There May Be Hope Afterall

A friend of mine recently suggested that I start watching the FOX show Raising Hope, which just ended it's first season. I was resistant because I didn't know much about the show and I bear an unreasonable dislike for Martha Plimpton. You'll find I bear a number of unreasonable dislikes, but I must say, my snap judgments are always negotiable. My unsubstantiated dislike of Ms. Plimpton made a quick 180 after watching the pilot episode of Raising Hope. I very much enjoyed her. In fact, the entire show is delightful! It is funny and fresh with characters that are interesting, likable, and accessible (and you know how I feel about accessibility). And! One of the unique characters on this show is played by Cloris Leachman -- and who doesn't love Cloris Leachman?! So basically -- watch Raising Hope! It's not going to challenge you intellectually or having you coming up with Dharma conspiracy theories, but it is some good family fare, a great supper time alternative to Family Guy.

I Think I Hated That Movie

Over the past month, I have found myself walking out of several movie theaters with my final commentary on the film being "I think I hated that." The most vivid instances of this disdain were after seeing The Tree of Life, Green Lantern, and the recent Hanks/Roberts collab, Larry Crowne. Unfortunately, these were all movies that I had to pay for (whereas many, I see for free through the internship). My mom suggested that it may be karma evening the scales. Whatever it is, I don't like it.


1. THE TREE OF LIFE -- I saw The Tree of Life shortly after is came out in Philadelphia. I had no real idea what to expect because it had done so well at Cannes, but, from watching the trailers, I could not figure out what the film was about. Then I learned that the reason for that was that the film is hardly about anything. It was artsy to the extreme. There were metaphors, whispered lines, and Sean Penn really earning his money by sitting in chairs and looking out windows. I must say that it was a beautiful film. It showed the full capabilities of film and utilized a new storytelling style. The cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki, should be crowned king of cinematographers. The film is very high art, which makes it extremely inaccessible to most people, which explains the "ugh" reaction from half the audience. I didn't really feel for any of the characters, which severely lessened my investment in the film. Further, Malick suggested a whole bunch of metaphors that he never wrapped up or connected to the other storyline. For these reasons, I appreciated The Tree of Life, but strongly disliked it.



2. GREEN LANTERN -- I disliked The Tree of Life becasue it was high art, an acquired taste, you might say. Green Lantern, I disliked for it's lack of taste. For one thing, I severely dislike Blake Lively, in no small part because of her annoying blonde leggy-ness. However, my adoration for Ryan Reynolds outweighs said ill-feelings. Though Reynolds was delightful, the film in general was just "too." Too many special effects, especially when it seemed that Reynolds was doing a "head-in-the-hole" picture becasue his suit and the background were both computer generated, too much make-up on Peter Sarsgaard, making him look laughable rather than menacing (although he did the maniacal act well), too many hokey morals, like when fear is literally ruining the world and courage is the only solution, and finally, too many butt and boob centric (and work inappropriate) outfits for Lively. Although the same could be said for Reynolds, since the studio could have saved millions on special effects by simply painting Reynold's abs green. I know that this common fare for super hero movies, but so many comic adaptations -- particularly X-men and Batman -- have added a little something extra. I wish this had too.


3. LARRY CROWNE -- In the credits for Larry Crowne, I learned that (1) Tom Hanks directed it and (2) Nia Vardalos co-wrote it. I took these as good signs since I enjoy That Thing You Do and My Big Fat Greek Wedding, and it's always nice to see mentor-protegee type teams staying together. But then the movie sucked. The only thing I liked from it was the scenes of the Vespa-gang, which I thought was cute. However, the rest of it was kind of horrible. Almost every character was annoying, most of all Julia Roberts and GuGu Mbatha-Raw. Even Hanks, who was fairly likable, wasn't someone you'd want to be friends with in real life. Further, the entire film was completely improbable, from the 24/7 yard sale hosted by Cedric the Entertainer and Taraji P. Henson (the best characters in the movie), to Wilmer Valderrama feeling threatened by Tom Hanks, to the Hanks-Roberts coupling even though they had zero chemistry and no more than three conversations. This movie will probably fade and finally disappear forever, which would probably be better everyone.

Eureka, Fez, Eureka!

Yesterday, I started watching the Sci-Fi show Eureka. For a long time, I tried to avoid anything on the SyFy channel so as to keep the last shred of cool that I had intact. But, I finally caved and while I cannot see myself watching Stargate any time soon, Eureka was a pleasant surprise. If you enjoy shows like Pushing Daisies, Chuck, or Buffy, I would strongly suggest checking it out. Three seasons are on Netflix.

It's been too long...

Holy crow, it's been a long time. I apologize sincerely for my absence. The past few months have been busy but very exciting. Allow me to take a moment to get you up to speed...

1. I turned 21! Yes, this past May, I entered the realm of the legally drinking. I had gone to bars in Italy, so I thought that it wouldn't be a big deal, but I was wrong. Turning 21 is like pulling back the big red velvet curtain that had been blocking your view for the first two decades of life. It opens up a whole new world of socializing and drinking. I can't tell you how illuminating it has been to go out and see that Philadelphia night life is not just North Philly house parties. It has made the chances that I would stay here after college rise significantly.


2. I got an internship! I have been looking for internships since my freshman year. I now realize I started too early, but that did not occur to me then. Anyway, now I have one, and it's one that I love. It is at the Philadelphia Film Society, which hosts the Philadelphia Film Festival. Yes -- FILM FESTIVAL!!! I am the co-volunteer coordinator for the festival and, being that we work in such a small office, I'm sure that I will learn tons of other things about the workings of a film fest. It's incredibly exciting. I also work with a completely awesome group of people -- interns and "real people" alike. For the summer, we have various events and screenings at which I also work and see films. So, in addition to my volunteer coordinator responsibilities, I am seeing movies for course credit. The only thing better would be if I were also moonlighting as an ice-cream taster.

3. I am producing a film! This is my first foray into production. Usually I try just to sit alone, scribbling screenplays, but my writing teacher suggested that I produce last year's project. So I am! My teacher got me in touch with other students to direct and help produce, so I'm starting out with a great team that will hopefully be patient with me as I muddle through role of 'co-producer.' Anyway, the film is called Guests of a Nation. It is based on Irish author Frank O'Connor's short story about Irish soldiers and their British captives during the Irish War of Independence. The story is beautiful and we're doing all we can to make sure the film is too.

Follow us on twitter! @Guestsofanation Like us on Facebook! www.facebook.com/guestsofanation

Unforgettable

1932-2011

Spring Break Playlist

Last week was my much-needed spring break. I was going to head down to Mexico for some fun in the sun, but then decided it would be more fun to stay at school and chill at home. Luckily, that gave me plenty of time to catch up on my movie watching. Between schoolwork, seeing old friends, and an extraordinary amount of sleeping, I watched the following films...

Happy Ever Afters (2009, directed by Stephen Burke, starring Sally Hawkins)
This quirky British film depicted two weddings -- one, a marriage of convenience and the other, the second wedding of a dysfunctional couple -- and the shenanigans that ensue when their receptions turn out to be in the same hotel. There is not a whole lot more I can say about this movie because it was not very good. It was definitely fluff, but it lacked even the mainstays of trash cinema, such as chemistry between protagonists, good jokes, or a discernible style. Thumbs down.


The Adjustment Bureau (2011, directed by George Nolfi, starring Matt Damon and Emily Blunt)
The Adjustment Bureau was a lot better than I expected it to be. It was about Matt Damon and Emily Blunt trying to beat the odds to be together -- and by odds, I mean supernatural dudes in suits who manipulate peoples' lives in order to keep them on a pre-destined plan. The film utilizes aspects of science-fiction, romance, and fantasy make the audience believe in the obstacles that the couple faces and the existence of the "Adjustment Bureau." The agents of the Adjustment Bureau are played by Anthony Mackie, John Slattery, and scary-as-shit Terence Stamp, among others. They have the ability to be transported miles simply by passing the threshold of a doorway. On screen, the effect itself looks really cool and it brought a whole new dimension to the chase scenes, as agents would defy the laws of nature and pop up any ol' place. The ending was a bit hokey, but acceptable. Matt Damon and Emily Blunt were adorable together. I think this is my favorite of Matt Damon's performances because he was smart, cute and absolutely lovable. A very enjoyable film.


Middle of Nowhere (2008, directed by John Stockwell, starring Eva Amurri and Anton Yelchin)
I caught this movie on TV, though it is on Netflix, and I'd my eye on it for a while. It is about Grace (Amurri), who teams up with Dorian (Yelchin) to deal drugs for the summer in order to make money for college. It also deals with Grace's family -- her train wreck of a mother (Susan Sarandon) and emotionally neglected sister (Willa Holland). The film worked through issues well and broke conventions by not having Grace and Dorian get together. It was unexpectedly good and presented well-rounded characters. I would certainly recommend it.



Red Riding Hood (2011, directed by Catherine Hardwick, starring Amanda Seyfried)
Well, it seems that Catherine Hardwick is carving out a niche for herself. Unfortunately, that niche seems to be teenage love triangles with a sprinkling of danger, accented with birds-eye views of forests. Red Riding Hood presents a new take on Little Red Riding Hood. It presents a voluptuous, all-growed-up Red flanked by two smokin' hot villagers vying for her attention. Said villagers are played by Shiloh Fernandez as the dark and continuously brooding Peter (and the Wolf, get it?) and Max Irons as equally-cute village golden boy Henry. Oh, and there's a wolf -- a werewolf that is terrorizing the village. The citizens, with the 'help' of Scary Gary Oldman, must then figure out who the wolf is before he kills everyone. The film starts out weak but gets stronger as the story progresses. It has a good cast -- including Billy Burke, Virginia Madsen, and Lukas Haas -- who all give good performances. The best part of this movie is the cinematography. It's lit and shot like an old story book, utilizing shadows, candlelight, and distinct colors. My favorite part was definitely the cinematography and set design. Verdict: wait for it to get to Netflix Instant Play.


Hunger (directed by Steve McQueen, starring Michael Fassbender)
I'm working on project about the Irish War of Independence, so my professor suggested that I look into this film. Although my piece and this film are set sixty years apart, many of the same issues appear in both. This film depicts the prison conditions in Northern Ireland and the treatment of convicted IRA terrorists (or freedom fighters). The film is artistic, poetic even in the way that it frames characters and holds shots longer than necessary. The film is shot with a lyricism that distinctly conflicts with the subject matter. Hunger pulls no punches with presenting the struggles of the prisoners, as they are brutally beaten and forced to lived, literally, in shit. In terms of narrative, the film is strange. It follows three storylines. The first introduced is of a prison guard. He says little to nothing, but still becomes familiar to the viewer. The second is of Davy Gillen, a new prisoner. Through him, the audience sees the lives of the average IRA prisoner. About half way through the film, his story abruptly ends and we pick up with Bobby Sands (Michael Fassbender), a seasoned prisoner who is preparing to begin a hunger strike. The rest of the film -- about a half hour -- watches Bobby deteriorate into a shell of a man and finally pass away. It is strange because the only complete story we see is the prison guard's. The others either end early or begin late. This is my major complaint because I wanted to know what happened to Davey and I wanted to know Bobby better. Fassbender was very good, and proved himself to be in the Christian Bale league because he lost 30 pounds, going down to 130 pounds to play the emaciated, near-death Sands. Overall, it was not a great film, but certainly very interesting for the subject matter and style.

Drive-In to Dine-In

In the past, Drive-In theaters were an average way to see new movies. Today, they are few and far between, but attractive for their simplicity and the sense of nostalgia they inherently exude. In contrast, Dine-In movie theaters are attractive for their luxury and may become a norm in the future...but I hope not.

As you may be have guessed, I recently lost my Dine-In theater virginity. I went to see The Adjustment Bureau with the parentals at a local theater, which was recently transformed into a luxurious Dine-In theater. Since I unfortunately have months before I turn twenty-one, we had to go to the "Fork and Screen" theater (rather than the super kushy "Cinema Suites," where alcohol flows like a river and each guest gets a private tray and a barcalounger; I imagine it was designed with a schematic of Heaven in mind). In this kiddie theater, there were four seats grouped together behind a common table, somewhat reminiscent of the setup at Medieval Times if you have ever had the pleasure of going there. The seats were nice; they were super comfy and reclined. All that was peachy.

The food was average. I had expected the food to be mediocre and over-priced, and that's what it was. For food from a movie theater, it was okay, but it wasn't movie theater food. That is, I would have preferred the classics -- popcorn, nachos, or possibly a hotdog -- to sandwiches and pizza margarita. Further, in order to have table service, one must also have waiters, who walk around and talk through the movie. I may be more sensitive that the average movie-goer, but that bugged me.

So, the Dine-In theater was a cool experience and nice as a treat, but I wouldn't make it a habit. For one thing, it was much more expensive than a regular theater and it disrupted my movie-going experience. When I got to the theaters, I want to gobble down popcorn and focus on the movie without distractions like servers or tea-lights on the table. So take it or leave it, but I'm pretty satisfied with the get-your-own-crap state of most of today's movie theaters.