Amelie (2001)

The expectation: French and flirty. I cant really remember when I had not seen this film- my first encounter with it. French and flirty was what I probably thought- and not much else.

The result: It is French and flirty. But it is also really smart. A romantic film at heart, this film handles itself with minute details. A narrator explains and explores- gives details into each character and explains plot external to plot movement. At moments, Amelie speaks directly to the camera, as if the narrator is really her, but not. Camera movements are glorious, and the colors, oh, the colors. I believe that this is one of my favorite films of all time- of all time.

What to look out for: The cinematography is so wonderful, I have no words.

Cyrus (2010)

The expectation: Quirky independent film with both Marissa Tomei and John C. Reilly plus that kid from the recent Apatow comedy troupe. I did not even know that Catherine Keener was going to be in it- which was a great treat. I hoped for good music and a good story, for an abnormal pace and great acting. For something different.

The result: I think that I was the only person in the theater that liked this film. It was the first time in a long while that someone in the seat next to me answered their phone- not just shut it off when it was ringing but said "hello". The people in front of me talked the whole time as if they could not help commenting. At first I was angry and confused, but then I realized that this movie made people really uncomfortable and I started to really love it for that sole reason. It does have a very strange pace. The filming is often unconventional, and the story is odd. The acting, of course, was superb, but this is not a film you see everyday at the theater. What I really liked about it was that it dealt with a subject rarely broached- the codependent nature of humanity. While that word often has a negative stigma, it can be very healthy for us. We rely on others for support, for comfort, for companionship, etc. We trust others with our secrets and our dreams. Most of us even depend on each other for our own happiness. There is, quite naturally, a range of co-dependencies. This film shows us that range with the relationships between John and Jamie, John and Molly, and Molly and Cyrus. Although it dragged on towards the end, and it ended quite terribly, I got to see this film make people very uncomfortable- to the point where, ironically, they had to rely on others to help them through it. ha.

What to look out for: the crowd, just watch them...
The disconnect between dialogue and visual shots- at these moments, I was really, well, in the moment, not just watching.
John's raw honesty- not very believable, but refreshing.
And the very subtle humor of this crazy story.

Flickr photo by dimnikolov

Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief (2010)

The expectation: I read the first three books in Rick Riordan's series (there are more) and I plan to read the rest of them because they were very interesting and I enjoyed them. Riordan takes the characters and themes in Greek Mythology and uses them in a fictional tale written for young adults. As a Humanities scholar for a short period of time, I was impressed with his mix of themes from Greek culture and action sequences that resonate with contemporary children. So, I was not necessarily expecting Harry Potter, but with director Christopher Columbus at the helm of this one (he made the first two Potter films), I was ready for a smart film that both children and adults could appreciate and enjoy.

The result: This movie is terrible! It is rare that I feel that my money is wasted on a film, that my intelligence is insulted, and that my heart pours out to this author, whose story has been butchered in the worst possible way. Sometimes, I do not understand the choices that directors make when they translate a novel into a film. I realize that they are different mediums with new audiences and this involves making hard choices, but this film blatantly changed all major plot points- essentially rewriting the initial story. This is my major issue with the film because the new story not only deviates from the novel, it changes the way Greek culture is interpreted and presented to the audience. Greek gods are supposed to mess with humans- they are devious, they create havoc, and they use humanity in order to attack each other. They are petty. In no way does this resonate in the film. All important plot points which speak to this are removed or changed. Also, the film comes off as hokey and silly. I think the casting of many of the main characters feeds into this and should have been rethought. The actors make horrible comic stabs- I think for the children in the audience- but they are not smart enough to actually be funny- only silly and stupid. My last issue is that the film did not take into account the rest of the series. Plot points that set up sequels were avoided and ignored. This is another issue that I just do not understand because the subsequent books are there. The audience has read them. The umbrella story is more than the initial book. And only a few small moments inserted into this film could have set up this larger story. I am just talking about a few minutes in the film. Overall, I obviously did not like this film- and I am so disappointed I feel that I need to finish reading the series as soon as possible in order to make up for it.

What to watch out for: Don't go. please. read the books.

Flickr photo by deansouglass

Crazy Heart (2009)

The expectation: I was raised country, so this film did not immediately call out to me. I almost cringed actually. But, I knew I had to give it a chance because of the rave reviews I had heard not only from 'those critics out there' but also by the people I know. So, a country singer who has hit rock bottom and is looking for career redemption- and gets a taste of character, a chance to learn , love and live- for real this time. Sound like a movie you have seen before?

The result: Before going to see this film, a friend of mine said to me- this is a story you have seen many times before, it is the performances that make this one stand out. And he was right. Jeff Bridges as Bad Blake (aka Kris Kristofferson) is crude, sloppy, drunk, smelly, sweaty, and alone. He is riding the wave of previous fame- living in the shadow of his former opening act, traveling the country to play dive bars to an older crowd who enjoy his performances out of nostalgia. Blake just wants to stay drunk, make lots of money on previous fame, and not really work at it. He is contrasted by Colin Firth's Tommy Sweet, the younger, more pop- international country heartthrob (what those discerning audiences want today), and Maggie Gyllenhaal makes an appearance as Blake's love interest, a single mom who has 'hope' in Blake. Through interactions with these characters, Blake is given chances at redemption- but of course he doesn't really succeed until it is too late to cash in on the opportunities that really matter. And that is the sacrifice of a country music star. When you can't really attain the happiness you seek, that you hunger for, and that you deserve, you can always turn all that pain into a song (one that will make lots of money!)
But really, Bridges is excellent. You fall in love with his sweaty, drunk performance, and you want him to succeed. The film is shot with superb grace and all supporting characters do what they should- adequately support. It is a story you have seen before but it almost feels like maybe you haven't- and that is an accomplishment.

What to look out for:
Oh, the soundtrack. Classic country music. It works.
A surprise appearance by Robert Duvall who fits in almost perfectly as Blake's good friend.
And of course, the only time we laughed out loud-and were reminded that this film was set in Texas- Jean's (Gyllenhaal) little boy's name is 'Buddy'. That is classic country.

Flickr photo by egorick

A Single Man (2009)

The expectation: I did not really know a lot about this film before I saw it. It was at the independent theater I frequent and it happened to be starting when I passed by. Colin Firth is a gem so I just went with it!

The result: This is the most beautifully tragic film I have seen in a long time- the kind that make me want to go home and cry for these fictitious characters. Alas! This film is all Colin Firth and the director Tom Ford. This is Ford's first film and it is absolutely brilliant. Apparently, Ford is a fashion designer who ran Gucci to astounding success and then decided to make a film? Anyway, this film is a real challenge. Firth plays George, a gay man who recently lost his partner of 16 years to a tragic accident. Set in the 60s in California, George grieves throughout the entire film and Ford's hauntingly slow pace and use of color makes you feel every single second of George's pain. Moments slow down and fade when they are difficult, while the film literally shines during small moments of content, of happiness, of life. On top of the crippling weight of grief itself, George is also positioned in a place of deep silence; he cannot share his grief with the public- there is no communal outlet for support, no social space for healing. Ford's style makes the viewer feel this deep, raw grief in a way in which I have not done so before. Although I have never experienced this specific pain, I now feel that I have a very tiny, tiny grasp of it. Well done!

What to look for:
The pace of personal grief, the slow moments and the use of memory.
The brilliance of color- it corresponds to emotional states.
California in the 60s. Oh, those gorgeous cars.
George's house is an architectural and historical marvel.
For some reason, I still cannot stand Julianne Moore.

Flickr photo by MissTurner

Daybreakers (2009)

The expectation: I am a sucker for vampire tales but I was not sure if I could handle the horror of this one. I braved it if only to see what happens when vampires meet capitalism. And I miss William Defoe as if he were my estranged brother (uncle?).

The result: A little background: Vampires took over Humanity through sheer force. Not violent, end of the world, revenge, evil force; but more through practicality. Vampireness was considered to be a virus that spread through blood contact and eventually enough people had it that the vampires forced humans to choose between turning or being farmed (Matrix style) for blood. Most people turned. Ten years later the film starts. Humans are now a shortage and vampires are running out of blood. Otherwise, civilization is similiar. There are subways and cars and houses. Vampires have jobs in corporations and the military. There are obvious class hierarchies, family issues, and personal guilt. This is a portrait of Vampire society mimicking human society- with a capitalist structure. The premise is very smart and I enjoyed this reflection of vampire society; a premise that is rare in the grander scheme of vampire mythology. The joke is on them though, because their society cannot sustain itself without humans who are both precious commodities and discarded as lowly sub-human? (can I use that term here and still make sense?). You get it. It is a familiar tale, no? There are some gory parts that go a little too towards the end but the film retains its creative plot. It is so smart it even gets comedic towards the end. Overall, not the best vampire movie- I am more keen on the hauntingly horror/baroque Anne Rice version instead of this guilt stricken kind-, but it borders on an originality that is often missed. If only it did not end with a blatant sequel setup- so tacky!

What to look out for:
William Defoe is always great. I love his ruggedness.
The cinematography is brilliant (not literally). Check out the sheen of the film.
A comment on sustainability? Will we ever learn to plan for the future?

Flickr photo by Abhishek Jacob

The Young Victoria (2009)

The Expectation: The tale of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, early-mid 1800's. Which means the focus of this film is on romance, although some politics probably surface. So really, I expected not a whole lot of depth- hoping it would turn out more like the smart ferocity of Elizabeth (1998) and less like the fluff of The Other Boleyn Girl (2008). And of course, the costumes and the sets, the customs of royalty, and all of that frivolity mixed in. Which I love.

The Result: Initially there was not really any depth to Emily Blunt's Victoria. She is pushed and pulled, and the story floats along waiting...waiting for the first scene to appear in the narrative (the coronation). But it does, and between the before and after, Blunt allows Victoria to grow up, and the audience can get a sense of Queen Victoria's weight of responsibility, frustration at her inexperience, and strive to succeed at her new post. It is a tale that is heavily dependent on the romance between her and Prince Albert, and although his character seems quite shallow to Blunt's performance, I realized that this film is not just about them and their romance- it is about our title character. It is her striving to find her way through this subtly brutal world, disguised behind grand balls, vast dinner parties, and garden walks. And part of her journey is finding strength with Albert, just part. There is some political strife thrown in- mainly from others in a quest to gain favor (and power) from the new Queen. And the film does not rely too heavily on costumes, sets, etc.- frivolity like Sophia Coppola's heavily draped Marie Antoinette (2006) - although, it is there and important, in context. The film does side with Victoria though- as it should- but it might be a bit too much- to the point that we almost don't believe her and we want to know the real dark secrets she is hiding from us from this time period.

Overall, Jim Broadbent (as King William) is awkward, Miranda Richardson (as Victoria's mom) looks horrible, Rupert Friend (as Prince Albert) is way too nice to be real, and Emily Blunt is magical in showing us the vulnerability of Queen Victoria's early reign- a vulnerability that eventually finds strength and give her a unique perspective on power. The rest of the film is just for fun. Don't take it too seriously.

What to watch out for:
The landscapes- great shots of Buckingham palace and the gardens
The supporting roles are a bit lousy except for Harriet Walter as Queen Adelaide who gives the royal court a bit of humanity and compassion.
Those wonderful costumes and hair styles.... I am a fan of period pieces.
Many interesting rack focus shots- playing with the focus in order to draw attention to the wealth of the surroundings- without lingering.
And Emily Blunt. I think she deserves the Golden Globe nomination. Her performance is smart, revealing, and carries the movie from drab to flirty. It could have easily gone the other way.

Flickr photo by boo!berry

A Serious Man (2009)

The expectation: This is a Coen Brothers film. A scholar just published a book dissecting their films called "The Coen-verse". And these films are like that- they have their own style, their own pace, and yet still manage to be unique within the Coen formula. They are strange, often without traditional narrative coherence, but still funny and lighthearted. They capture your attention without knowing why, and they take a few days, a discussion with others (and maybe a few screenings) to fully and adequately digest. I expected the same out of this film as can be found in the brilliance of No Country for Old Men and Burn After Reading. In the Coen-verse, the only order that can be found is the one we make for ourselves- filled with the ridiculous and the sublime, rife with misunderstanding, and capitalized on by bad choices fr ought with good intentions. It is in the "bad deeds of good men" that we are led as humans. And that has its own consequences.

The result: Larry Gopnik is a physicist who lives in Minnesota with his wife and two children. He is up for tenure, his wife has left him, he has been offered a bribe by a student, and his son is preparing for his bar mitzvah. With the suburbs as a fittingly bland background, the film is shot to capture the mundane and it succeeds in its quiet nature, allowing no room for successful answers to the larger issues at stake in life- the issues that Larry faces. This film, more than any of the others, uses as its base the overwhelming significance of religion in creating meaning for the individual- here, Judaism specifically. Gopnik faces obstacles, not with courage and fortitude, not with despair and apathy, but with a measured casualness that points to his reliance on his religious beliefs, his historical and religious upbringing, and his understanding of and adherence to society's rules. Through this, he accepts- no matter the pain or wrongdoing. His frustration is great comic fodder- especially wrapped in the bland hauntingly quietness of the film. He grapples with his failure, after full compliance in the religious and social systems of our day- and does, finally get an answer that is both unfair and cruel. And ultimately, the larger life decisions he makes are not as important as the smaller ones he misunderstands. And yet, there is still no rational, tangible formula to learn from. We are all adrift with a set of rules we must contend with only after they have chosen vengeance and made themselves apparent- no matter how serious of a man we might be. Absolutely brilliant- I have to go watch it again.

What to look out for:
The presentation of the suburbs- colors, pace, sets, music.
The quiet of the film- and its affects on your neighbors. Look around during the film and watch everyone in their own uncomfortableness.
The props in the Rabbi's office- they foreshadow, they comment, and they inform.
Jefferson Airplane?

Flickr photo by futureatlas.com

An Education (2009)

The expectation: I really wanted this one to be great; it is my kind of film- independent, dramatic, tragic, and nicely shot and styled. I knew the story- a teenage girl in the 60's in suburban London gets swept away by a man twice her age through an attraction to culture. Nick Hornby wrote the screenplay so the story had a chance, and I had heard great, great things about Carey Mulligan in the lead, Jenny. With Peter Sarsgaard as the lead man, David, I was hopeful that the film could pull off this 'unconventional' story well- and not just create a creepy couple that has no hope at all. These things do happen sometimes...

The result: The movie is beautiful and it is easy to get caught up in the freedom that the characters afford. It is one of the charms of the film- that we can understand Jenny's attraction to the life that David shows her and most of this is Carey's work as an actress who allows the film to grow and flourish without dragging into into insecurity and tactlessness. She is absolutely brilliant and- as a fan of Sargaard- I do hate to say this- but she is the only brilliant one really and the movie not only is carried by her but ultimately fails her performance. But we cannot always blame the actors- it is the story itself that falls short for me. I hoped-as most people did at first hearing about this story and seeing the trailer- that it would not become the story that is so very cliche. Just because it was set in the 1960's, it does not justify the ending that is in store for this couple. I wanted to scream in the theater. No surprises here- and this film deserves better than to just drown in cliche. I know that it was based on a memoir but shame on you Nick Hornby- why make this film at all if you cannot create something original- something that will not just disappoint your viewers by creating a film they know the end to before even buying a ticket.

What to watch out for:
Carey Mulligan all the way.
Oh.. and those cars- I do love period flicks.

Flickr photo by austinevan

Whip It (2009)

The expectation: Drew Barrymore's feature debut means that this film can go either way really. I think that she makes rather smart choices in the roles she plays and she is a good actress who can move between different genres. Her sense of comedy is usually very smart and with Ellen Page as her title star, this film should be funny. But, of course, the world does not always work that way and being a director requires a different set of tools than being an actress or even a producer. So, of course, this film could go either way really and I am very intrigued as to how it all plays out.

The result: Drew Barrymore is not a terrible director- but not a great one either. The film is a good start for her. The story is not bad, with just a little bit of sympathy, comedy, and moral fortitude to make up a good Hollywood story that will appeal to the masses. Mix in a bit of retro and a list of top women actresses and there is something quite fun about this film's punkness. But alas, it is not brilliant and it does move through too many cliches to actually have sustainability in cult circles- a motive too apparent in content, music, and style. It is very fun and their are a some moments where editing and flow are abruptly and apparently aware of its own seams- a major problem for the movie watching crowd. Fun for now, but what it really makes me want to do is get drunk and attend a few roller girls games. With this film's soundtrack in the background- that would really be a fun night to remember!

What to look out for:
Juliette Lewis- skinny but so very hot.
That soundtrack....

Flickr photo by tristanbrand

Dracula (1992)

The Expectation: Francis Ford Coppola, Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Dracula. Great director, actors, and story line. I was so excited once we started to watch it that I also got a little mad at myself for not having known that this film existed before this day.

The Result: So I know that my expectations were very high but I must confess that this film lived up to them! A part of that is that I have my own idea of a reasonable set of expectations for the mystical adventurous spirit that vampire flics somehow fit into in my mind. I can't handle horror but I can somehow revel in the vampire attach- blood everywhere, fangs in your face- you know what I am talking about. But I also have to appreciate Coppola- the man did make those wonderful Godfather films, etc. and he has a very smart directing style. For me, it is the lighting. The cinematography in this film is absolutely brilliant (yes, pun intended) and Coppola gives the story, which could have been overdone and cliche, a hauntingly creative spin of his own that makes its horror unique in a way that seems quite impossible. The colors are beautiful and the costumes are fabulous. Coppola stays rather true to the story and that is really what truly matters sometimes. And believe it or not, Keanu Reeve's terribly stone cold acting style (which I will never understand) does not taint the film too badly.
You can watch the film for free on Hulu right now!

What to watch out for:
The love between Dracula and Mina- it is believable in a way that makes you believe in this tale and of course, Dracula's power himself.
Anthony Hopkins as Professor Van Helsing- he gives the film a lightness it could not live without.
Those beautiful colors, fast moving camera shots (as if you were the wind), and the use of shadows.

Flickr photo by Hamed Saber.

Adventureland (2009)

The expectation: Looking for a Sunday evening movie, we came across this one. I was hoping it would be calm and interesting; David, my boyfriend, was looking for something funny. Alas, I had heard, months ago, that this film was not just relegated to stupid teenage humor but that it had some very smart parts. I did not even know yet that it was the creation of Greg Mottola, who has worked with Judd Apatow- comedies I can really enjoy because they are stupid humor done smartly.

The result: It took me almost 15 minutes to realize that this film was set in the 80's. At first I just thought that the setting of an old-school amusement park bordering on carnivalesque and filled with tawdry entertainment was just highly reminiscent of the 80's. And then I realized that this in itself made the film great. The film did not resort to the crazy caricatures that we so often think of as the 80's (especially in film) and it did not inundate itself with 80's cliches. It was simply a story of post-college angst that happened to be set in the 80's. Because of this, the 80's references themselves provided much of the humor, while still allowing the film to retain a wholesome and often heartwarming story. And the amusement park atmosphere is a perfect setting for the seemingly mundane and apathetic atmosphere surrounding the film's narrative- where the protagonist is lost in that moment of post-grad wanderings. The supporting characters are incredibly rich and they lend themselves to the same environment where growth is impossible and leads to an interesting form of self-degradation. And even though the movie falls into a traditional narrative closure, overall it was a perfect smart comedy for a lazy Sunday afternoon.

What to look out for:
Interesting settings for specific scenes where characters find themselves hanging out in bumber car graveyards and behind game booths.
The music- I need to get the whole soundtrack.

Flickr photo by ktylerconk

Visioneers (2008)

The expectation: This film was a recommendation by a creative and brilliant friend of mine whose context of the world is perpetually informed by his revolutionary perspective of ideology. His ability to question our established cultural conventions without becoming cynical is commendable- especially to someone like me who cannot seem to figure out how to wade this tension. I just get cynical. So, a black comedy recommendation- I am excited.

The result: A dream film for the modern hipster who revels in antagonizing our corporate structure, Visioneers stars Zack Galifianakis (The Hangover)as George Washington Winsterhammerman and Judy Greer as his wife Michelle. George works for a large company whose main goal is to instill productivity in its workforce so as to combat the creative thought that ultimately leads to depression, anxiety, and spontaneous combustion in the human population- a widespread epidemic with no cure. Think the power of big brother in 1984, mix it with the hypnotic lethargy of Fahrenheit 451, and set it in our contemporary TV watching, consumption driven, imperialistic culture. Zack, although a popular comedian, plays an excellent zombie drone whose body language is a great reflection of my reaction to most people, and the film has a corresponding despondent and melancholic tone that propels it forward. While this tone creates a very drawn out and overly dreary film, the message is heightened through the boring saga- and the random outbursts by the character are sharper through this contrast. Some of the more memorable scenes comically highlight ridiculous procedures, props, and rituals that are pushed onto the characters so as to dampen free thought and ultimately hinder 'human explosions'. Spontaneous combustion is feared at all costs, giving the characters an reason to do anything necessary to remain devoid of emotion, independence, and individuality. Stress is personified as literal spontaneous explosion. In an interesting twist, one which the film does not really explicitly tackle, is the fact that it is this life within the corporate workforce that creates enough stress to allow for an 'explosion epidemic'. George's life is juxtaposed by a brief encounter with the 'hippie culture' of anti-establishment, living apart from the corporate workplace. Here we see that the epidemic can only be cured by a complete re-envisioning of daily life, not in preventative measures within it. This film is a gem by first time director Jared Drake, written by his brother Brandon Drake, and although the filming is not always stellar and creatively positioned, the blandness of the film's tone is perfectly reflective of the consequences of widespread cultural pacifism. Although the film isn't overtly funny, it is a perfect warning for our times.

What to look out for:
Colors- all blues and grays. Wonderful cinematography.
Great acting by Zack and Judy- with a colorful interjection by James LeGros who plays George's brother Julieen.
The concept of a son in this world- what are the consequences to children?
The opening scene- creatively and sardonically narrated!
Last song by Tim Delaughter of the Polyphonic Spree- the only place you can find it. Singer-songwriting works well with lethargy....

Flickr photo by StarvingFox

Pride and Prejudice (2005)

The expectation: I thought that we would do a hat trick of romantic flicks today since I rewatched this film yesterday. I will start with this- I am a Jane Austen fan. She may be dry to read at times in our contemporary context, she may describe every single detail in a room entered by a character, and her writing may come off as inundated with feminine perspective, but I think that her tales, once examined, are scathingly hysterical for gender studies. But of course, that takes tremendous focus. I try to remember the context of the times in which she was writing and that makes it all a bit more accessible for me (and the people I know). But, alas, not everyone likes Austen and that I have come to accept. What I cannot understand is the recent insertion of Jane Austen into contemporary pop culture narratives. I think that these new 'revisionist' takes on Austen- tales of how she is interpreted- make her accessible at a cost. She is no longer appreciated for her work, but stygmatized for her romantic themes, her costumed characters, her description of china, etc. So, taking all of this into account, I was not sure what to expect from this film. On the one hand, I love her writing, even if it is a bit stretched, and thus, I love the 1995 British version told in 6 hours. But, it is 6 hours and not a lot of people want to watch that. So, the tension is now between authenticity and accessibility.

The result:
The pace of this film is exactly what it should be. It moves slowly, as Austen's world would have, and it tells all that you need to know while focusing on the environment- rural countrysides, decorated mansions, domestic spaces, and country entertainments. Keira Knightly as Elizabeth Bennet is breathtaking, and Matthew Mcfayden, although he sometimes seems a little bored, plays a fitting Mr. Darcy. The true gem of this film is the filmmaking itself. Director Joe Wright wields a camera as if he were a true artist, framing shots that take advantage of every corner and of natural light and settings. He orchestrates the most beautiful long shots that I have seen- and they fully capture Austen's gendered confinement to domestic spaces. All of the supporting characters are just as they should be- settling into their roles. Overall, the film does justice to Austen, retaining its core while stripping the story down into a format that we can all enjoy in our modern context. For some reason, I feel that it is a more healthy and productive fantasy- to be wooed by a story that we cannot be a part of- from a time period that we cannot have back. Does this give us a healthy outlet for our romantic projections? I like to think so.

What to look out for:
Those beautiful long shots- Joe Wright is a genius- they take a lot of work to set up and film correctly.
Although the costumes are not really what they should be according to the time period's fashions, they are beautiful. Pay attention to the colors.
Austen's subtle wittiness. You have to really focus but her dialogue can be incredibly hilarious.

Flickr photo by Ben Sutherland

(500) Days of Summer (2009)

The expectation: I saw the trailer for this one and I immediately got very excited. I tend to think that love is rewarding because of its fickle nature, because it has the ability to change on you without a lot of notice. Told through the eyes of Tom Hanson, the film chronicles a relationship between two people whose expectations of a romantic relationship differ tremendously and I was hoping for both perspectives- the rationalist and the idealist. And of course, I revel in the tragically creative interactions they have. Heartbreak in a light and comedic fashion.

The result: The narrator begins. He sounds like your grandfather- or the very welcoming voice from Pushing Daisies. This film reminded me a lot of that show; the stylized narrative, packaged nicely for the viewer to comprehend with a narrator who speaks directly to you, gives the film a fairy like quality, as if the story is being told to you while you drift off to sleep. In that way, the film is like one of your friends and it gives itself a familiar credibility. It questions general assumptions we have about how we perceive of love in our culture- how it is never what your deepest dreams and ultimate fantasies make it out to be, but that doesn't mean that it can't also be incredibly rewarding- even if it ends. Tom Hanson and Summer Finn, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel respectively, meet, court, date, woo, fight, mope, pine, grieve.....
Their characters are enlivened by each other, through the good parts and the bad, and the actors come off as sincere and incredibly genuine. The film is not told in chronological sequence, but jumps around to different moments in the relationship to give the viewer an objective sense of specific moments remembered, instead of chronicaling the normal progression of a relationship. We all know how relationships play out, we have experienced the various stages of this progression. But we remember them differently. We remember specific moments and how we feel within those moments- in the same way that the film gives us selective moments and emotions within the larger tale. Because of this, each one of these moments is heightened in our own memory through its contrast with other memories. And we remember these moments differently, even when in the same relationship- and the film provides multiple views of specific moments in the relationship where the context changes. While one view might give the impression of happiness, another will provide clues of apathy and stagnation. Although the supporting characters often seem goofy and immature, overall, this is one of my favorite films of the season. It is smart and funny, creative and colorful, heartbreaking and yet still light, and of course hopeful and serene. And of course, I tend to prefer fall over summer when it is cooler and crisp, not stifling and unbearably hot.

What to look out for:
The two leads- both are exceptional (and so are the rest of their careers). If you haven't seen Gordon-Levitt in Brick (2005) or The Lookout (2007)- you must. He is definitely one of those brilliant actors to look for in the future.
Director Marc Webb's cinematic choices- song and dance scenes, cartoon animals, split screen ingenuity, narrative devices. All incredibly fascinating without making the film over the top or cheesy. I cant wait to see what he does next!
The music- thanks to Ross for my introduction to The Smiths years ago.

Flick photo by Protectorrr

Julie & Julia (2009)

The expectation: Oh, I wanted this to be very very good. I knew it would be funny and cute- but I longed for it also to be smart and informative- creative and challenging. I just finished reading Julia Child's memoir "My Life in France" not one month ago, so I knew way too much about her going into this movie and I tried to lower my expectations. Do I ever succeed in that? Apart from that, no one can question the immense talent of Meryl Streep, the striking presence of Amy Adams, or the comic genius of Stanley Tucci, but I had to temper my excitement when I learned that this film is a product of Nora Ephron- writer and director. Famous for stylish romantic comedies, Ephron is good a what she does, creating romance for the feel-good patron, making us all swoon with the fantasy of happily ever after (how different this is from my last post). While her films are still to be appreciated, I wanted more for Julia Child; I wanted the film to be not just fun and lighthearted, but precocious and revealing- like Julia was herself. We shouldn't just get to walk away from this one wanting to eat French food. We should want to cook it.

The result:
Oh, how I am constantly disappointed. As I could have guessed, Streep, Adams, and Tucci are fantastic in their roles and just watching them is worth going to see this film. But, as Ephron promises, the film is cute and funny, fluffy and easy- with powdered sugar on top- like a cake made from a box. Julie (Adam), bored with her life, challenges herself to cook through Julia Child's cookbook, "Mastering the Art of French Cooking", and write a blog about it. Juxtaposed with her journey is Julia Child herself- taking cooking courses, struggling to succeed, interacting with food and her husband, and generally causing trouble. Within their stories is a theme to finding self-confidence, facing and conquering obstacles, failing tremendously, and then of course succeeding wildly by the end. Ephron would want me to say that it is this self-confidence gained that allows for professional success- but this makes me incredibly suspect. Were these women not professionally successful, their personal journeys would not really be worth anything to the rest of us. The story is warm but not very interesting. There is no other connection between the two women apart from their struggle with cooking. And I think that Julia Child is exploited a little through this product. She never liked the idea of fame- she just wanted to share her love of French cooking and the scientific recipes she so laboriously worked to perfect. This film, by not challenging the viewer, by catering to the viewer's need to feel good, focuses only on Child's celebrity persona and exploits the nature of her nostalgic relationship to us all. As I left the theater, I dragged by head to the conversations around me about where to go for dinner, patrons searching for French cooking, needing something more from the film as it lingered. Ephron created the smell in the air but it is up to us to really find something to satiate the real hunger. I went home and cooked a coq au vin- purple chicken!

What to look out for:
Meryl Streep. What an amazing lady. She makes Julia Child alive again- and the personality I can only know through memoirs, cookbooks, and stories, is captured with such intensity and sharpness by Streep. Thank you.
The trailer. Excellent marketing. You can stop here if you want to. Watch it a few times.
PBS on Julia Child- watch her in action- but I warn you, the minor (careless) errors they make in the film will piss you off after you watch the originals. (How can you not know that Child always ended her shows at the carefully arranged table setting, not in the kitchen?!)
http://www.pbs.org/juliachild/

Flickr photo by Milica Sekulic's

Funny People (2009)

The expectation:
Already done with the comedy smash hits Knocked Up and The 40 Year Old Virgin, Judd Apatow makes smart comedies that drown their deeper issues with a smothering of hilarious lightness. He has a skill for adult comedy- where issues about life surface so that you feel as though the insecurities we all have are shared, are common and mundane. I have never been a big fan of comedy for the sake of itself- I think I only liked Dumb and Dumber because of its pop culture status- it gave the film an importance that I would not have attributed to it before its fame. But I guess that means that I don't really like cheap comedy- I like smart comedy and more so, black comedy. Comedy that has something to say while still being funny, comedy that is scathingly brutal. While Adam Sandler is usually in the former, Judd Apatow is more in the latter. So the question is, who do I trust more, the actor or the director?

The result:
Since I couldn't make up my mind about this film beforehand, I think that I liked it more than I should have. Adam Sandler plays a version of himself- George Simmons, a successful film star and comedic genius who used to work the stand up circuit- but he finds out that he is very sick and kind of has a breakdown. The film doesn't get too existential from here though. It doesn't really retain its hilarity either. I hoped that Apatow would fall back on his "Freaks and Geeks" subtle, yet scathing comedic style, but he tries to do both the dark comedy and the light at the same time and it does not work. It becomes rather trite and boring. However, there are some good parts to the film, some brilliant moments, but overall Ira, played by Seth Rogen, and the other Apatow troupe members, come off as trying too hard with characters who don't try hard enough to be funny in the face of death. They pity and sympathize, they grovel and worship, and they obey and desire, but they never really befriend George and so they cannot really become what he needs- friends who should lighten the serious weight of impending doom by utilizing the skills they have learned through their profession. I think that really funny people are those who can make the right jokes at the right time- not just when they have a microphone on stage. Comedies traditionally start tragically and end with lightness (or with a wedding- according to Greek traditions)- but alas, this film starts with that lightness and made me feel tragic by the end. Maybe the film was just way too long....

What to look out for:
All of those great cameos- our generation's funny comedic actors make an appearance as themselves in the world of Hollywood. Great one liners accompany them- and cement their personas to the rest of us. I can't imagine what their lives must be like walking around with that kind of label ("I thought everyone loved you, Ray")
The skinny jokes towards Ira- seamlessly blending fiction and reality is a hard earned skill.
Leslie Mann- I really like her for some reason. Not only is she Apatow's wife, but she always understands her role in his comedies.

Flickr photo by Meshmar2

Whatever Works (2009)

The expectation:
Woody Allen again. I didn't mean to do two in a row but this one is his most recent so I was excited for the contrast. Larry David is known for his similar rants to Woody Allen's-although maybe a bit more rash and angry (and less slapstick)- so I thought that he would make a good character for Allen to write and direct. Rachel Evan Wood plays the young girl, Melodie, who is taken in by an angry physicist 'Boris Yellnikoff' (David) and her role is so remarkably different from anything that I have seen before that I did not even recognize her in the trailer. I was very excited though- you either love Woody Allen films or you hate them- and I like them!

The result:
It is good to see Woody Allen's return to New York-his beloved city- and he knows how to film it. His writing is consistent; he maintains that great critical rant that gets channeled through Larry David. But I think Larry David is a great comic actor when he is allowed to improvise, and you can tell between the moments he improvises and the moments he is speaking Allen's words. Woody Allen definitely writes the best for himself and I think his messages -although similarly pessimistic- get lost in David's crass delivery. The film gets a slow start because David seems as though he is mocking Allen through this delivery. I almost wanted to punch him. I guess Allen should have let him improvise more. But Larry David has his moments and the film blossoms because of the supporting characters: Rachel Evan Wood is a fantastic, southern, unformed girl who gets involved with David, both of her parents give the film interesting moments, and Boris' (David) friends provided an added charm. Allen also incorporates some theater tactics into the movie, like breaking the fourth wall, that give this film a unique touch. Overall, most of the very smart, funny parts are in the preview- so you will really enjoy this film if you don't watch the trailer. And the ending gives the film a triteness that somehow makes it all not worth watching. It all wraps up into one nice, pretty bow, making the issues that have surfaced throughout the film unchallenged, unimportant, and undermined. I just wish Allen was younger and could have played the part himself. Then maybe the film would have included a session with an analyst. Alas!
Not my favorite Woody Allen film.

What to look for:
Patricia Clarkson as Melodie's mother- she can play a great southern woman and a bohemian artist all in the same film. Look closely at her artwork- it is very good.
The music- Woody Allen's take on gypsy jazz. He always has great scores.
Larry David's deadpan slapstick- unlike Allen, he can pull it off.

Trivia: Woody Allen wrote the script for this film in the early '70s, with Zero Mostel in mind for Boris, but the script was shelved after the actor's death in 1977. Allen didn't change much of the script- just brought the political and social commentary up to date.
Check out this interview:
http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2009/06/16/woody_allen_larry_david_evan_rachel_wood

Flickr photo by All Glass Photo

Bananas (1971)

The expectation:
I personally think that Woody Allen is a comic genious. He definitely has his own unique style and I think that he writes great films for himself to star in. I had the chance to see this film on the side of a truck, outside at a local brewery- the perfect setting for this casual and funny film. I expected early Woody Allen- neurotic, creative, a little odd, and severely confusing. I also expected at least one session with an analyst!

The result:
Woody Allen, I think, is at his best when he stars- in addition to writing and directing, probably because he writes characters that are always himself. I feel that if I met him on the street I would know his personality immediately- that probably isn't fair, but too bad. Bananas is the perfect title for this film because not only is the plot increasingly crazy but the characters also do ridiculous things, and Allen tries to incorporate a lot of slapslick into the film. Woody Allen is not the best at slapslick- he has his own style that mixes lethargy and self-deprecation into the delivery that I feel he can only pull off. He has managed to create a persona that has pushed him through his career- the pitiable failure who you don't especially like- but that we can all relate to. The film touches on nationalistic exploitation, US interference, clashes between police and protestor, and revolutions turning into dictatorships. There are a lot of these 'important' messages taht I think get hidden within the comedy instead of being highlighted through comedy-as we are prone to see sometimes. As we all know- comedy allows us to process the difficult moments we can have as a culture- but this Woody Allen's story is a bit too ridiculous to take it seriously at any moment. As its title says- Bananas!

What to look out for:
The session with the analyst is there...therapy is good for all of us.

Flickr photo by Megkip

Sabatoge (1963)

The expectation:
I recently got a hold of a Hitchcock collection of B movies- the ones that are not as known to the general public- and this film was on it. I chose Sabatoge to watch first because of the back cover synopsis- the main character runs a local movie theater and gets mixed up in 'sabotage'. I went into it not even really knowing how they defined this word but I definitely expected to see Hitchcock's suspenseful style, especially since he was still just working it out as he switches from silents to talkies.

The result:
Hitchcock's better known films are known for their ability to create suspense in an industry that was still creating itself around him. He knows how to cross-cut for maximum effect- so you get that adrenaline, tingly feeling and you can't stop watching the screen- but you want to know the ending right away to regain your normal calm. This film does not disappoint. Although the quality is often poor- especially with the sound- and it is slow getting off the ground- the Hitchcock we have grown to love is still present. The film plays with suspense, if still a little choppy with transitions and dialogue. There even was one point where I didn't think he was going to do what he did with one of the plot points, and its subsequent buildup, but he does. Oh, he does it. Hitchcock always takes you right over the edge- even in his early beginnings- and then tidies it all up for you at the end so you can still sleep well. This is my favorite kind of suspense film... I like to sleep.

What to look out for:
The glorious cross-cutting- don't get too excited for the end that you miss the middle.
Those close up shots- you can tell that he is moving from silents to talkies if you really pay attention to the drama, intrigue, passion, and fury that his actors can convey without saying a word.
The definition of sabotage- when you find out what it really means in this film, the tragic is almost too much to take. Hitchcock knows his timing!

Flickr photo by Midnight-Digital