmmakers been able to provide an original, thoughtful answer?<br /><br />It's all about going wild! Getting out of your comfort zones! Doing something different! Be spontaneous! Be what you really want to be! Be yourself!<br /><br />Before we get too excited about all this, let me introduce you to Jake and Andrew, denizens of a post-9/11 New York.<br /><br />Jake (Aaron Stanford) is an aspiring novelist, which is the best profession when you're pondering the meaning of life. It's always nice to ponder the meaning of life with a typewriter too, even though it's 2002 and everyone else uses a computer. I realize this is an artistic choice, but seriously though!<br /><br />However, he has an unsatisfying job as a sports writer who covers women's basketball. To add insult to injury, his girlfriend just broke up with him. So not only does he have a job that he absolutely hates, he is suffering from heartbreak and has yet to discover that computers are much more useful than typewriters.<br /><br />But images of his break-up continue to haunt him. With sappy music and cheesy dialogue.<br /><br />Andrew (Jacob Fishel) works at Wall Street with a bunch of phonies. He just recently got out of a brief stint in jail and is Contemplating Life Through Alcohol.<br /><br />The two frequent local bars and after one too many drinks, Jake and Andrew decide to embark on a road trip. First, via taxi. The New York cab driver gives them a free cab ride to Philadelphia if Jake just gives him his shoes. Lucky them. Second, Andrew goes to his mother's house to pick up a car so they can drive to the funeral of Andrew's father in Ohio.<br /><br />During the "road trip" part of the film, we get more insights about how Jake and Andrew view their empty, disillusioned lives. Andrew hates sucking up to the big guys on Wall Street. He just wants to be the kind of person he wants to be, man!<br /><br />There is a gas station scene where we are all supposed to believe that a young girl would be left alone at a gas station and give a ride to two grown men back to the middle of nowhere where their car is located. I think it's supposed to be comedic relief, but I'm not really buying it.<br /><br />When Jake and Andrew finally arrive in small-town Ohio, they attend the memorial. Andrew finally cracks and throws a tantrum in front of his father's friends. The next day, Andrew is ready to leave, but Jake decides to stay in the town to plan Andrew's father's funeral. Wait, doesn't Jake have to work? And seriously now, what kind of person arrives at a memorial, humiliates his dead father, and leaves all the details of his deceased father's funeral arrangements to his friend?<br /><br />No matter. Jake soon meets a waitress, Leslie (Rosemarie Dewitt), and they share an instant connection. Maybe offering to help Andrew's father's funeral arrangement was a good choice after all! But still!<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">How I Got Lost</span> is ultimately a story about dealing with grief and friendship. It's about trying to find what's important and what's not underneath the phony exterior of everyday situations. It's about confronting reality and moving forward. It's the kind of film that has been made and made again. The message is getting old, cliched, and predictable. You have to be quite a brilliant mind to be able to make an excellent film about "finding yourself" because it's been done to death. It's almost Mission Impossible.<br /><br />But it's also film with its heart in the right place. The performances are quite good--Stanford and Dewitt are lovely. But it's Fishel that manages to be warm, funny, tortured and interesting. But the film has serious pace issues--it's much too slow, drags too much, and doesn't seem to have any sort of end-point. It's a character piece, for sure, but the characters' motivations are so thin and incoherent that it's impossible to know where they're going. Yes, we want them to be happy again, but how? I wish I knew them better. <span style="font-weight: bold;">C-</span>Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-20080833878356085562010-08-08T08:18:00.000-07:002010-08-08T09:17:26.722-07:00Souls on a verge of a romantic breakdown<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaA8MGHGx6OxAZDv3cM0dzzqZnReLqlCSxqLrqagD626Htu-dlLeF4jop868tzDZzCIWhH2pzN5gxUGIG7kj-C3vDy0zFC5Xl2iXsCJPGX4LJcO4Cs6OmuCF4QDngdtJC9KQyJrPpUdB4/s1600/5-sophies-choice-meryl-streep-2.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 215px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaA8MGHGx6OxAZDv3cM0dzzqZnReLqlCSxqLrqagD626Htu-dlLeF4jop868tzDZzCIWhH2pzN5gxUGIG7kj-C3vDy0zFC5Xl2iXsCJPGX4LJcO4Cs6OmuCF4QDngdtJC9KQyJrPpUdB4/s320/5-sophies-choice-meryl-streep-2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5503073124584587474" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >MacNicol, Streep, and Kline sitting carelessly on a Brooklyn roof. Being romantic and stuff.</span><br /></div><br />Meryl Streep. <span style="font-style: italic;">Sophie's Choic</span>e. Keep freaking out about that performance but...<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Sophie's Choice</span> is an extraordinarily uneven film about the lives of three extraordinarily uneven characters.<br /><br />Stingo (Peter MacNicol) is a naive young man from the south with dreams of becoming a writer. He arrives in Brooklyn, New York in 1940s to fulfill that romantic dream.<br /><br />At his boarding house, he meets Nathan (Kevin Kline) and Sophie (Meryl Streep), a couple who is complex and fun-loving, volatile and exciting, chaotic and romantic. Nathan and Sophie are unlike anything Stingo has ever seen. They dress up on Sundays, have spontaneous trips to Coney Island, and impromptu celebrations in their room. The film, for that brief period, very much become the American version of <span style="font-style: italic;">Jules and Jim</span>.<br /><br />Stingo worships Nathan, a man who claims to be a biologist on the verge of a scientific breakthrough. But at the same time, Stingo falls for Sophie, a Polish Holocaust survivor who is more than meets the eye. Nathan, who suffers from periods of paranoia, begins to suspect an affair brewing between Stingo and Sophie.<br /><br />When Nathan becomes completely unreasonable, Sophie still stands by him. He saved her life upon her arrival to the U.S. He was there for her. She loves him and she knows that, deep down, he loves her, despite his angry accusations.<br /><br />More is revealed about Sophie's past in the flashback scenes--stories Sophie narrates to a curious Stingo. She was in a Nazi concentration camp and suffered extreme heartbreak. Memories that she could never, ever let go. Memories that made her who she is today.<br /><br />Except that the Sophie in the war and post-war scenes do not quite connect. Sophie makes similar decisions, thematically, and clings desperately to hope, but she is not a character who rapidly evolves. She, like all the dreamers of 1940s Brooklyn, is a hopeless romantic and has probably always been one. Yes, she suffered many unimaginable hardships, but there is little to indicate that she has changed into a stronger person who can and will stand on her own.<br /><br />Streep's performance in this film has become legendary. And yes, she is, indeed, very good, but not exactly "the best performance of all-time" material. She takes on a Polish accent, yes, but I have no idea whether or not it is authentic. But Sophie is not a passionate or admirable character. In fact, Sophie is surprisingly passive, dependent, and, in a way, a weak character who hopes for the best, but takes no action to assure the desired outcome. I understand there are many people like that, but here is a woman who has gone through so much and seem to have learned so little.<br /><br />The harrowing scene near the conclusion is also legendary. But that scene, while wonderfully directed, heartbreaking, and features a spectacular performance by the child actress (Jennifer Lawn) who portrays Sophie's daughter, comes much too out-of-blue to be considered a strong scene in the context of the film.<br /><br />Kline is full of enthusiasm and bursting with energy. His Nathan boasts of this primitive, romantic nature of a classic bohemian lifestyle. Nathan is an interesting character, but sometimes, it feels like the film just only scratched the surface of his poor, artistic soul. There is more about Nathan than meets the eye, and thanks to Kline, a glimmer of that is revealed.<br /><br />MacNicol's Stingo, the bland Nick to Nathan's adventurous Gatsby, is passive, boring, and the very last person I would like to hear this story from. Stingo wants to experience life, but he is so two-dimensional and blandly eager, that he comes off as childish and self-pitying. He writes a story about his mother's death and by Nathan's reaction in a moment of insanity, he seems to feel more sorrow for himself than his dead mother. That is Stingo in a neat little nutshell.<br /><br />The film, weakly woven together by director Alan J. Pakula, yet beautifully shot by Nesto Almendors and features a glorious score by Marvin Hamlisch, is a mixed bag of sorts. There are times where the film almost achieves what it hopes to achieve, which is a expose about the hopelessly romantic and their tortured lives, but the result is a barely beating heart of three hopeless, unfortunate souls who sought solace in the most questionable places. <span style="font-weight: bold;">C</span>Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-71480691448699857842010-07-22T11:52:00.000-07:002010-07-23T12:24:20.377-07:00Seinfeld vs. Friends vs. Frasier<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipJGf56G2rScwGqv4ERMkSLoKWAhSOvTDstXD96OtG4SCqF7-a2Q1MeU2O0cHWe5o-Ba-Ynv-pCbfeR2e1OuwmyDyXIPpuUhoADkpOKsm8ySlwRGb3G-ejaVRwUcmZqd1bcb1GiCoyx2g/s1600/20years.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 300px; height: 189px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipJGf56G2rScwGqv4ERMkSLoKWAhSOvTDstXD96OtG4SCqF7-a2Q1MeU2O0cHWe5o-Ba-Ynv-pCbfeR2e1OuwmyDyXIPpuUhoADkpOKsm8ySlwRGb3G-ejaVRwUcmZqd1bcb1GiCoyx2g/s320/20years.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5496936809952307122" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >30 Rock and The Office may be critical darlings, but are they Must-See TV material? They got nothing on the powerhouses that are Seinfeld, Friends, and Frasier. Just sayin'.</span><br /></div><br />When you're an unemployed recent high school graduate, like myself, you will most likely be spending your weekday nights watching syndicated reruns of <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends</span>, and <span style="font-style: italic;">Frasier </span>on your local FOX affiliate, instead of partying it up with booze and blowing your parents' money off at the local cineplex. Right? Yes, absolutely! Nineties sitcoms are so in!<br /><br />Moving on from socially acceptable norms, I want to talk about what I've been doing to occupy all the free time I have. I've been doing mostly nothing but mindlessly watching television and filling out applications for minimum wage employment. The former is much more enjoyable and a better topic for discussion.<br /><br />So every night from 9pm to 11pm, I watch <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends</span>, and <span style="font-style: italic;">Frasier</span>, in that order. It is arguably the most amazing two hours of comedy on television right now. In a way, it's almost like a time capsule that brings the golden age of NBC's Must-See TV to 2010. Unfortunately, this comparison would be much more clever if <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends</span>, and <span style="font-style: italic;">Frasier </span>ever aired on the same Thursday night (only <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends </span>and <span style="font-style: italic;">Frasier </span>did).<br /><br />I'm just living in the past and I'm not ashamed of it!<br /><br />It is only natural to compare these shows. In my world where nothing is ever fair, there is always a clear-cut winner.<br /><br />For anyone following my Twitter, they know I love the f--- out of <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld</span>. So there's already no competition. But I'll try to keep the discussion alive the best I can.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtAUDZee2arhfRIYeL5v1ZhzVh8MJleSZCj-xQDmBLM9LiAMxDVWyLKAeiIMIqYQ_7lfPA07G7vgwnUuUtoVSxGxdxDMerR3DFDbuP8DqfVAfOsloREUAYIJYNek0d_U81JZLsV78Ghdo/s1600/seinfeld.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 272px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtAUDZee2arhfRIYeL5v1ZhzVh8MJleSZCj-xQDmBLM9LiAMxDVWyLKAeiIMIqYQ_7lfPA07G7vgwnUuUtoVSxGxdxDMerR3DFDbuP8DqfVAfOsloREUAYIJYNek0d_U81JZLsV78Ghdo/s320/seinfeld.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5496936815887233490" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Greatest show ever...if you're part of the Baby Boomer Generation or Generation X. Or you're just part of it in spirit.</span></span><br /></div><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld </span>is one of the most original, unique, inventive sitcoms I've ever seen. In the last twelve years since it has gone off the air, no other show has had such a spectacular cultural impact or an eye so keen for clever social commentary. It relies on no reliable formula. It's completely unconventional. The characters are all bursts of wondrous comedic creativity and so brilliantly played by Jerry Seinfeld, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Michael Richards, and Jason Alexander (ROBBED SO BADLY FOR AN EMMY). It's so witty, so quotable, and almost always hysterical.<br /><br />Not only do I tune into <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld </span>at 9pm, but also at 7:30pm, and sometimes at 11pm, where they rerun the episode that aired at 9pm. There are some episodes that are so funny that they demand to be seen twice in one day.<br /><br />It hasn't always been like this, though. I used to find <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld </span>loud and obnoxious, unfunny and unamusing, and generally tasteless. But, for some absurd reason, I would always tell my fellow friends that I preferred <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld </span>over <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends</span>. I think that was the rebel inside of me at work, trying desperately to be different. But truthfully, as much as I enjoyed <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends</span>, I've always found it overrated--more on that later.<br /><br />I sympathized with <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld</span>, though, even though it's a show with complete and utter cultural relevance and is one of the most successful television sitcoms ever made. But I sympathized with it because my dear ol' Generation Y just didn't get it. I, for one, wished I did.<br /><br />That was just fate at work, of course, because after my numerous declarations of a preference for <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld </span>over <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends</span>, I actually began to enjoy some of the episodes that I would often catch while channel-surfing. (I guess this is a prime example of becoming what you say you are.) I remember thinking that "The Handicap Spot" and "The Bizzaro Jerry" are absolutely hilarious and brilliant. The episodes that truly got me hooked were "The Fusilli Jerry," "The Pitch," and "The Engagement." There was no turning back after seeing those episodes. The structure is brilliant--everything just ties together in the end, in the most unique, unpredictable way possible.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld </span>is notorious for being a self-labeled "show about nothing." And in a way, yes, George Costanza knew what he was talking about. But in the finale, George sums up the show perfectly by telling the NBC executives, "I really don't think so-called relationship humor is what this show is all about." And surprisingly, George is once again correct. While <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends </span><span>is </span>about marriages, divorces, hook-ups, break-ups, pregnancies, babies, and other genuinely emotional life events, <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld </span><span>is </span>about muffin tops, pudding skins, soup, man-hands, puffy shirts, big salads, and ultimately, itself.<br /><br />In <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld</span>'s most thoughtful seventh season where George--the jackass, the loser, the Average Joe--gets engaged to a relatively decent woman, yet he spends the rest of the season trying to get out of the engagement so he could pursue other women. The show takes the entire relationship formula and throws it out the window.<br /><br />But that is the core of Seinfeld: it's about selfish, miserable people whose plans often get destroyed by karma. That's why Jerry and Elaine were never meant to be, though they were perfect for each other (I'm not the only fan who thinks this, right?). But the characters are incredibly human and surprisingly warm (at times) to those in their inner circle.<br /><br />Jerry Seinfeld said it best: "There's a great warmth beneath the surface of these characters. Just the fact that we forgive each other shows you that."<br /><br />Those are all the qualities that made <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld </span>click with me, and perhaps the 76 million people that watched the finale (and the many that hated it). The show addressed things that are universal and often made it one giant inside joke for the fans that tuned in week after week (and oh how I wished I could have experienced that).<br /><br />However, it's also a beautifully nihilistic reflection of the minituae. While some believed the show epitomized New York, it's a fine representation of misery, frustration, and disappointment from any part of the world. And there's the absurd humor ready to be dissected from it all.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span>There will never be another show like <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld</span>. Some people believe <span style="font-style: italic;">Curb Your Enthusiasm</span> is the present-day <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld </span>and it's definitely comparable, being the brainchild of <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld </span>co-creator, Larry David, but it's a little too formulaic to be "better" than <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld</span>.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld </span>is inimitable. And I even liked the finale.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7iAIpAkjbDWC70MfkkX2rJbWzynYu3GxH1strS_0kc5jNF95AMKhJ3jIgU7I9s0a4esjwGm7WWOksFkMDjTg4tZbhUKCEHqd4uYmWmIqKQqyu83YpVdtSR-OFIJFf5m2-Cf_sxvGQuPo/s1600/friends.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 274px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7iAIpAkjbDWC70MfkkX2rJbWzynYu3GxH1strS_0kc5jNF95AMKhJ3jIgU7I9s0a4esjwGm7WWOksFkMDjTg4tZbhUKCEHqd4uYmWmIqKQqyu83YpVdtSR-OFIJFf5m2-Cf_sxvGQuPo/s320/friends.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5496936819102146178" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >Greatest show ever if you're a fifteen year old girl. Just kidding!</span><br /></div><br />Speaking of imitation, I believe that every generation needs their own <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends</span>. I mean this is as a compliment. I believe that every decade or so, <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends </span>should be remade. So while <span style="font-style: italic;">How I Met Your Mother </span>is technically <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends</span>, its unoriginal premise is not offensive because every generation needs a <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends</span>! (But honestly, I can't care for <span style="font-style: italic;">How I Met Your Mother</span> because I've already seen most of the last ten seasons of <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends</span>. Does anyone else feel that way too? Or do you think <span style="font-style: italic;">How I Met Your Mother</span>'s quirks, wits, and Neil Patrick Harris make up for the fact that it's basically a pseudo <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends </span>rip-off?)<br /><br />I have a love-hate relationship with <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends</span>, as you might have guessed. <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends </span>is the first sitcom I fell in love with. My mom used to watch it in syndication and on Thursday nights on NBC. I would watch it with her and I thought it was relatively funny and cool because when you're ten, funny and cool pretty much makes a show gold.<br /><br />Unlike <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends </span>is a certified "relationships show." The show often hinges on whether or not Ross (David Schwimmer) and Rachel (Jennifer Aniston) get together in the end or when will the whole group find out about Chandler (Matthew Perry) and Monica's (Courteney Cox) secret relationship, etc. It's a show that centers its whole existence on the idea of life's great emotional events.<br /><br />But that's exactly why it's popular. That's why it's still many of my friends' favorite show ever. I get it!<br /><br />Watching <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends </span>as an eighteen-year-old, it's like watching the show with a brand new pair of eyes. I notice the infantile humor, the unacknowledged, uncalculated, accidental emotional immaturity of the characters (<span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld</span>'s characters can be immature, but <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends</span>' characters are just plain stupid sometimes), the unbelievably moronic tendencies of its male characters (I know girls like it when they feel dominant towards the opposite sex, but do you really like guys who just don't have a clue?), and the emotional manipulation. <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends </span>feels like a chick flick exclusively made for fifteen year old girls.<br /><br />Yet I feel incredible warmth when I hear the iconic "I'll Be There For You" theme song and see the cast frolicking in the fountain. I feel completely nostalgic whenever I watch an episode because here is a show I used to love--it's like visiting an old friend.<br /><br />I saw "The One Hundredth" the other day and there was that moment in the end where Phoebe (Lisa Kudrow) looks at her triplets and tells them how much she wishes she could see them everyday. And while I may hate <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends </span>for its blindly cartoonish, immature antics, there are certainly some very sweet moments that just hits all the right notes.<br /><br />I remember watching the finale live back in 2004. It is one of the most crowd-pleasing television finales I've seen. While the <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld </span>finale remains controversial to this day, the <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends </span>finale left its fans with just the right amount of smiles and tears. I knew twelve-year-old me choked up at the sight of the empty apartment. At the time, I already spent the past three seasons watching <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends </span>every Thursday night at 8pm. I actually feel chills just thinking about the last scenes of <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends</span>.<br /><br />Call it emotional manipulation or pulling of the heartstrings or whatever you want, but <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends</span> has a damn good finale, which makes watching the reruns more satisfying because I know everything will turn out alright.<br /><br />But then again, there's <span style="font-style: italic;">Joey</span>, starring Matt LeBlanc. Which I find underrated, but still relatively lame.<br /><br />Some say that there are two different types of people in the world: Those who prefer <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends</span> and those who prefer <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld</span>. But I wonder if there is a certain type that prefers <span style="font-style: italic;">Frasier</span>, or is <span style="font-style: italic;">Frasier </span>the one show that unites all...?<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqzgDC7yotMgLy1P4KbLNbns6lG_JBk5FGAgwkcNvPqOjwTzW0lIvHiXSlVfekFz-d1yZGffRGUKSCWUBomjmx-KfIVfhPsV2ZMypCc1PiKFvjSXlP2xhixm5iKw9wpNPCtdG2TdH3kyk/s1600/Frasier.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqzgDC7yotMgLy1P4KbLNbns6lG_JBk5FGAgwkcNvPqOjwTzW0lIvHiXSlVfekFz-d1yZGffRGUKSCWUBomjmx-KfIVfhPsV2ZMypCc1PiKFvjSXlP2xhixm5iKw9wpNPCtdG2TdH3kyk/s320/Frasier.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5496936824726001362" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Greatest show ever if you're a senior citizen. Or if you appreciate wisdom. Or both.</span></span><br /></div><br />I just started watching <span style="font-style: italic;">Frasier </span>a month ago, so I'm not a <span style="font-style: italic;">Frasier </span>Expert yet.<br /><br />Up until recently, I thought <span style="font-style: italic;">Frasier </span>was a show made exclusively for old intellectuals who read Proust, Shakespeare, and Joyce on a daily basis. I've never seen an entire episode and every time it came on, I just switched the channel immediately. Well, I recently decided to give it a try and thought it was just hilarious. So lesson learned: Never judge a book by its cover.<br /><br />While the so-called warmth in <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends </span>can feel shallow and superficial at times, the writing in <span style="font-style: italic;">Frasier </span>is so crisp, so clever, so witty, so touching that no wonder it's one of the most awarded sitcoms of all-time. While the humor is intellectual, it's not inaccessible to the ordinary person.<br /><br />The sibling rivalry between Frasier and Niles Crane is often hysterical and they are even more hysterical when they have to work together. I was watching "The Show Must Go Off" the other day and the chemistry between Kelsey Grammer and David Hyde Pierce (who, along with Michael Richards, stole all of Jason Alexander's Emmys, but who can blame him?) is unbelievable. Not only do they have an uncanny resemblance, they really are convincing as brothers. And, of course, David Jacobi is excellent as an ex-Shakespearean theater actor turned sour.<br /><br />The on-and-off relationship between Niles and physical therapist Daphne Moon (Jane Leeves) really is the sweetest thing. While Ross and Rachel may be the king and queen of the television on-and-off relationship of recent times, Niles and Daphne are so endearing, so sweet that Ross and Rachel can't even hold a candle to their relationship. Niles' nerdy longing for Daphne is funny and heartbreaking, wonderful and romantic.<br /><br />The rest of the supporting cast--Peri Gilpin and John Mahoney--are a charming pleasure.<br /><br />I can definitely see <span style="font-style: italic;">Frasier </span>as a no-contest favorite in the future, but for now, I am just enjoying the journey of spending my weeknights with these wonderful, funny characters.<br /><br />But right now, <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld </span>is the clear-cut winner. Its warmth is subtle. Its frustrations and comedy are blatant and endless. For a show that lets all romantic relationships slip through its fingers, it's a show I relate to and feel for the most. It's the show I feel the most affinity for. And I'm not even a lifelong New Yorker, though I <span style="font-style: italic;">was </span>born there. That must be why.<br /><br />So I direct this question to those who trespass: <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends</span>, or <span style="font-style: italic;">Frasier</span>? And why?Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com26tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-3574026659365852672010-06-25T12:20:00.000-07:002010-06-25T14:50:15.451-07:00Love, loneliness, and the New India<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcSnfMWlJWQ-Q6jFYcUi6GxHluiVEiF2vPO0KQk1jlGMHmEaUzs9ba6MD2yysLYDGdz3_5kEd1F2klI3QDu_sm6UNOQr-cNYsLTQwk9nuVkgk9tvbzTurwXyuvaLHSRP6BU15yANLKWcg/s1600/dch10kw.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 192px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcSnfMWlJWQ-Q6jFYcUi6GxHluiVEiF2vPO0KQk1jlGMHmEaUzs9ba6MD2yysLYDGdz3_5kEd1F2klI3QDu_sm6UNOQr-cNYsLTQwk9nuVkgk9tvbzTurwXyuvaLHSRP6BU15yANLKWcg/s320/dch10kw.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5486827113419843826" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">They are just going to dance all day and not give a damn about what you think. Welcome to the new India.</span></span><br /></div><br />Unless you have lived in the cave for the past several years and/or have absolutely no knowledge of modern Indian culture, I would assume that you are familiar with Bollywood, India's lively answer to Hollywood.<br /><br /><span>For those who are unfamiliar with Bollywood conventions,</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> Slumdog Millionaire</span> is sort of like the typical Bollywood movies. It has the fairy tale romance, the semi-admirable hero, and the endearing dance scene in the end. So, still very much inspired by the conventions that has made Bollywood such a crowd-pleasing success, not only in India, but world-wide. Naturally, the Danny Boyle film would go on to win an undeserved Best Picture award at the Academy Awards because unlike the usual Bollywood film, <span style="font-style: italic;">Slumdog Millionaire</span> contains political undertones.<br /><br />But Bollywood itself seriously caught my attention when I was channel-surfing and a local Indian program was counting down to Aamir Khan's best movies. I've NEVER heard of Aamir Khan before in my life, but I was soon informed that Aamir Khan is one of the most popular, highest-paid actors in India. My Indian and Hindi-speaking friends all happen to be in love with him and his movies. To them, he is not only a mere actor, director, or celebrity--he's a true artist who has brought the nation together through the wonders of great cinematic entertainment. Okay, that may be an exaggeration, but you get what I mean.<br /><br />One of my friends recommended <span style="font-style: italic;">Dil Chahta Hai</span> (English translation: <span style="font-style: italic;">The Heart Desires</span>). Well, "recommended" is too direct a word. I was going through the films featured on the Khan countdown and <span style="font-style: italic;">Dil Chahta Hai</span> seemed interesting. My friend said she loved it and even offered to watch it with me. (I turned her down.) But she, and many others, raved by Khan's most recent film, <span style="font-style: italic;">3 Idiots</span>, which is not yet available on DVD. So <span style="font-style: italic;">Dil Chahta Hai</span> had to do. Besides,<span style="font-style: italic;"> Dil Chahta Hai</span>, like <span style="font-style: italic;">3 Idiots</span>, is also about three friends, so it couldn't be that much of a stretch.<br /><br />So last night, I had my first taste of a real Bollywood movie. <span style="font-style: italic;">Dil Chahta Hai</span> (isn't that kind of fun to say? even though if you have no idea if you're pronouncing it right or not?) about three best friends from middle-class Indian families. They're well-educated, modern, and looking for love. LOOKING FOR LOVE is a big theme, here, because most of the characters fall deeply in love with someone very quickly, even the guy who constantly claims that he doesn't believe in love. Just sayin'.<br /><br />The film is told in a flashback. There has been some conflict in the friendship between these three friends, but it is not revealed until later. I feel like I am led to believe that the conflict was something very life-changing and terrible, but it is then revealed to be something that's not really a big deal? And the fact that they got into such a major conflict over it is kind of stupid? OOPS.<br /><br />Anyway...<br /><br />Sameer (Saif Ali Khan), who works at his father's computer company, falls in and out of love every two weeks. After disastrous break-ups from a total bitch and a conniving Swiss (also a bitch), he reluctantly goes along with his family's plans for a traditional arranged marriage. To his surprise, he falls in love with the candidate, Pooja (Sonali Kulkarni). But Pooja, as a modern Indian woman, is very against the idea of a traditional arranged marriage because she is already in love with another man. Sameer tries to convince her otherwise.<br /><br />Sid (Akshaye Khanna), an artist, falls hard for an older, divorced woman, Tara (Dimple Kapadia), an interior designer who understands him. This romance creates some tension in Sid's life because of the disapproval from his friends and his mother.<br /><br />Then there's Akash (Aamir Khan), the spoiled son of a wealthy family. He doesn't believe in love. At his college graduation party, he publicly proposes his love in jest to a very beautiful young woman, Shalini (Preity Zinta), but her finance, Rohit (Ayub Khan) takes offense to that. Months later, Akash, who is on a business assignment, and Shalini, who is meeting her uncle, meet on a flight to Sydney and form a bond. This relationship makes Akash question whether or not love exists.<br /><br />Set to an energetic, fun soundtrack, with an awesome musical scene near the beginning, <span style="font-style: italic;">Dil Chahta Hai</span>, for the most part, is a decent film, but could have been much better.<br /><br />Sameer and Sid have the more interesting storylines. While Sameer's happy ending is tied in a nice bow, the ending to Sid's story feels like a cop-out. In fact, it feels that the film sacrificed good storytelling for the two other stories, which are much more interesting, to showcase the obnoxiously bland, predictable romance between Askash and Shalini. That storyline just drags to no end.<br /><br />The film's attempts to be wise about the elusive subject of love feels shallow, superficial, and silly. A thirteen year old could have made those kind of observations.<br /><br />But do you know what's the absolute worst thing about this movie? IT IS A THREE-HOUR ROMANTIC COMEDY. OMG. NOT COOL. I told my friend about this and apparently, it's totally natural for a Bollywood romantic comedy to be three hours long because of all the singing and dancing. <span style="font-style: italic;">Come on, really?</span><br /><br />There are so many things that could have been cut that aren't musical scenes! They add nothing to the plot! There is the really long vacation montage of the three friends having fun! And it's not fun if I'm not physically there! Then there's that really long montage where Akash is feeling lonely (the lyrics in the song in the scene tells us so) because he realizes that he must confront his new-found beliefs in love!<br /><br />As charismatic as Aamir Khan is, his co-stars are equally charismatic and deserves equal screen time. Despite the actors look much too old to play recent college graduates, they are quite convincing as the typical clueless, naive youth that exist in pretty much any culture. Saif Ali Khan is very funny as the goofy, lovesick young man and Akshaye Khanna delivers a wonderfully touching performance as a romantic artist who falls into the traps of a socially unacceptable romance.<br /><br />However, <span style="font-style: italic;">Dil Chahta Hai</span> does present the world with a different image of what the new India is. I'm not an expert on India, so I don't know how many Indians actually live so comfortably and, may I add, carelessly. While it may have been romanticized and commercialized into one marketable cinematic package, there's no doubt that Bollywood is a rising force in the film industry. Director Farhan Akhtar does a fine job weaving the stories together for the most part and cinematographer Ravi K. Chandran gives the film and its various locations (Mumbai, Goa, Sydney) a crisp, fresh look.<br /><br />But did I mention this film is THREE HOURS LONG? And it's basically a ROMANTIC COMEDY? And its storylines are divided unevenly and some even ends sloppily? And how annoyingly predictable it is? And how its lessons about love are rather idiotic and cliched?<br /><br />If Dil Chahta Hai ended around the two hours mark, it would have been a fairly enjoyable film about love and friendship in the new, modern India. But since it decided to drag on for another hour, it gave itself an opportunity to be extremely flawed and sloppy, yet its sentimental, feel-good mentality still stands. Fortunately for you, there are other sentimental, feel-good films that doesn't take over three hours of your life. <span style="font-weight: bold;">C+</span>Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-10042588495333419902010-05-30T14:58:00.000-07:002010-05-30T17:59:33.257-07:00If I Were a Rich Man<span style="font-style: italic;">Andrew is hosting a musical blog-a-thon at his awesome blog, <a href="http://encorentertainmnt.blogspot.com/">Encore's World of Film & TV</a>. He sent me an e-mail several weeks ago informing me about it and due to some healthy procrastination, it took me a while, but here it is...</span><br /><br />Bruce Springsteen once described hearing Bob Dylan's "Like a Rolling Stone" for the first time as "somebody'd kicked open the door to your mind," and while I can't agree more, that's also precisely the way I feel about <span style="font-style: italic;">Fiddler on the Roof</span>.<br /><br />Underneath all that moronic suburban glitz I grew up with, I always had great respect for traditional values of my own and others. They may be wrong or right, but they exist. It's all very inevitable and very much in need of toleration.<br /><br />That said, <span style="font-style: italic;">Fiddler</span> is often tragically forgotten by movie musical enthusiasts.<br /><br />While its professions of faith, family, and Jewish traditions may not be the rule of thumb of twenty-first century cynicism, there is a overwhelming warmth to Teyve's (Chaim Topol), the protagonist, eagerness to keep on living the way life has always been and when he realizes that life cannot always simply <span style="font-style: italic;">be</span>, it's a moment of the cold, hard truth that is worthy of sympathy.<br /><br />There are few films that combine humor and drama as brilliantly as <span style="font-style:italic;">Fiddler </span>does. Teyve's conversations with God are funny, simply because they are so honest and so <span style="font-style: italic;">human</span>. When Teyve rejects her daughter for marrying a Russian Orthodox, it's particularly heartbreaking because Teyve loves her so much, yet he feels a duty to preserve a tradition he cares so deeply about. He's not always right, but I feel for him.<br /><br />The film is ultimately about love. The love between a father and his daughter. The love between a husband and his wife. The love between two young lovers. The love between a man and God--and that's touching, whether you believe in God or not. There is just something so pure and simple about the musical's message about love, and it's a shame that modern films seem to over stuff the love message with a glow of shallow boxes of chocolates and bouquets of roses.<br /><br />However, it's also a film about tradition crackling under the pressure of a escalating revolution. A revolution that is plagued by the sorrows of destruction and injustice. There's definite cynicism in the film, especially when homes are being destroyed.<br /><br />Yet, in the end, there is hope. It's not overdone. It's not ridiculous. It's an authentic feeling of hope. People are forgiven. The future is full of endless possibilities. The film doesn't shove sentimentalism, but makes its point in a rather quiet, touching way.<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span>Director Norman Jewison's<span style="font-style: italic;"> </span>musical numbers are not splashy, technicolor extravaganzas, but they are nevertheless electrifying. Topol demands attention. The camera is drawn to his powerful persona. This is most apparent when Topol must break the fourth wall--he's traditional and extremely personable.<br /><br />And I'll leave with Topol's legendary "If I Were a Rich Man" scene:<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RBHZFYpQ6nc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RBHZFYpQ6nc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-25578071418753259652010-05-23T15:11:00.000-07:002010-05-23T23:22:40.978-07:00Bees in New York<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoPigoxkwvwECHDsCRdnISbAY_yeu8TzpEy84eF8gkh67LSBT4lOuh85A6xcxwJgEOUOxIcmIcDuq33mZW5znJalvbmII6-9Z1Iqe4jhfiLX6V9OocEc4QCQr-RmXwlo1cJHi7DuDZr74/s1600/bee-movie.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 173px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoPigoxkwvwECHDsCRdnISbAY_yeu8TzpEy84eF8gkh67LSBT4lOuh85A6xcxwJgEOUOxIcmIcDuq33mZW5znJalvbmII6-9Z1Iqe4jhfiLX6V9OocEc4QCQr-RmXwlo1cJHi7DuDZr74/s320/bee-movie.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5474614557454818290" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Almost expected Simon & Garfunkel's "The Sound of Silence" before this happened. I mean, really now?</span></span><br /><br /></div>For anyone who has been following me on <a href="http://twitter.com/mharcy">Twitter</a>, I've been frequently fangirling <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld</span> and watching as much of the reruns as possible on television syndication because that's the best way for <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld </span>newbies to become accustomed to <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld</span>. It's pretty much on television four or five times a day.<br /><br />I've never quite thought about it before, but it is arguably the greatest American sitcom ever. It's well-written, funny, compulsively re-watchable, wonderfully acted, and all that nothing has directly contributed to the nihilist and existentialist thought in pop culture's mechanical consciousness. <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld </span>is a grand "f--- you" statement to and about life but at its best, an oddly profound and instantly relatable collection of scenes from the awkward simplicities of living and breathing.<br /><br />However, <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld </span>is woefully underrated in my demographic. While I did not grow up watching the new episodes, I did grow up watching the reruns and I'm sure others have seen it during their moments of channel-surfing. And it is certainly an acquired taste: Until one could actually get in touch with one's feelings of misery, <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld </span>will seem like a cruel, unsophisticated reflection of smug, selfish, superficial New Yorkers.<br /><br />Yet everyone prefer <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends</span>, which usually plays before or after Seinfeld on a one-hour or two-hour sitcom rerun block. Well, I actually love <span style="font-style: italic;">Friends</span>, since I grew up watching it on a regular basis and saw the last three seasons when it was still on NBC. Yeah, I, too, would love to be one of the six, frolicking in a fountain and being cute and cheerful all the time, but as I know and you know, sometimes karma is a vengeful, inescapable cop.<br /><br />This leads me in to the DreamWorks animated family movie, <span style="font-style: italic;">Bee Movie</span>, which is honestly a ridiculous film that I would have never bothered to watch if I were not a <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld </span>fan. While I do realize Larry David is the main brainchild behind <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld</span>, Jerry Seinfeld has also co-written some memorable episodes and is a gifted comedian and, in my humble opinion, a fine actor. Seinfeld co-wrote, co-produced, and voiced Barry B. Benson, the hero of<span style="font-style: italic;"> Bee Movie</span>.<br /><br />I am sorry to say that <span style="font-style: italic;">Bee Movie</span> seems to take its inspiration from the weakest episodes of the ADD-induced world of <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld's</span> final two seasons (after Larry David left the show). It is a weird animated feature about a bee who recently graduated from college and has to find a lifelong job. As he explores the possibilities, he encounters a piece of the real world, the <span style="font-style: italic;">human </span>world, I should say. He realizes that humans steal honey from humans and decides to sue the human race, with the help of a lovely florist. This all ends on a rather absurd, pseudo-socialist message and makes me wonder how the hell any child is supposed to enjoy the film.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Bee Movie</span> reminds me of another semi-obnoxious DreamWorks product, <span style="font-style: italic;">Shark Tale</span>, which is also another star-studded animated feature which boasts a voice cast that range from Will Smith to Martin Scorsese.<br /><br />I don't personally know anyone who has seen <span style="font-style: italic;">Bee Movie</span>, but I have a desire to have a discussion about it. <span style="font-style: italic;">Bee Movie</span> has almost everything I dislike about some modern animated movies, aside from its unattractive animation. I can't say I hated it because I did laugh once or twice and I do praise its courageous appeal to the often loopy possibilities of animation, but I did hate how it tried so damn hard to appeal to the adult masses with self-consciously neurotic <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld</span>-esque dialogue and pop culture references.<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span>In fact,<span style="font-style: italic;"> Bee Movie</span> is dressed to the nines with pop culture references that are amusing, but rarely laugh-out-loud hilarious or even necessary. This all starts with the title itself. Ha-ha?<span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br /><br />Here we have Ray Liotta honey, a Sting cameo (get it?), a send-up to <span style="font-style: italic;">The Graduate</span> and the downfall of the Saddam Hussein statue, a rather mean-spirited scene where Winnie-the-Pooh gets tranquilized, blatant sex and incest jokes, a creepy man-bee-woman love triangle, a possible sociopath, a Larry King cameo, and many other things that are borderline creepy and eye-roll inducing.<br /><br />This makes me wonder how animated movies sometimes try really hard to cater to both children and adults, <span style="font-style: italic;">especially </span>DreamWorks. I've heard some fantastic things about <span style="font-style: italic;">How to Train Your Dragon</span>, which I haven't seen, but I've seen many previous DreamWorks animated features, and they are over-the-top with pop culture references that adults probably aren't even going to care for and young children will simply not understand. The beauty of Disney and Pixar is that they rely on the old-fashioned mechanisms of good ol' storytelling and great animation and in the end, there's a wonderful movie to be cherished by audiences of all ages.<br /><br />I winced and squirmed throughout <span style="font-style: italic;">Bee Movie</span>, though I do realize that it is ultimately a good-intentioned animated family comedy about the benefits of working together. However, being a fan only goes so far. <span style="font-weight: bold;">C</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Discussion:</span> 1) What do you think about supposedly family-friendly animated movies that tries to cater to both children and adults? 2) Have you ever watched a movie you wouldn't usually watch just because it's somewhat related to something you love?</span>Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-58071353256935029882010-04-24T22:11:00.000-07:002010-04-24T23:30:45.481-07:00Astonishing visual triumph, but what was that?<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8c0Y6uaNhkUT8XP0kXcbvjgVYRNQNcnO5v38FKznQW3JjcWuLle_NnUUooIWOF_JPJ1eZOVV3E5PG5ZwIIp1zRukLmULZXoVo7VM9S6E-yO-52811y52lE7DRRl6pr9DZ5-yr2Ss4MFY/s1600/2001.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 192px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8c0Y6uaNhkUT8XP0kXcbvjgVYRNQNcnO5v38FKznQW3JjcWuLle_NnUUooIWOF_JPJ1eZOVV3E5PG5ZwIIp1zRukLmULZXoVo7VM9S6E-yO-52811y52lE7DRRl6pr9DZ5-yr2Ss4MFY/s320/2001.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5463938630290381586" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">A journey with the machines. What horror.</span></span><br /></div><br />After viewing<span style="font-style: italic;"> 2001: A Space Odyssey</span>, I had several options: 1) Pretend I loved it and made up my own interpretations of what I thought the film meant. 2) Pretend I liked it and talk about how interesting the entire puzzling experience was. 3) Just say I thought it was boring and confusing and put on a bulletproof vest.<br /><br />Well, I have a confession to make...<br /><br />I will go with option three. I don't understand the greatness of Stanley Kubrick's so-called science fiction masterpiece. Yes, I realize that it's one of the most aesthetically gorgeous films ever made, with a classical soundtrack that I completely adore, but it is also one of the slowest, most sparse films I've ever seen, which I guess must be the point, if there is a point at all.<br /><br />Of course, there is also the option of re-watching it. Not so soon, though. My brain is still trying to recovering from the massive what-the-bleeps I experienced throughout the entire film.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Spoilers ahead:</span> The film begins with a couple of apes. They go seemingly batshit because of their newfound intelligence. There goes the story of the dawn of man. Jump cut into space. Adventure ensues. They find this monolith that the apes saw. It's loud and has unimaginable transformative powers.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Spoilers continue:</span> Eighteen months later, these astronauts are traveling to Jupiter on a mission. The whole spaceship is controlled by robot HAL 9000. Hal is completely fascinating, though, despite the fact that he's a glowing, talking iPod-shaped antagonist. But all good things must end, which is probably why Hal gets DISCONNECTED half an hour before the movie ends. Which means there is half an hour more of this film without Hal. Then this astronaut travels through different colored lights, I guess. He becomes old, then becomes a fetus, and then becomes a gigantic, floating baby. The movie ends.<br /><br />I think I'm missing something. No, I'm <span style="font-style: italic;">definitely </span>missing something. I looked up different interpretations of the film and, yeah, I knew it was about life and death and all that good stuff. Some say the book is a good source for answers. But the film itself is certainly a long, methodical explanation for what could be summed up in one good paragraph instead of long scenes of pointless visual supremacy.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><br /><br /></span><a href="http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19970327/REVIEWS08/401010362/1023">Roger Ebert's 1997 review </a>does an excellent job at explaining the enduring wonders of <span style="font-style: italic;">2001</span>, but I continue to feel emotionally disconnected and disengaged about the film. Everyone scene and shot seemed to last forever. I still didn't turn it off, though. I wanted to see what would happen next. My curiosity is rather masochistic.<br /><br />Though I'm all for art and philosophy. Just wished I understood them better.<br /><br />Let's talk about this. It's therapy time. Please explain why this iconic science fiction film is deservingly revered. Or someone out there can be a kindred spirit.Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com20tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-2285744125081915172010-04-11T16:28:00.000-07:002010-04-14T21:40:51.933-07:00You can't handle the star power<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoHiJk42nxMmXlcBNMMkjV8zn8pDj3Iql1MdWiAdTl2Mnv4_giU9Taazj6YWlzyyPhpmH60_Ip0LxXv5k5prkcEhZX3f-t2CMaS6crQ7yTe4g4MCIs-KaaVBd9HfP9_EsHT7Ip3PpTvP4/s1600/afgm001.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 214px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoHiJk42nxMmXlcBNMMkjV8zn8pDj3Iql1MdWiAdTl2Mnv4_giU9Taazj6YWlzyyPhpmH60_Ip0LxXv5k5prkcEhZX3f-t2CMaS6crQ7yTe4g4MCIs-KaaVBd9HfP9_EsHT7Ip3PpTvP4/s320/afgm001.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5459044366021698658" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Cruise, Moore, and Pollak stare into the legal abyss. Serious business.</span><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><br />A Few Good Men</span> has numerous flaws, but I am willing to overlook each and every one of them because of how incredibly entertaining and energetic the film is.<br /></div><br />Directed by Rob Reiner, who always manages to make films with such an endearing old-fashioned flair, this film represents the bare bones of what makes a conventional court drama riveting. Yes, it's entirely too predictable for a film of its nature, which is perhaps due to the structurally faulty script by Aaron Sorkin, yet the journey to the explicit revelation (that most capable audiences are fully aware of by the time that it is actually revealed) is surprisingly intense and enjoyable.<br /><br />Though the script is structurally flawed, Sorkin's dialogue is consistently brilliant. The characters speak a language that is witty, biting, and wonderfully true to who they are and what they believe in.<br /><br />Lt. Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) is a recent Harvard Law School graduate working in the U.S. Navy. He is assigned to defend two Marines accused of murdering a fellow Marine at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base because of his reputation for arranging plea bargins. Kaffee is assited by his co-counsel, Sam Weinberg (Kevin Pollak), who hopes to carry as little responsibility as possible.<br /><br />Lt. Commander JoAnne Galloway (Demi Moore), who originally wanted the case, is instead assigned as the case's lead counsel, much to her dismay. But as time passes, Galloway begins to gain some respect for Kaffee and see beyond his razor-sharp cockiness. While Moore may not have been well-suited for the role, her unquestionable chemistry with Cruise, as shown in the scene where she awkwardly asks him out to dinner (no, this is not a unnecessarily romance, though it clearly could have been), complements the film extraordinarily well.<br /><br />Col. Nathan Jessep (Jack Nicholson), the commanding officer of the two Marines, is a frightening force of nature that is almost impossible to reckon with. He believes in protecting his country and is serious about his duties, yet he relishes the power he has rightfully earned. Nicholson, who has limited screen-time, plays Jessep with a devilish edge and slyness that only Nicholson seem to possess. And, of course, there is that harrowing quote near the end of the film...<br /><br />Kevin Bacon, Kiefer Sutherland, K.T. Walsh also deliver strong performances in small, but significant roles.<br /><br />But here is a quintessential nineties film that shows the very essence of star power. An epic battle of persuasion. There is so much high-charged energy radiating from the actors that the film becomes more than a typical courtroom drama. In fact, it's as thrilling as a quality summer blockbuster.<br /><br />Cruise is particularly excellent here in a lead role that shows off his best qualities as an actor; he manages to give an arrogant hotshot a load of boyish vulnerability and charm, especially in the heart-to-heart conversation Kaffee has with his co-counsel. Kaffee's desperation to live up to his father's name is cliched, yet touching and effective as played by Cruise.<br /><br />However, the modern film industry no longer depend on star power. Star power, which has been endlessly discussed, is a concept of yesteryear. While big stars are still a valuable asset to any film trying to get financing, it is no longer the primary ingredient to a box-office hit or Oscar winner. Recent box-office moneymakers are not led by an ensemble of big stars, but by innovative technology, word-of-mouth, and a captivating story. As it should be. But I miss the glorious days where star power made a film a must-see, though I bet a viewing of <span style="font-style: italic;">Ocean's Twelve </span>strongly discourages that mindset.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">A Few Good Men</span> made me nostalgic for a time where an all-star cast was a prominent subgenre, though that subgenre has long since evaporated into pure silliness. I realize that this is perhaps a good thing, but I sure loved it while it lasted.<br /><br />While <span style="font-style: italic;">A Few Good Men</span> is admittedly contrived and flawed, its high-wire entertainment value is undeniable. I ignored some of its ambiguities and the obviousness of the inevitable revelation so I could sit back and embrace its awesome cast and stunning genuineness. <span style="font-weight: bold;">A</span>Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-53834730990750634662010-04-08T18:39:00.000-07:002010-04-08T19:38:54.850-07:00Teen Movie Trailer Showdown: Eclipse vs. TwelveSince it's spring break, I have more time to spend my days viewing movie trailers that are relevant to the near-future of my generation.<br /><br /><object width="400" height="243"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VNjyjAN60Xg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VNjyjAN60Xg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="400" height="243"></embed></object><br /><br />I just finished viewing the trailer to <span style="font-style: italic;">Eclipse.</span> Is anyone kind of annoyed that Taylor Lautner tells Kristen Stewart that he's going to fight until <span style="font-style: italic;">her </span>heart stops beating? I mean, shouldn't he fight until <span style="font-style: italic;">his </span>heart stop beating? If fighting means keeping her alive?<br /><br />And is anyone kind of annoyed that neither Taylor Lautner or Robert Pattinson has enough charisma to burn up the screen in a swoon-worthy way? Yeah, I'm sure they go to the gym and work out enough to keep their jobs, but I don't feel any grand magnetism radiating off either of these boys.<br /><br />Okay, whatever, girls. I didn't even bother to see <span style="font-style: italic;">New Moon</span>, which I'm sure is a great romance about the kind of life-or-death supernatural love triangles typical teenage girls can easily relate to. And Kristen Stewart, I'm sure, is great eye candy, too.<br /><br /><object width="400" height="243"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xq_JoJiB7KM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xq_JoJiB7KM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="400" height="243"></embed></object><br /><br />There is also the new trailer to <span style="font-style: italic;">Twelve</span>, a small film that premiered at Sundance to mostly negative reviews. It is directed by BISTF favorite, Joel Schumacher, who also made the unforgettably hysterical (and oddly touching) <span style="font-style: italic;">St. Elmo's Fire</span> and is the brainchild behind the riveting hot mess that is <span style="font-style: italic;">Batman & Robin</span>. However, not to ignore his legitimately finer works, which includes <span style="font-style: italic;">The Phantom of the Opera</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">Batman Forever</span>.<br /><br />I spotted the <span style="font-style: italic;">Twelve </span>at a <span style="font-style: italic;">Gossip Girl</span> LiveJournal community because it stars my favorite Upper East Side deadbeat, Chace Crawford. While in <span style="font-style: italic;">Gossip Girl</span>, Chace Crawford plays a clean-shaven slut, in <span style="font-style: italic;">Twelve</span>, he plays a not-so-clean shaven Upper East Side drug-dealer who seems to be constantly haunted by a moderately laughable narration by Kiefer Sutherland. Plus, <span style="font-style: italic;">Twelve </span>is technically <span style="font-style: italic;">Gossip Girl</span>, only darker and more about drugs.<br /><br />Here, Chace Crawford is in love with Emma Roberts (uh, okay) and deals drugs to the kind of Upper East Side teenage slut that his character in <span style="font-style: italic;">Gossip Girl</span> would love to date, but here, that girl has sex with 50 Cent (no, I'm not kidding) in exchange for drugs? And she gets high around her large collection of stuffed animals (she's so rich!!!), which can actually rival my large collection of stuffed animals? Oh yeah, Rory Culkin is also in this movie.<br /><br />"Kids" by MGMT plays in the awful trailer. MGMT feels used.<br /><br />Both <span style="font-style: italic;">Eclipse </span>and <span style="font-style: italic;">Twelve </span>are based on young adult novels.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Eclipse</span> is the third book of the <span style="font-style: italic;">Twilight </span>series (duh). The <span style="font-style: italic;">Twilight </span>series was conceived when author Stephenie Meyer had a dream, which is actually kind of interesting because Mormonism, the religion that Stephenie Meyer is part of, is also conceived from a dream (or vision). Just an interesting parallel I realized, that's all. Completely insignificant to the rest of the post.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Twelve</span> (the book) was written by a 17 year old. Awesome! This is what dreams are made of. I'm sure the book is better, though.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Eclipse </span>will be released on June 30 (a Wednesday) and <span style="font-style:italic;">Twelve </span>will be released on July 2 (a Friday). Of course, <span style="font-style:italic;">Eclipse </span>will dominate the July 4 box-office, so there's no use trying to pit an unnecessary battle between two teen movies of completely different genres aimed partially at the same demographic, but not really.<br /><br />Anyway. A gun to your head: Which movie (<span style="font-style:italic;">Eclipse</span> or <span style="font-style:italic;">Twelve</span>) would you rather spend your wonderful fireworks weekend watching and why?<br /><br />Post ends. Just felt like blogging and asking a pointless question.Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-30201298539116302492010-03-22T19:17:00.000-07:002010-03-22T22:33:34.766-07:00Happy 2nd Anniversary, BISTF!<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQuZZII0pNortjtCGPQ95RuF0x9T940RBnrIKHZP7RT38Voj_dn27kylwq6rN9kEba39lIBcaOwEjuMLsfKaGfahy5o1VfrbrHigmHXlW4NmJsmlHdfMFQhCoYCj9QHiB9vZ8f9SHdDOQ/s1600-h/amadeus.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 215px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQuZZII0pNortjtCGPQ95RuF0x9T940RBnrIKHZP7RT38Voj_dn27kylwq6rN9kEba39lIBcaOwEjuMLsfKaGfahy5o1VfrbrHigmHXlW4NmJsmlHdfMFQhCoYCj9QHiB9vZ8f9SHdDOQ/s320/amadeus.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5451697126455971426" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >Mozart is attending my anniversary party. That automatically makes me pretty cool.</span><br /></div><br />I forgot to celebrate BISTF's first anniversary. I made an effort not to forget about it this year. I like being part of the precious film blog universe. It's fun and there are tons of awesome opinions floating around from the most dedicated, insightful people I will ever know.<br /><br />March 22. Nice date to remember.<br /><br />I had a particularly good day today, despite a two-hour blackout in the evening. Then again, I was accepted to <a href="http://www.ucsb.edu/">UCSB</a> earlier today, so that definitely lightened up my mood.Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-55495795748109771002010-03-20T18:44:00.000-07:002010-03-21T10:07:36.321-07:00A Comparison: The Age of Innocence vs. Dangerous Liaisons<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEga7iLKbmaGUqOfq6x2BmaR9pPQho-KSIusMPxTD3DyLYsA1qe3NNt1iJQK8NzRCluT6S7VAw-IPFzitMMJp3HRm94CvCD3E9TH27s5iwmpkCLH9IIIJxAJcbKs4He1bgiNmHb5aF1WjRI/s1600-h/ageofinnocence.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 136px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEga7iLKbmaGUqOfq6x2BmaR9pPQho-KSIusMPxTD3DyLYsA1qe3NNt1iJQK8NzRCluT6S7VAw-IPFzitMMJp3HRm94CvCD3E9TH27s5iwmpkCLH9IIIJxAJcbKs4He1bgiNmHb5aF1WjRI/s320/ageofinnocence.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5450909989880285218" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >A truly beautiful shot. I really wanted her to turn around.</span><br /><br /></div>I just finished watching <span style="font-style: italic;">The Age of Innocence</span> for the first time. It is an achingly beautiful period piece about a romance that is simply not meant to be.<br /><br />Director Martin Scorsese has once again proved (to me, at least) that he is a fearless director who possesses endless versatility. Whether it's a biblical epic or a gangster shoot 'em up, Scorsese seems to live and breathe cinema.<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br />The Age of Innocence</span> is no different.<br /><br />Newland Archer (Daniel Day-Lewis) and Ellen Olenska (Michelle Pfeiffer) are two very compatible people who can't live happily ever after because they fall in love in the wrong time and wrong place. However, Archer is engaged to the young, traditional May Welland (Winona Ryder) and the Countess Olenska is contemplating a socially unacceptable divorce from her Polish husband.<br /><br />What results is an aesthetically gorgeous feast and a compelling and lightly satirical look at the romance and drama of those who dwell in the gossipy obstacles courses of New York high society of the late 1800s.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVDikrZ6L1GiJSPX2mPKbrkxN6jvxKLvTa6j1flZD8PaKwh0UGia76y380oHnB1FaVKVEv_G4o9gI1YxihALzwqtq5bGBhhxkwpfQq0swIbxgzM5FCQZyezCOjugxWVYsQc2KPofRvnF4/s1600-h/The-Age-of-Innocence-001.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 192px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVDikrZ6L1GiJSPX2mPKbrkxN6jvxKLvTa6j1flZD8PaKwh0UGia76y380oHnB1FaVKVEv_G4o9gI1YxihALzwqtq5bGBhhxkwpfQq0swIbxgzM5FCQZyezCOjugxWVYsQc2KPofRvnF4/s320/The-Age-of-Innocence-001.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5450911336909548242" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">What a lovely cinematic couple. Day-Lewis and Pfeiffer should make another film together someday.</span></span><br /></div><br />And, not to mention, Daniel Day-Lewis, in this film in particular, is <span style="font-style: italic;">incredibly </span>handsome. I thought of how well he is able to wear the period garb in this film and how attractive he made those insane, flamboyant costume pieces in <span style="font-style: italic;">Gangs of New York</span> look. If I were a man, I would want Daniel Day-Lewis' physique. Just sayin'.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYyFdAu2smzKCDHED86UsbK6l8piHLDw52I5SSKVfwa2d7HlvL3ecCtz0ppN99T5LiCobcXDLt5SsvfwQOQjh4Bl8LCKj0u-_vN27XZwQU5NKL2Yn81wZMPak_9tebp72YTFHp4drA0y8/s1600-h/dangerousliaisons-img.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 192px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYyFdAu2smzKCDHED86UsbK6l8piHLDw52I5SSKVfwa2d7HlvL3ecCtz0ppN99T5LiCobcXDLt5SsvfwQOQjh4Bl8LCKj0u-_vN27XZwQU5NKL2Yn81wZMPak_9tebp72YTFHp4drA0y8/s320/dangerousliaisons-img.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5450910253838676322" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >Just looking at this picture reminds me of the electricity between Close and Malkovich. What chemistry.</span><br /><br /></div>But as I watched <span style="font-style: italic;">The Age of Innocence</span>, I was reminded of another period film (and Pfeiffer flick), <span style="font-style: italic;">Dangeorus Liaisons</span>, directed by Stephen Frears. Frears, for the most part, is almost as versatile as Scorsese but doesn't seem to get the same level of undivided attention.<br /><br />In Dangerous Liaisons, you have John Malkovich, fearlessly and successfully tearing through a conventional lothario role with his unconventioinal looks. And that impeccable last shot of Glenn Close is simply haunting.<br /><br />While <span style="font-style: italic;">The Age of Innocence</span> takes place a century later in an entirely different continent, there is the same discreet, hush-hush mentality regarding uncontrollable feelings that deviate from the norm. Yet, strangely enough, everything feels so much more liberated in <span style="font-style: italic;">Dangerous Liaisons.</span> Perhaps that's due to the naturally manipulative nature to the characters in <span style="font-style: italic;">Dangerous Liaisons</span>, in contrast to the characters in <span style="font-style: italic;">The Age of Innocence</span>, who, deep down, just want to do the right thing.<br /><br />I personally prefer <span style="font-style: italic;">The Age of Innocence</span>, yet I also adore the exciting games played in <span style="font-style: italic;">Dangerous Liaisons</span>, despite the fact that the film does feel too theatrical at times. These films would accompany each other well in a double feature.<br /><br />So, which film do you prefer: <span style="font-style: italic;">The Age of Innocence</span> or <span style="font-style: italic;">Dangerous Liaisons</span> and why?Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-47561443346672005412010-03-14T11:42:00.000-07:002010-03-14T12:10:11.865-07:00The 82nd Academy Awards in a nutshell<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfVQjFIOg1Kh0LfOTBFggkH4fbH5tGD0Po00jcnFdUSoaM-LYK0KBFECY9i45Yr5REVq17_RWDfSkKsHyPEQgmHWDOdUtIoEDdaK-J8RYUy9935smpt1yI-qIotyqgWCWxH4x82d5Bf-M/s1600-h/waltz_oscar.com"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 216px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfVQjFIOg1Kh0LfOTBFggkH4fbH5tGD0Po00jcnFdUSoaM-LYK0KBFECY9i45Yr5REVq17_RWDfSkKsHyPEQgmHWDOdUtIoEDdaK-J8RYUy9935smpt1yI-qIotyqgWCWxH4x82d5Bf-M/s320/waltz_oscar.com" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5448565182438795490" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >Christoph Waltz receiving his Oscar for his amazing performance in Inglorious Basterds. While completely deserved, it is among a number of predictable Oscar wins of the night.</span><br /></div><br />I was planning to write some sort of review of last week's Academy Awards much sooner (i.e. when people actually cared), but then I realized I just didn't have a lot to say about it.<br /><br />The last time I truly enjoyed an Oscar ceremony was back in 2007. I would admit that Ellen DeGeneres was certainly not the best host, but that was one of the best-run award shows I've ever seen. Classic Hollywood elegance. Amazing montages. Five wonderful Best Picture nominees. The awesome image of Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Francis Ford Coppola presenting Martin Scorsese a Best Director Oscar. I couldn't have asked for more.<br /><br />So, gorgeous stage. Glad they brought the blue crystals back. The show ran smoothly, though the editing felt a little sloppy at times.<br /><br />Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin took some awkward, yet amusing teasing shots at the audience. Exactly what you'd expect from two well-known actors who are very much immersed in the inside jokes of the film industry. <span style="font-style: italic;">Far </span>from my favorite Oscar hosts, though. From recent years, I much prefer Jon Stewart's traditional and gracefully comedic hosting style.<br /><br />I know the Oscars are already longer than they should be, yet I still miss watching the Best Original Song nominees being performed on stage. The Best Original Score performance was pretty damn cool, though. How about <span style="font-style: italic;">that </span>for some DDR?<br /><br />I love how this time around, they actually brought out actors who are somewhat connected to the Best Actor and Best Actress nominees they are presenting. Last year's introduction of each of the actors by well-known winners of yesteryear is just about the most bizarre cue card session I've ever witnessed. And Forest Whitacker directed <span style="font-style: italic;">Hope Floats</span>? Wow. And, one word: Oprah!<br /><br />This is perhaps the most predictable Oscar ceremony of recent years. Yes, it was absolutely elegant, strangely random (a montage of...horror movies?), but I wasn't glued to the screen or on the edge. It was a lovely production, but the exciting glamor had been eclipsed by by-the-numbers conventionality.Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-27237022924125611232010-03-06T23:08:00.000-08:002010-03-07T23:02:48.277-08:00And the Oscar (blindly) goes to... (2010 edition)<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg42GVVwbY3c7DuDO_8LYmjJ3m8gStiiaR-XDm7rOpL3FzHlx9ddZcEVzIOkHqPP-rL5JmokA-FJvtesDfzUUoT0NLFAsdxuQAQ_oeLa2-IAN9GNCw9DR_A9vigoK0hpyASkAy1-LynVRo/s1600-h/oscar_nominations.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 174px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg42GVVwbY3c7DuDO_8LYmjJ3m8gStiiaR-XDm7rOpL3FzHlx9ddZcEVzIOkHqPP-rL5JmokA-FJvtesDfzUUoT0NLFAsdxuQAQ_oeLa2-IAN9GNCw9DR_A9vigoK0hpyASkAy1-LynVRo/s320/oscar_nominations.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5445797319818773730" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Ten nominations. Ridiculous.</span></span><br /></div><br />I rarely do award predictions on my blog because usually, I haven't seen enough of the nominated films to write a credible entry. But consider this a birthday treat to myself. It's not every year that the Oscars ceremony lands on your birthday, right?<br /><br />The only nominated films I've seen are<span style="font-style: italic;"> Avatar</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Inglorious Basterds</span>,<span style="font-style: italic;"> Julie & Julia</span>, and<span style="font-style: italic;"> Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince</span>. So that makes me a piss-poor predictor. Anyway...<br /><br />The <span style="font-weight: bold;">bolded types</span> indicate my official predictions.<br /><br />I want to throw a tantrum when I hear people talk about how <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Avatar </span>will win Best Picture simply because it has earned a crapload of money. <span style="font-style: italic;">Avatar </span>is simply not worthy of all the ridiculous amount of critical acclaim it has received. It's a fairly well-made film that has deservingly dominated the technical categories, but it is hardly a original, memorable film. <span style="font-style: italic;">Far </span>from Best Picture material.<br /><br />The only other Best Picture nominee I've seen--<span style="font-style: italic;">Inglorious Basterds</span>--is an astoundingly entertaining spectacle. Since I've never reviewed <span style="font-style: italic;">Inglorious Basterds</span>, I would just like to say how I thoroughly enjoyed Quentin Tarantino's wild, alternate WWII vision, but it simply did not blow me away. Great performances, crackling script, beautifully shot, glorious soundtrack...but I didn't feel that deep, personal connection that I usually feel for truly great films. Perhaps I'm just suffering from being purely underwhelmed by a film that has been loved by almost every other person I've spoken to, but hey, that's a legitimate excuse.<br /><br />I'd whole-heartedly rather have <span style="font-style: italic;">Inglorious Basterds</span> win the Best Picture win at the end of the day over <span style="font-style: italic;">Avatar</span>. But I have a disgusting feeling that <span style="font-style: italic;">Avatar </span>will take away the top prize. While I haven't seen <span style="font-style: italic;">The Hurt Locker</span>, it currently stands as the only other serious competition <span style="font-style: italic;">Avatar</span> has in the Best Picture race.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Kathryn Bigelow (</span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">The Hurt Locker</span><span style="font-weight: bold;">)</span> seems like the likely Academy choice for Best Director. Again, I haven't seen the film, but I have a feeling that Bigelow is partially being awarded because she's a woman with the ability to direct like a man, or at least, the ability to direct a testosterone-fueled one-two punch. And is it kind of ridiculous that Bigelow is being praised as one of the greatest female directors of all-time when <span style="font-style: italic;">The Hurt Locker</span> is probably the only film that she has gotten any serious recognition for? Correct me if I'm wrong about any of the above.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jeff Bridges (<span style="font-style: italic;">The Crazy Heart</span>) </span>will win because he's a Hollywood veteran, has multiple previous nominations (his first nomination was for 1971's <span style="font-style: italic;">The Last Picture Show</span>), is beloved by his fellow actors, and seems to have delivered a legitimately great performance.<br /><br />I will preface my prediction for the Best Actress race for bluntly voicing my confusion about the supposed wonders of Meryl Streep's performance in <span style="font-style: italic;">Julie & Julia</span>. And this is coming from a fan who thought her performance in <span style="font-style: italic;">Doubt </span>triumphs Kate Winslet's in<span style="font-style: italic;"> The Reader</span>. Streep's performance as Julia Child is certainly an <span style="font-style: italic;">adorable </span>performance. Streep humanizes Child, yet she doesn't quite capture the nuances of the woman behind the French cuisine. I may easily be wrong since Streep has won numerous awards and garned plenty of praise for her performance.<br /><br />Though <span style="font-style: italic;">Julie & Julia</span> is a pleasant film. Well worth the rental. A film made by women, for women, and doesn't have romance as a primary focus. That's rare.<br /><br />If Sandra Bullock (<span style="font-style: italic;">The Blind Side</span>) wins, which seems rather likely, I can already imagine people complaining how unworthy her win is for years to come, simply because she has been typecast for years in bubblegum romantic comedy roles and perhaps because of the predictable quality of the film she was nominated for. But I'm sick of predicting with the norm--I want to see <span style="font-weight: bold;">Gabourey Sibide (<span style="font-style: italic;">Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire</span>)</span> pull an Adrien Brody (<span style="font-style: italic;">The Pianist</span>).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Christoph Waltz (<span style="font-style: italic;">Inglorious Basterds</span>) </span>is a lock for Best Supporting Actor. And it really is a devilishly charming, magnetic performance. This category seems to have quite a villain streak--I mean, Javier Bardem (<span style="font-style: italic;">No Country For Old Men</span>) and Heath Ledger (<span style="font-style: italic;">The Dark Knight</span>)? Just sayin'.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mo'Nique (<span style="font-style: italic;">Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire</span>)</span> is the name most spotlighted out of the Best Supporting Actress category, so I'm guessing she'll take the gold as well. Though I can totally imagine Vera Farmiga (<span style="font-style: italic;">Up in the Air</span>) pulling a Tilda Swinton (<span style="font-style: italic;">Michael Clayton</span>) and no one really having a problem with it. (While I should see <span style="font-style: italic;">Michael Clayton</span>, I do love, love, love Cate Blanchett in <span style="font-style: italic;">I'm Not There</span>. That's just a stunning performance, man.)<br /><br />Let's cross our fingers and hope that the telecast won't feel like a terrible mess.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.imdb.com/features/rto/2010/oscars">All nominations can be found at IMDb.</a>Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-75879587857479073142010-02-28T19:05:00.000-08:002010-02-28T20:57:39.147-08:00If you want to be freaks, be freaks...<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqhAv0AeMRWZZhKWtCwh2uPDB3JUcaIwJjP2SsuouZxECwesJHdijarI1a0dB-3DTn27nYvyfdUllqsoks0RTx4H7fByPuQaaSjZkwrN7a2XmU88Q_l8jnm4Yjx48u5BkpFLAi5oxCRyY/s1600-h/haroldandmaude.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 202px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqhAv0AeMRWZZhKWtCwh2uPDB3JUcaIwJjP2SsuouZxECwesJHdijarI1a0dB-3DTn27nYvyfdUllqsoks0RTx4H7fByPuQaaSjZkwrN7a2XmU88Q_l8jnm4Yjx48u5BkpFLAi5oxCRyY/s320/haroldandmaude.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5443503377715947186" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >Nope, it's not Benjamin Braddock and Mrs. Robinson. It's Harold and Maude.</span><br /><br /></div>There are some films that I simply don't like. They leave a bad taste in my mouth. This happens when I don't like the characters and their motives or the general message of the film. <span style="font-style: italic;">Harold and Maude</span> happens to be one of those films.<br /><br />Yes, it's a beloved cult classic. If it were made today, it would probably premiere at Sundance and star big-name indie cred actors, such as Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Patricia Clarkson, though I would like to think that any young man who can win a date with someone as gorgeous as Patricia Clarkson is extraordinarily lucky.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Harold and Maude</span> has been compared to <span style="font-style: italic;">The Graduate</span>, which is an unfair comparison, considering how superior <span style="font-style: italic;">The Graduate</span> really is. <span style="font-style: italic;">The Graduate </span>captures a time and place and a satirical mentality disguised by understandable human emotions. There hasn't been a film quite like <span style="font-style: italic;">The Graduate</span> since its release back in 1967. The only comparable thing about those two films are their wonderful soundtracks; <span style="font-style: italic;">The Graduate</span> had <span>Simon & Garfunkel</span> sing its existential blues and <span style="font-style: italic;">Harold and Maude</span> had Cat Stevens sing its free-spirited hues.<br /><br />That said, <span style="font-style: italic;">Harold and Maude</span> is a film that doesn't know its purpose. Deep down, it wants to question life and death, yet it doesn't. Directed by Hal Ashby, who also directed <span style="font-style: italic;">Being There</span>, a film I didn't particularly like either, <span style="font-style: italic;">Harold and Maude</span> is another film that acknowledges confusion, desires, life, death, dreams, and despair, but it doesn't confront it. Instead, it prods along rather aimlessly.<br /><br />The film chronicles the gentle friendship between twenty-something Harold and seventy-nine year-old Maude. Harold (Bud Cort) performs fake suicide acts (hanging, drowning, cutting his hand) to get his rich mother's attention. Maude (Ruth Gordon) is a free-spirited senior citizen who intends to live her life to fullest, which means stealing cars and posing nude for paintings. How odd! How quirky! Did I mention they meet at a funeral? Their relationship takes a romantic turn.<br /><br />But the romance doesn't bother me. No, not at all. They seem like they genuinely care for each other, which is nice. Who am I to be against a loving relationship? What bothers me are the characters themselves. Harold is a two-dimensional, lovesick idiot who seems unwilling to actually do something with his life. He's just an unsympathetically spoiled, privileged kid.<br /><br />Maude wants to live on the edge...by stealing other people's cars? What a good idea! I'm sure you can find so much fulfillment by doing that. Sure, she's lived an interesting life, but what she does as a hobby causes distress to many people. And no, driving dangerously is not funny. At all. I don't find little old ladies doing horrible things cute or likable, sorry.<br /><br />And, of course, the stupid ending made me mentally roll my eyes and mumble, "Whatever." Sure, Vivian Pickles does great comedic work here as Harold's self-absorbed mother and the Cat Stevens soundtrack kicks major ass, but <span style="font-style: italic;">Harold and Maude</span> is ridiculous on so many levels that it makes no sense why it has become a revered piece of cinema. <span style="font-weight: bold;">C-</span>Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-55954356721558373402010-02-14T12:07:00.000-08:002010-02-14T13:07:46.702-08:00I will share my byline with you<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjat_zeJ2tgkFteBb8cy3ETk4lk9OKpyeG23U4itVvTnmdn2PZD3EUBZkBhSMbVmCXnT7CRhKKhyphenhyphenQSqSlrG8-y40g4OaHs7y7QEca2KtMbfBMB9vjLDDxGa3K9qGMshtx7SrqnWdslwG2U/s1600-h/valentine06.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 225px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjat_zeJ2tgkFteBb8cy3ETk4lk9OKpyeG23U4itVvTnmdn2PZD3EUBZkBhSMbVmCXnT7CRhKKhyphenhyphenQSqSlrG8-y40g4OaHs7y7QEca2KtMbfBMB9vjLDDxGa3K9qGMshtx7SrqnWdslwG2U/s320/valentine06.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5438208804039127058" border="0" /></a>Someone on my journalism class discussion board posted <a href="http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/you_are_the_woodward_to_my_ber.php">this page of "Journo Valentines" from CJR</a> that I found rather adorable.<br /><br />How about, "You are the Tracy to my Hepburn" or "You are the Leigh to my Olivier" or any other famous screen couple? Or even, "You are the De Niro to my Scorsese" or "You are the Siskel to my Ebert." You know, all in good fun.<br /><br />Whatever it may be...Valentine's Day, Single Awareness Day, or Lunar New Year, have a great day, everyone.Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-11585698325775101312010-02-08T21:08:00.000-08:002010-02-08T23:40:55.267-08:00Art Imitates Life, Literally<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoGodOT51-Ml4xcW7qzt044cd5OUSSVXy9w2bvmceq6oL2mMOus42EexGB5OIAXulT3G9ToPIYsKXZp_YOsn_PX4pPYKJO3C21cAx67XBAjusIZtWjET4lOwgBEaFCuKtya8jFezd5BIU/s1600-h/mccabemrsmiller.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 179px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoGodOT51-Ml4xcW7qzt044cd5OUSSVXy9w2bvmceq6oL2mMOus42EexGB5OIAXulT3G9ToPIYsKXZp_YOsn_PX4pPYKJO3C21cAx67XBAjusIZtWjET4lOwgBEaFCuKtya8jFezd5BIU/s320/mccabemrsmiller.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5436113840525156386" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >Welcome to the anti-western. It's a sad, sad genre. No more glorious John Wayne justice around here.</span><br /><br /></div>I ask pointless questions all the time: "Where did you buy this?" "Why is the answer to number five 6.52?" "Why did Pip end up with Estella, even though she totally ruined his life?" It annoys many people around me. They accuse me of thinking too much into things that don't matter.<br /><br />So obviously, this brings me to how I simply don't understand why <span style="font-style: italic;">McCabe & Mrs. Miller</span> is such a revered film. This is what <a href="http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19991114/REVIEWS08/911140301/1023">Roger Ebert had to say in his Great Movies entry</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>Robert Altman has made a dozen films that can be called great in one way or another, but one of them is perfect, and that one is <span style="font-style: italic;">McCabe & Mrs. Miller</span> (1971).</blockquote><br />I am clearly missing something. I haven't seen many Altman films, but I guess I don't need to watch another one if <span style="font-style: italic;">McCabe & Mrs. Miller</span> is as good as it gets.<br /><br />So, I think the movie is about this gambler named McCabe (Warren Beatty)? And he ends up in the testosterone-ridden middle of nowhere? And he wants to open a saloon and whorehouse? And he becomes partners with a prostitute named Mrs. Miller (Julie Christie) because she understands women better than McCabe does? And McCabe falls in love with her, but she cares more about her opium? And some men want to buy McCabe's property and he refuses and the men decides that it's time to kill McCabe because this is how justice works in the unestablished west?<br /><br />Um, okay...<br /><br />The film is blurry. I can't hear the conversations half the time. The actors mumble their lines. A billion conversations are going on in a single scene. And apparently, that was the point?<br /><br />I do like the part where McCabe delivers that monologue where he confesses his feelings for Mrs. Miller. That's really a sweet, lovely moment, especially when he turns and looks at the whorehouse. Almost a little too hopefully sentimental for the film's desperately cynical atmosphere.<br /><br />Beatty and Christie's performances are terrific in this film, I just don't care much for the world their characters inhabit. Christie is the perfect firecracker here, though I wish her character belonged in an entirely different world that isn't nearly as grim and depressing. And as for Beatty's McCabe, I wanted him to win at the end of the day. Even under all that beard, Beatty is still pretty darn charismatic.<br /><br />I understand this is a "slice of life" picture. Yet I've seen documentaries more engaging than this film. When I see a movie, I want to see a <span style="font-style: italic;">movie</span>. Not a lifeless portrait filled with too much Leonard Cohen at random intervals.<br /><br />So enlighten me, please. Explain why <span style="font-style: italic;">McCabe & Mrs. Miller</span> is "perfect," or close to perfect. Ebert had his say. Not even the film's IMDb page includes any disgruntled viewers to refute. <span style="font-weight: bold;">C</span>Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-24068375757232909502010-02-07T12:18:00.000-08:002010-03-28T11:54:58.701-07:00Nora Ephron and the Art of the 90s Romantic Comedy<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1dr57nGPYKf_wHC5AVtmTEbypvNUQ6iUyUhNGzSTU4d-yxWdBYGBGIDV9HTNJ9i5ztGuwHjkFL2fvvU4-Uf9Yqx0SwliztTsSJNAnt7cZuuUEZx3b2nrDSAoqJ5GVvlvzsu_AbdOQCQo/s1600-h/eph0-004a.gif"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 300px; height: 237px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1dr57nGPYKf_wHC5AVtmTEbypvNUQ6iUyUhNGzSTU4d-yxWdBYGBGIDV9HTNJ9i5ztGuwHjkFL2fvvU4-Uf9Yqx0SwliztTsSJNAnt7cZuuUEZx3b2nrDSAoqJ5GVvlvzsu_AbdOQCQo/s320/eph0-004a.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5435596715651694498" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >Nora Ephron directs one of the most shamelessly happy endings on this side of the rainbow. And you can't stop her because it already happened.</span><br /><br /></div>Notice the obnoxiously pink aisle at your local grocery store? Yep, it's February. And yep, Valentine's Day is just around the corner.<br /><br />And while it's the month where single women love to talk about how much they love being single, it's also the month where those single women rent <span style="font-style: italic;">An Affair to Remember</span> against their better judgment. Or because <span style="font-style: italic;">Sleepless in Seattle</span> told them that <span style="font-style: italic;">An Affair to Remember</span> is the best movie of all-time. Little do they know, they would probably be better off watching <span style="font-style: italic;">Sleepless in Seattle</span>.<br /><br />Whenever I proclaim my love for 90s romantic comedies, I'm typically just thinking of<span style="font-style: italic;"> Sleepless in Seattle</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">You've Got Mail</span>. There are several rare occasions that I include<span style="font-style: italic;"> Jerry Maguire</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">My Best Friend's Wedding</span>,<span style="font-style: italic;"> As Good As It Gets</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Notting Hill</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Much Ado About Nothing</span> (credit goes to Shakespeare, though) and <span style="font-style: italic;">Sabrina </span>in my statement, but most of the time, I'm just actively thinking about Nora Ephron's cinematic fairy tales.<br /><br />On a side note, I do think <span style="font-style: italic;">Jerry Maguire</span> is a <span style="font-style: italic;">better </span>film (not necessarily a personal favorite, though) than both <span style="font-style: italic;">Sleepless in Seattle</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">You've Got Mail</span> combined, since it's deeper than mere fluff. It's not generic. It's cynical, frustrated, and absurdly authentic on an emotional level. It's not even on the same level as other 90s romantic comedies. So there is technically no comparison. While most people seem to hail <span style="font-style: italic;">Almost Famous</span> as Cameron Crowe's magnum opus, <span style="font-style: italic;">Jerry Maguire </span>strikes a chord with me that goes beyond any bright-eyed anthem about sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll.<br /><br />I felt compelled to write this post because of my recent viewing of <span style="font-style: italic;">Joe Versus the Volcano</span> and the numerous times I've recently encountered <span style="font-style: italic;">Sleepless in Seattle</span> and<span style="font-style: italic;"> You've Got Mail</span> on basic cable. While I am not favorable towards Tom Hanks and Meg Ryans' first cinematic outing, I've fallen head over heels over their adorable selves in their iconic films together. I don't have any particular purpose for this post, though I do think I want to comment on the current state of romantic comedies or how I don't mind generic romantic comedies or how awesome it is to randomly catch <span style="font-style: italic;">Sleepless in Seattle</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">You've Got Mail</span> on E! or Oxygen. This post may result into a pointless rant, so I apologize in advance.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Sleepless in Seattle</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">You've Got Mail</span> make me feel nostalgic. There <span style="font-style: italic;">are </span>sentimental reasons behind my adoration for these films. They remind me of a time when I was 10 or 11 and I started keeping a notebook for movie reviews. I wrote about movies I watched on Saturday nights on television--most of the movies were 90s romantic comedies. Not my favorite genre, but certainly a genre I don't mind watching and talking about. There hasn't been a genre that has evolved so much, yet kept its roots firmly pressed with both formulaic storytelling and sometimes, unquestionable originality, if you know what I mean. It's a versatile genre that's constantly evolving in a billion directions.<br /><br />Ephron is a pioneer in the constantly evolving sphere of romantic comedies. If she isn't now, she certainly <span style="font-style: italic;">was </span>one. In 1989, she penned the fairly entertaining, adorable, and endearing Rob Reiner-directed romantic comedy, <span style="font-style: italic;">When Harry Met Sally</span> and her screenplay was soon nominated for an Academy Award. Several years later, her screenplay for <span style="font-style: italic;">Sleepless in Seattle</span> was also nominated for an Academy Award.<br /><br />Ephron has an incredible knack for making extremely witty, pleasant films. Don't scoff this talent--I highly doubt Martin Scorsese or Quentin Tarantino, who both possess legitimate filmmaking talent, can ever achieve, or even <span style="font-style: italic;">attempt</span>, Ephron's feats. (Nor would they want to, but just sayin'.) Ephron's films are several steps away from pure fantasy, yet they are so grounded, in a <span style="font-style: italic;">this-can-happen-to-you</span> kind of way. In addition, Ephron knows how to cast her films well. Her actors, often Hollywood superstars, can play characters with relatable human desires and emotions.<br /><br />Take Meryl Streep in Ephron's most recent film, <span style="font-style: italic;">Julie & Julia</span>, for example. Streep, a Hollywood superstar, plays Julia Child, a cooking superstar, as this strangely relatable woman who just wants to share her love for French cuisine to American housewives! Streep's Julia Child is determined and ambitious, just like the rest of us.<br /><br />Ephron's cast of characters are simply people we just want to hang out with. The characters that inhabit Ephron's romantic comedy universe are often upper middle-class folks who are well-read, culturally informed, and rarely make their own coffee in the morning. If we weren't already like them, we wouldn't mind being them.<br /><br />Back to <span style="font-style: italic;">Sleepless in Seattle</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">You've Got Mail</span>. They are films that rely on a generic formula. <span style="font-style: italic;">You've Got Mail</span> more so than <span style="font-style: italic;">Sleepless in Seattle</span>. They are also films that are inspired by classic films, again, <span style="font-style: italic;">You've Got Mail</span> more so than <span style="font-style: italic;">Sleepless in Seattle</span>. <span style="font-style: italic;">You've Got Mail</span> is essentially a modern update of <span style="font-style: italic;">The Shop Around the Corner</span> while <span style="font-style: italic;">Sleepless in Seattle</span> is a happy-go-lucky love letter to a rather depressing romantic tragedy, <span style="font-style: italic;">An Affair to Remember</span>. My point is, 90s romantic comedies are, Ephron's films in particular, old-fashioned at heart.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Sleepless in Seattle</span> is a dream with an ending that feels <span style="font-style: italic;">right</span>. <span style="font-style: italic;">You've Got Mail</span> skews to a point where it's almost dangerously cynical. But that's part of Ephron's charm. She's aware that the real world exists and she profoundly acknowledges it in an often hysterical and oddly insightful kind of way. These pieces of surreal realism may be why Ephron's films appeal more to my friends' mothers than my friends themselves.<br /><br />This brings me to the current state of generic romantic comedies. While many recent romantic comedies succeed by skewing the standards of their genre, the generic ones suffer miserably. Conventions are comforting, but not when they feel like a 12-year-old girl's short story. I am not going to defend those films, though. <span style="font-style: italic;">Made of Honor</span> is a slow-burning embarrassment that comes off as stupidly cute in its own moronic oblivion. <span style="font-style: italic;">The Ugly Truth</span> is perhaps one of the worst movies of the past decade and it's a shame that it did not garner any Razzie recognition because it's a truly horrible, offensive film (more so than innocent Razzie nominees <span style="font-style: italic;">Obsessed </span>or <span style="font-style: italic;">Hannah Montana: The Movie </span>combined). <span style="font-style: italic;">Love Actually</span>, though not an awful film, is awfully cavity-inducing. I am sure the list can go on.<br /><br />Although I did enjoy <span style="font-style: italic;">Dan in Real Life</span> for one reason or another that I can't even specify, I do think future filmmakers of the romantic comedy genre should turn to classic Hollywood for advice, especially those eager to make the generic type. Ephron did so, with excellent results. I'm not advocating mindless remakes, but I'm advocating the charm that was ever-so-present in the battle of the sexes between Hepburn and Tracy or the lovingly screwball antics between Hepburn and Grant or the clever back-and-forths between MacLaine and Lemmon. Charm is the key. Desperately hoping the two lovers will end up together is the key. Finding two stars who can act toe-to-toe with each other is the key. Being ridiculously chaste doesn't hurt either. Then there you have a fine, though perhaps overly conventional, romantic comedy. But formula can be awfully charming sometimes when done correctly, don't you think?<br /><br />So remember the classics. Aside for Ephron's films, the <span style="font-style: italic;">Sabrina </span>is a genuinely sweet remake of a 50s Billy Wilder romantic comedy, <span style="font-style: italic;">Everyone Says I Love You</span> feels like a dreamy musical from the 40s or 50s, and <span style="font-style: italic;">Only You</span> is probably loosely inspired by <span style="font-style: italic;">Roman Holiday</span>.<br /><br />This entry has has gone nowhere, though I do think I have expressed my thoughts in a modestly abstract rant, a mixed bag of sorts. <span style="font-style: italic;">It kind of makes no sense.</span> I guess many can argue that Judd Apatow has done the world of generic romantic comedy genre some favors or how <span style="font-style: italic;">Juno </span>(absurdly overrated) and <span style="font-style: italic;">(500) Days of Summer</span> (a film that I have not seen?! so I can't really comment aside from what I've heard?) satisfied your indie hipster appetites, or how <span style="font-style: italic;">Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind</span> really is a romantic comedy, despite the fact it's totally depressing (I've only read the script, strangely enough), or how <span style="font-style: italic;">13 Going on 30</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">The Proposal</span> are awesome (and they're fun, I guess), but those films simply don't contain the same DNA as a typical 90s romantic comedy, though I might be just being notalgic and have gotten all my emotions terribly confused. Perhaps we <span style="font-style: italic;">should </span>go forward and not back.<br /><br />But for this Valentine's Day, I do encourage you all to rent <span style="font-style: italic;">Sleepless in Seattle</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">You've Got Mail</span> because they are fabulously fun films and the chemistry between Hanks and Ryan will not disappoint. These films will make you smile, a core quality that is necessary in every romantic comedy. But I'm sure you know that already. I remain optimistic about the future of romantic comedies, the generic ones in particular. Hollywood will continue making them and I trust that eventually, the genre would hit another jackpot. Or, better yet, Nora Ephron will return to the genre that she once dominated and surprise us all. <span style="font-style: italic;">Bewitched </span>was a decent enough starting point.<br /><br />If you would like to read an expert strut his stuff, A.O. Scott from The New York Times has written an excellent article about the current state of romantic comedies, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/movies/03scot.html">A Fine Romance, My Friend, This Is</a>, published in 2008. The article continues to be relevant and brilliant. While I was Googling for some Nora Ephron information, I stumbled across <a href="http://kidinthefrontrow.blogspot.com/2010/01/nora-ephron-what-are-you-doing-to-me.html">Kid in the Front Row's hilarious post</a> about how awesome Nora Ephron is. So make sure to check 'em out.<br /><br />And I would like to open a discussion: What are your favorite <span style="font-style: italic;">conventional </span>romantic comedies (happy endings, etc.) of the past 30 years? What would you like to see in future romantic comedies?Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-58456389580140942572010-02-06T16:46:00.000-08:002010-02-06T23:01:21.002-08:00Pandora, our new theme park attraction<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKS8B6ay_F1yJ1Cvsa05gQeyrOh2JWXFYcdkhBm1wdDnE9O-1DJDw4ADwcKeurkZ5wMvprmSUnDUNft8ErpEYjlfx7HMcGairxkSmNiHcGspQbA3s9_fIvN8JHCX2ydqxHSajLCvSbDMg/s1600-h/001.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 180px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKS8B6ay_F1yJ1Cvsa05gQeyrOh2JWXFYcdkhBm1wdDnE9O-1DJDw4ADwcKeurkZ5wMvprmSUnDUNft8ErpEYjlfx7HMcGairxkSmNiHcGspQbA3s9_fIvN8JHCX2ydqxHSajLCvSbDMg/s320/001.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5435312123105959858" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Sam Worthington tries to convince me that Avatar is indeed better than Titanic and True Lies. No luck.</span></span><br /><br /></div>UC Riverside sent me an acceptance letter a few days ago. In addition, I received an endearing pop-up brochure of the different departments at the university.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Avatar </span>in 3D is very much like that pop-up brochure. It's impressive for about five minutes, but then the fascination fades. But unlike that pop-up brochure, I can't just tuck it away. I still have to stay in the theater for two-and-a-half hours. I didn't pay $10 for nothing.<span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br /><br />James Cameron is a master of cultural phenomenons. He hasn't been original since 1991, yet his films are hyped to a point where they're simply unavoidable. Case in point: <span style="font-style: italic;">Titanic </span>and <span style="font-style: italic;">Avatar</span>. <span style="font-style: italic;"></span>But the difference is, <span style="font-style: italic;">Titanic </span>is a better film, if only slightly. <span style="font-style: italic;">Avatar </span>only proves that, with all the endless cinematic magic that can happen with modern technology, a film is nothing without a great story.<span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Avatar </span>contains odds and ends of other stories. It's <span style="font-style: italic;">Pocahontas</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Jurassic Park</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Castle in the Sky</span>, and <span style="font-style: italic;">Splash</span> all rolled up in one big, blue package, though I would much rather watch any of those aforementioned films. Even as <span style="font-style: italic;">Avatar's</span> credits rolls, a poor man's "My Heart Will Go On" begins to hum in the background.<br /><br />So welcome to the future. Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is a paraplegic and ex-marine who takes over his deceased brother's avatar since they share the same DNA and in return, Jake might get new legs. Disguised as the Na'vi (the natives of a planet named Pandora) in their avatar form, the humans are able to roam more freely in Pandora. The scientists, led by Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), hope to gain the trust of the Na'vi and study the biology of the planet. But Pandora also contains some sort of precious mineral that Earth needs in order to survive.<br /><br />Jake thinks being an avatar is really cool! Without any formal training, he's surprisingly competent and comfortable in his new giant, blue body. Now he can walk! Feel the mud on his feet! And, well, fall in love with his Na'vi mentor, Poca--I mean, Neytiri (Zoe Saladana), who wants to kill him, until she finds out he has a strong heart--because some glowing plant organism told her so? I'm barely an expert on Earth botany, so I'm not going to bother to learn about the various supernatural-spiritual plant life on Pandora.<br /><br />No matter. Jake is the chosen one. He befriends the Na'vi. When the humans decide it's time to destroy Pandora and get what they want, Jake goes into superhero mode and protects the Na'vi, and of course, the woman he loves. What follows is an unexciting series of action sequences. Just when one is about to end, another starts. And it goes on and on and on. Typical Hollywood.<br /><br />There has been a lot of hurrah about the groundbreaking visual effects in <span style="font-style: italic;">Avatar</span>. Sure, it's impressive, but 162 minutes is a lot of time to stay impressed. Lots of glowing flowers. The trees are kind of lovely. Cool CGI birds. The thought that the actors and their movements were eventually turned into the Na'vi is pretty awesome. Nice waterfalls. There is so much to look at, yet so little I held onto. <span style="font-style: italic;">Avatar </span>feels like a forgettable, never-ending amusement park attraction.<br /><br />While tech geeks might marvel at the dedication that went into <span style="font-style: italic;">Avatar's</span> visual effects, I am a moviegoer. I don't like effects-driven films, but I still like to entertained, excited, enthralled, compelled, and captivated. I like a film that grabs my attention and never lets go. <span style="font-style: italic;">Avatar </span>is not that film.<br /><br />The most interesting aspect about <span style="font-style: italic;">Avatar</span>, ironically, is when the film is <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>in Pandora. Weaver's tough gal scientist is an interesting character who should have had more screen time. She is the stereotypical no-nonsense genius but possesses a conscience that the power-hungry crooks are eager to ignore. The human characters (including Giovanni Ribisi and Michelle Rodriguez) are the film's most captivating bunch.<br /><br />However, the script is weak. And while some might argue that Cameron's vision isn't about the script, the script should be the foundation for any film. To add insult to injury,<span style="font-style: italic;"> Avatar </span>is not fun. 3D doesn't elevate the movie-going experience at all. I don't think watching it in 2D would've made a big difference. While I did get a minor headache, it wasn't a major distraction. I was <span style="font-style: italic;">bored</span>.<br /><br />Here is a film that has already made box-office history. It may very well go on to win an Academy Award for Best Picture. What a shame, then. I wished I loved it as much as everyone else did. <span style="font-weight: bold;">C</span>Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-42442791102618709202010-02-05T20:01:00.000-08:002010-02-05T21:06:31.948-08:00The Prettiest (and Bitchiest) Girl in Town<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBRe3fnrr1UO-OBE_R8qUGtawW3kZ8bFNlhc87Zpm6cZhcpS1SkYlYSqzzCHn4IUBFAdtxuC3RGmup3SB_MQNRTbhzYfAmqy2m9lQpaj35ESMG1XjthE31Qitn1WekDmfD1Ii2hvGtT_Q/s1600-h/lpscybill.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 180px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBRe3fnrr1UO-OBE_R8qUGtawW3kZ8bFNlhc87Zpm6cZhcpS1SkYlYSqzzCHn4IUBFAdtxuC3RGmup3SB_MQNRTbhzYfAmqy2m9lQpaj35ESMG1XjthE31Qitn1WekDmfD1Ii2hvGtT_Q/s320/lpscybill.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5434991874735244834" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >"Hey, Timothy Bottoms, why do you look so much like Nick Jonas? You don't know about him? Well, he'll be famous in 40 years. But by then, you'll hardly care.</span><span style="font-style: italic;">"</span><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>There are film performances that simply resonate with you. They are few and far between, but fortunately, they exist.<br /><br />For me, one of those performances is Cybill Shepherd's pitch-perfect portrayal of an attention-whoring, shamelessly manipulative small-town rich girl, Jacy Farrow, in Peter Bogdanovich's sexually-fueled coming-of-age story, <span style="font-style: italic;">The Last Picture Show</span>. You may have heard of it.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The Last Picture Show</span> is essentially <span style="font-style: italic;">American Graffiti</span>, with more despair, anxiety, and nudity. That statement might be a slight exaggeration, though. It's a film I hated when I first watched it when I was 14. But here's a suggestion: Don't watch <span style="font-style: italic;">The Last Picture Show</span> if you're a typical 14 year old. You'll hardly care, if you were anything like me. You'll hardly "get" the film, though whether or not you "get" a film depends on your cognitive development. Wait a couple of years, anyway.<br /><br />It's been several years since I first watched <span style="font-style: italic;">The Last Picture Show</span>, and boy, I'm surprised how much I don't hate the film anymore. Just say the title: <span style="font-style: italic;">The Last Picture Show</span>. It's a beautiful title, isn't it? All the credit goes to writer Larry McMurty. The title itself strikes full-speed nostalgia and longing. A love letter to yesteryear. But really, it's one helluva title.<br /><br />Enter Anarene, Texas, 1951. It's a classic small town. Everyone knows who's who. Yet the roads are empty. Tumbleweeds roll. Teenagers occasionally drive up to the local cafe to catch a burger. Or meet their dates at the local picture show. The local cafe, pool hall, and cinema are all owned by Sam the Lion (Ben Johnson).<br /><br />Sonny (Timothy Bottoms) and Duane (Jeff Bridges) are best friends. Duane is dating Jacy (Shepherd), the prettiest girl in town. And of course, you really believe Jacy is the prettiest girl in town, despite her insane antics for attention and admiration. Shepherd illuminates the screen, like a black-and-white beauty. She's absolutely gorgeous. Even Sonny is smitten. Because Jacy is unavailable, Sonny begins an affair with the coach's wife (Cloris Leachman).<br /><br />But back to Shepherd's performance. Even when I hated the film, I appreciated Shepherd's performance. Whenever the film's engines are about to slow down, Shepherd appears, prepared to steal the show. When Jacy tries to lose her virginity to Duane in the motel room, Shepherd voices her furstrations in such an anxious, funny, and uncomfortable way that I didn't know whether to laugh or cringe.<br /><br />If portrayed by any other actress, Jacy would be just another snobby rich girl who toys with all the boys in town. But Shepherd makes Jacy something much more than that. Jacy is another insecure teenage girl. She wants approval from everyone she meets. She wants people to think she's fearless, even when she's not, as indicated by the pool party scene. Really, who doesn't want people to think they're the bee's knees? In a way, Shepherd even makes Jacy oddly relatable.<br /><br />However, Jacy thinks that she can go through life with her looks--not an entirely universal concept, <span style="font-style: italic;">so</span>, not so relatable--but she realizes that sometimes, the situation goes beyond mere looks. And that frustrates her because she almost feels vulnerable and worthless.<br /><br />But that's what makes Shepherd's performance so admirable. Jacy is a queen bitch--an alluring one, indeed--yet there are so many emotional layers to dissect.<br /><br />After the filming of <span style="font-style: italic;">The Last Picture Show</span>, Shepherd got Bogdanovich (a doomed love affair) and Leachman won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. While Leachman was <span style="font-style: italic;">fine</span> in the film (I have a feeling her last scene cemented her Oscar win), Shepherd pinched me on the shoulder whenever she showed up on screen. I know not everyone feels the same way as I do about Shepherd's performance, but it's a performance that seduced <span style="font-style: italic;">me</span>. Shepherd should have been at least <span style="font-style: italic;">nominated</span>. What a snub.<br /><br />As for the film itself, it's rather slow. Sometimes I wonder why the town won't just go ahead and implode already. It's Edith Wharton's Starkfield without the snow. While it's beautifully shot in black-and-white, with a lovely soundtrack, the film is mostly character-driven--perhaps a little too character-driven. But Bogdanovich illustrates the feeling of desperation with just the right mood and tone. It's a feeling that is most proactive after the age of 14, trust me. Perhaps that's why I felt like I understood <span style="font-style: italic;">The Last Picture Show</span> better in my second go-around.<br /><br />But no matter. Watch <span style="font-style: italic;">The Last Picture Show</span> for Shepherd's performance--along with Johnson, Leachman, Bridges, and Ellen Burstyn's performances. But mostly for Shepherd's. Because she's just pure electricity. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Shepherd's Performance: A, <span style="font-style: italic;">The Last Picture Show</span>: B</span>Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-86388345530126442472010-01-31T10:00:00.000-08:002010-01-31T19:34:18.202-08:00Me versus a film, part rom-com, part oddball<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMGuGipgTKbjDrWsS3IHvxGx5134771KoAsZaGO8icPpw9fy_j5yfwqonBb37Uuc7AYBUe6-c1euLn64VaVdnlmUleknfTB2Ep7ySLM22-PREXQ5hRt_-mhcLL33EFE9E145yr6OBqYYY/s1600-h/jvtv.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 224px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMGuGipgTKbjDrWsS3IHvxGx5134771KoAsZaGO8icPpw9fy_j5yfwqonBb37Uuc7AYBUe6-c1euLn64VaVdnlmUleknfTB2Ep7ySLM22-PREXQ5hRt_-mhcLL33EFE9E145yr6OBqYYY/s320/jvtv.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5433110605922748786" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >Joe (Hanks) and Patricia (Ryan) try to figure out the film so they can explain it to me. No luck.</span><br /><br /></div>Tracy and Hepburn. Bogart and Bacall. Olivier and Leigh. Burton and Taylor. Just to name a few of the greatest Hollywood on-screen (and off-screen) couples of all-time.<br /><br />But being a nineties kid who religiously watched Saturday night movies on television, I have an incredible soft spot for Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan. They have great chemistry together. Along with their million dollar smiles and plain and simple cute-as-a-button mentality, with plenty of thanks to writer and director Nora Ephron, <span style="font-style: italic;">Sleepless in Seattle</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">You've Got Mail</span> skyrocketed into modern romantic comedy prominence.<br /><br />Unfortunately (or fortunately), many people have not witnessed Hanks and Ryan's first cinematic collaboration in 1990's <span style="font-style: italic;">Joe Versus the Volcano</span>. It is as accessible as an obscure foreign film, with the exception that it's in English and it's explosively wacky.<br /><br />Hanks stars as Joe Banks, a hypochondriac who has a miserable office job, full of dim lights and seemingly unsanitary conditions. When he finds out that he has a "brain cloud" and is going to die in six months, he quits his miserable office job and goes on a date with the office secretary (Ryan). When the secretary finds out Joe's going to die in sixth months, she freaks out and leaves him for the night.<br /><br />Then this wealthy businessman, Graynamore (Lloyd Bridges), somehow heard through the grapevine that Joe is going to die in sixth months. Knowing Joe's courageous past as a firefighter and his current lonely existence, Graynamore gives Joe an offer: He'll let Joe live like a king for several weeks and in the end, Joe will have to jump into the volcano to protect this random island so he can complete some sort of business deal. Joe agrees. "Live like a king, die like a man" as they say.<br /><br />Joe shops around Manhattan, buying tons of fancy stuff (wine in a violin case, expensive briefcases, umbrella, etc.) that he won't even use since he's going to die in a few weeks, anyway, so I don't really understand the logic to that. But good thing he did because they conveniently become crucial survival items much later in the film!<br /><br />So Joe goes to Los Angeles (a rest stop before he goes sailing off to the island) and meets Graynamore's dependent, wannabe beatnik? daughter (also played by Ryan) who invests her time painting and writing poetry. Ryan is actually very funny in this particular role (I love the part where she reads her poem once, and then asks if she should read it again), though the plot begins to feel too episodic and weird at this point for me to fully care.<br /><br />Later, Joe goes on the dock and finds out that he's going to sail to the island with Graynamore's other daughter, Patricia (also played by Ryan). She's the most normal, of course, and the one that Joe falls in love with. There is this awkward monologue Patricia says to Joe on the boat that doesn't really work for the film, though it does establish Patricia as some sort of relatively intelligent and independent young woman at odds with her father. Forced, but it serves its purpose.<br /><br />Chaos ensues. A terrible storm hits, so Joe and Patricia have to spend days? weeks? floating on Joe's four gigantic briefcases. Joe and Patricia miraculously arrive on the island, only to get the royal treatment from an eager group of natives who are only too ecstatic to meet their hero. And did I mention the natives love orange soda?<br /><br />Written and directed by John Patrick Shanely, who went on to adapt and direct his own Pulitzer Prize-winning play, <span style="font-style: italic;">Doubt</span> for the screen (a much better, thought-out film in comparison), <span style="font-style: italic;">Joe Versus the Volcano</span> is an extraordinarily strange experience. It's part romantic comedy, part fantasy, part camp, part oddball. The film treads between the lines of a wicked dark comedy and an awkward screwball comedy.<br /><br />I never knew what the film was trying to say or do, I just knew what was going to happen in the very end. If it had taken the twisted, unpredictable devil's path and gone with a more unconventional ending, <span style="font-style: italic;">Joe Versus the Volcano</span> would've had a chance to be more different than it already is and at the very least, a little more interesting.<br /><br />Hanks and Ryan are a likable pair here. Oh, they haven't yet reached the ultraviolet cuteness of their later roles as conventional rom-com soul mates, but they sure know how to shine even in a deep, dark hole. Another likable aspect of the film is its upbeat, mood-setting soundtrack.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Joe Versus the Volcano</span> is supposedly a cult film and I wish it all the potential midnight screenings in the future. If you happen to be in the <span style="font-style: italic;">Joe Versus the Volcano</span> cult, the more power to ya. But it's not my cup of tea. My dad echoed my exact sentiments upon finishing the film: "I don't get it." I'll unapolegetically take the predictable, mainstream Ephron films instead, thank you very much. <span style="font-weight: bold;">C</span>Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-75073388530644286372010-01-10T21:55:00.000-08:002010-01-24T22:02:11.053-08:00The 2000s, A Decade in Retrospect...Harry Potter<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkE2LtGIQFUX_K0y5PEcPGhsVIc-q6xvx2aXdn92W0UBkk2Kll0WoNC120Qd8EX2RKNKoqa-iySvI_gIDb0RNwAJJvpGZhgwpfw-ZWTdIuucAx5X0D9TUSJsHqOgrA_zcNQasZfOe5KyA/s1600-h/hpdesign.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 166px; height: 272px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkE2LtGIQFUX_K0y5PEcPGhsVIc-q6xvx2aXdn92W0UBkk2Kll0WoNC120Qd8EX2RKNKoqa-iySvI_gIDb0RNwAJJvpGZhgwpfw-ZWTdIuucAx5X0D9TUSJsHqOgrA_zcNQasZfOe5KyA/s320/hpdesign.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5430416015362846594" border="0" /></a> <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimrK528HkJPkBtE4Czm0-zHjzhyusPvF0FNTNsT-g3supRiQErzSgZf1rztdnrnq3nABDJcjSc9lSOmNAXnsdEorfzFP5IeCBakoYh83Qp1vvVwE6PjnAmFJhyphenhyphena_oI4ipnhIa43uxd8Ww/s1600-h/hp3.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 166px; height: 272px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimrK528HkJPkBtE4Czm0-zHjzhyusPvF0FNTNsT-g3supRiQErzSgZf1rztdnrnq3nABDJcjSc9lSOmNAXnsdEorfzFP5IeCBakoYh83Qp1vvVwE6PjnAmFJhyphenhyphena_oI4ipnhIa43uxd8Ww/s320/hp3.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5430416010706172258" border="0" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:85%;">[from <a href="http://mscorley.blogspot.com/2009/02/harry-potter-redesign.html">The Art of M.S. Corley: Harry Potter Redesign</a>]</span><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><span style="font-style: italic;">The 2000s, A Decade in Retrospect is a series where I will be professing my love to the pop culture wonders that I discovered during this decade, but not specific to this decade.</span><br /><br />I like Harry Potter. For the most part, at least.<br /><br />Like many kids my age, I remember counting down the days until the next Harry Potter book comes out. I would wake up early in the morning and make my mom drive me to the local Costco to pick up a copy. I never bothered with the midnight parties where kids dress up as wizards and pop Bertie Bott's jelly beans. I like to have some sleep to restore my energy before I embark on the journey of spending the entire day and night reading the damn book just to know what happens in the magical world J.K. Rowling has so vividly and masterfully created.<br /><br />I liked to think I was competing against everyone else. If not everyone else, I wanted to finish before all my friends did. I wanted to finish first so I could annoy them with that particular fact and constantly threaten to spoil the ending.<br /><br />I jumped on the Harry Potter bandwagon a bit later than everyone else. My dad was frustrated that I've never read it, so he demanded that I get a copy so I'd know what's up with the rest of the world. He was concerned that I wasn't culturally informed. My dad is one of those people who always wants me to be in the know, even though he doesn't really care about being in the know himself. That's both a blessing and a curse. Or more like an excuse to feel awesome for remembering useless information.<br /><br />I was eight when I read the first book. I didn't really understand what the fuss was all about. I don't think I even paid any attention. But my dad bought me the second book, anyway, because I wanted to own it, in case I ever wanted to know what happened. I read the first few pages of the second book and put it down. Didn't get back to it until nearly a year later.<br /><br />It was one of those nights when I was in the third grade when I had nothing else better to do than...read. (Yeah, I wished I were raised on the foundation that reading was considered really fun, too.) I looked over at the bookshelf and saw <span style="font-style: italic;">Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets</span> penetrating deep into my eyes, begging me to read it...well, that's the dramatic version, at least. But anyway, I sat down, read the book, and kept on reading. I eventually finished the book within a week. Thought it was fabulous. Gilderoy Lockhart is a one-of-a-kind personality and Kenneth Branagh does so much justice to the character, since in a way, Branagh <span style="font-style: italic;">is </span>essentially playing a version of himself.<br /><br />I went back and read the first book, <span style="font-style: italic;">Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone</span>...twice. Loved that book too. I don't know why I didn't care for it in the first place. It's a modern rags to riches story, with a magical twist. Forget the boredom of <span style="font-style: italic;">Goodbye, Mr. Chips</span>; there is so much wonder fueled within that British boarding school that most kids wouldn't mind leaving their ordinary public schools and change into those lovely school uniforms. Harry Potter attends to Hogwarts, a school with delectable feasts for every holiday, seemingly comfy dorms, mail delivered by owls, jelly beans with unimaginable flavors, and magic at every corner. Sure, Lord Voldemort is one helluva villain, but Dumbledore always manages to save the day. So there's nothing <span style="font-style: italic;">really </span>to worry about.<br /><br />I was completely enamored with Hogwarts. It's undeniably another Narnia. I wanted to be in Gryffindor or Ravenclaw. I've always felt kind of pathetic that I was more Hufflepuff material, anyway. But Hogwarts was truly my dream school. Still is.<br /><br />I had to read the third book, <span style="font-style: italic;">Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban</span>. I borrowed it from my neighbor. Devoured that one within a week as well. I pretended that my milk was butterbear for the next five months. My mom bought me the fourth book, <span style="font-style: italic;">Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire</span>, for Christmas. It is one of the most captivating novels ever to include a tournament with life-threatening dragons, dreamlike mermaids, and a raging maze. And being a romantic, I wanted to attend the Yule Ball. My cousin finished it before I did and kept threatening to spoil it. I wouldn't let her.<br /><br />The fifth book,<span style="font-style: italic;"> Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix</span>, is what I consider fantasy royalty. Although it has the reputation of being the longest (some might say, slow) Harry Potter novel, it is also the most fully-realized. It's not merely escapism anymore; it's a story about these characters that I have gotten to know and love. The scene where Neville Longbottom visits his parents at the hospital is what great, emotional literature is made of. It broke my heart that Rowling never seemed to reach the same height of brilliance.<br /><br />It all went downhill. Some Harry Potter fanatics might disagree, but to me, the fifth book fueled me with such expectations that the sixth and seventh books were never able to satisfy. <span style="font-style: italic;">Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows</span> always felt like, at least to me, a sad mirror image of my childhood obsession. Sure, there are plenty of novels that are much worse, but the most devastating tragedy is to realize that everything could have been better.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Half-Blood Prince</span> reads like above-average fanfiction. The overwhelmingly moronic teen romances, the ridiculous, one-brain subplot, etc. I disliked the book so much that I actually found the film adaptation a rather pleasant surprise. The film was able to cut all the snogging fest and focus on the magic and suspense of Hogwarts. That was what made the film brilliant: it emphasized what Rowling did best.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Deathly Hallows</span> is a hallow disappointment. Sloppy, coincidental, and infinite pages of three bickering teenager camping out in various middle-of-nowheres. I couldn't care less.<br /><br />Unlike many fans that I personally know, I completely enjoy the films as much as I enjoy the books--even more so, in the case of <span style="font-style: italic;">Half-Blood Prince</span>. The films are better than most children's fare because they are clear-cut epics with the wonderful ability to shut the kids up. I remember watching <span style="font-style: italic;">Half-Blood Prince</span> with a theater full of kids and for those two and a half hours and barely anyone made a squeak.<br /><br />I am also continually impressed by Alan Rickman, who plays the sinister Severus Snape with such sarcasm, wit, complexity, and presence. Snape is my favorite Harry Potter and always will be. He's extraordinarily complex and conflicted. He has everything that a great literary character should have.<br /><br />There is also the question on why Hermione would ever choose Ron over Harry. Or why Harry would ever choose little Ginny Weasley over Hermione. It makes no sense to me, whatsoever. Ever since I read the first book, I jumped on the Harry and Hermione bandwagon. They were the first couple I've ever shipped. And, I'm always glad to see how much chemistry Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson have together.<br /><br />But despite my slight qualms, I like to remember Harry Potter in its full-fledged glory. Rowling has created a world for the ages and no one can ever take that accomplishment away from her.Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.com1