I went to this movie for all the wrong reasons. I thought it was going to be terrible. I thought that it was going to be ridiculous and and make no sense. I thought the twist was going to be entirely predictible and the ending was going to be safe and expected.

I was wrong on about 50% of this. Oh God was I ever wrong. Yes of course it wasn’t good. Of course it’s ridiculous and makes very little sense. Was the twist predictible? Kind of. But it didn’t stay safe. In my opinion, it’s not a “safe” movie.

And the twist it takes goes immediately to the most ridiculous possible degree short of incest. And I loved it.

I love movies like this that aren’t afraid to wink at the audience. They don’t let a little thing like “hollywood convention” effect how the story will be written. It was a particularly risky choice to have the characters joke about things like red herrings and act 2 twists. To me it’s kind of the same philosophy as the old addage about how people who respect the law and like sausage should never see how either one gets made. People who love the movies shouldn’t joke about the way it’s written. I guess the closer saying is don’t shit where you eat. The writer/director David Twohy did Pitch Black (which, oddly enough I just got from Netflix last week) and it’s sequel The Chonicles of Riddick which have become cult hits in their own circles, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this film goes the same way.

The thing that sold me on the whole affair is the absolute joyful way in which it is both shot and acted. If it can be considered a B movie, it’s the best I’ve ever seen. There is a certain triple split screen that I loved, and when the twist is revealed the blue color of the screen is fantastic.

I went into this movie with the worst expectations possible. I didn’t think any film that was advertising itself as a genre picture could surprise me anymore in a world of pg-13 horror and tame remakes. But, I was wrong. And I can’t tell you how happy I am that that was the case.

DEAR SWEET CHRIST ON THE CROSS I GET IT. You need to express yourself on your body and isn’t that fucking wonderful and shouldn’t all of us squares just respect that. Well guess what? I’ve got a tattoo. Just one, and I love it. I want two more. Do I respect what these people do? Hell yeah I do! They’re not making me pierce anything near my vagina. They’re not making me file my teeth into points. They’re not making me get horns. Go to town. Play on playa. Do your thing.

But what about the people who aren’t as roll with it as I am? What about the people who for whatever reason don’t approve of what these people do with their bodies? I have no idea, because there wasn’t a one person like that represented in this film. Don’t tell me that people like this don’t exist anymore. I’m sure they could have probably gone to any small town ANYWHERE and explain to Joe Blow and miss PTA president what a bifurcated cock is to get the animated, disgusted reactions they would have needed to prove their point.

Because without the opposition what a documentary becomes is unmitigated propaganda. The whole idea behind a documentary is to objectively present a topic and let the audience decide for themselves what they think about the subject. This film didn’t achieve that goal. They presented one side of the story: tattooing is good if you want one, so are piercings and scarification and no way could it be considered mutilation if it’s voluntary.

If its goal was to be convincing of something else, like that the people getting tattooed and pierced are the same as all of us? Well they failed abysmally at that too. The only people they interviewed were those in the industry or those that were somehow profitting off of their body modifications. One guy (an adorable pierced creature with a barbell through his lip) said that there were a bunch of women who were powerbrokers but under their skirts sported clitoral hood piercings. Where were the interviews with those ladies? I would have been interested to know why they chose that specific mode of self expression instead of half witted speculation from the dingus that pierced them.

If you’re interested in the subject and more specifically in the mindset of the piercers/tattoo artists (and some real life procedures with a more than generous helping of a hideous techno score) see this film. But don’t call it a documentary. It’s no more a documentary about body modification than a kid’s powerpoint presentation on the Holocaust would be Schindler’s List.

Allow me if I may friends, to paint you a picture. A packed theatre in the middle of inner city Albany. People of all different ages and temperments enjoying the same film. A film with no explosions, no guns, barely any cursing, and not one classically beautiful person. And at the end-applause. This didn’t happen in 1960. Well it probably did but that’s not what I’m referencing. No, this happened just this evening, to me, tonight as I watched Julie and Julia.

This was everything that going to the movies should be and it was 100% refreshing to see. In a world where every character is a cynic and everyone is aching to their core to be different it was wonderful to see something genuinely happy and exciting in an unironic way. There isn’t a character in either storyline that you come away hating, and in a sense that was off putting. I was waiting for the other shoe to drop-but it never did. Both Julie and Julia have a wonderful enthusiasm and (if you’ll allow me an obvious pun) a hunger for life and for new experiences.

And for food, oh sweet God the food. The food is filmed as lovingly as the people, if not oftentimes more so. It is just as much a character as anything else and if I may be so bold as to say so, it is the true hero of the story, saving both of these women from lives of bordom and giving them a purpose.

The editing of the film reminded me of a musical with dual story-lines where the same things happen but in different ways. I didn’t think it was going to work cutting back and forth but it does. The flow of the movie is constant and if it takes you out of the picture, frankly you’re thinking too much.

That’s just the kind of film this is. It allows the viewer to go with the flow. It’s an inspiration. There was a gap in my writing that I was inspired to end based on the things I had to say about this movie. It was just what a film should do. I left wanting to write (goddamn more than 500 words of my Nic Cage book), wanting to learn to cook (really learn to cook, no more kind of sort of “well I could try this” cooking but fortifying cooking), and wanting to fall stupidly, whole heartedly in love (well, ok. I’ve always wanted that but if you come out of this movie not believing at least a little in true love? You’re a robot and need someone to deprogram your cold, metallic heart).

A lot of this has to do with the film’s pettigree. Nora Ephron knows how to write stories about women for women. To name a few films your mom has probably cried to: michael, Sleepless in Seattle, You’ve Got mail, and my personal favorite When Harry met Sally. What are these? They’re feel good movies. They make you believe that everything is going to be ok.

And you know what? Everything will be.

Coming soon reviews of: Holiday, Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, Public Enemies, Whatever Works, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, and Orphan.

So you know, the usual. Some good, some bad, some awesomely bad.

God I love Peter Sarsgaard.

Dear Shia, Alright. So I guess it’s a little unorthadox to just call you out directly, being a relatively new fan and all. Originally I was just going to do what I normally do-post the movie posters and quote the film, say what I liked and what I didn’t like, and move on. But these two films moved me in such a way that I had to at least make the attempt to bridge the gap between critic and star.

I’m begging you to stop this madness. These aren’t good movies sir. Frankly I respected you more when you were on the Disney channel. Michael Bay is more of a pyrotechnics engineer and CGI enthusiast then he is a director and last I checked you weren’t a tennis ball on a stick. You’re a human being, and you need to start acting like it.

Now, I know the quality of the filmmaking isn’t your fault but somehow I feel like the blame for Revenge Of The Unnecessary Plurals Fallen rests squarely on your star rising. I can’t say I’m exceedingly familiar with your career outside of these dismal movie going experiences. I got Eagle Eye consistantly confused with Wanted and had no desire to see either. Disturbia? If I wanted to watch Rear Window, I’d watch Rear Window and not the 21st Century ripoff. But those films are not what I’m here to discuss.

Transformers. I can’t say I was a fan before and these films were not the medium through which I’d be able to become a fan. Riddled with plot holes, Megan Fox and her lack of purpose to the greater narrative, and some truly radical racial stereotypes, it’s hard to put together a comprehensive review of one of these films, let alone both of them without straying dangerously close to something akin to slander and threatening bodily harm to the chucklehead who thought these movies were good ideas. They weren’t, and it was even less of a good idea for you to star in them. These movies are vehicles for people whose careers are dead already (sorry Tyrese. Josh Duhamel, is Las Vegas still in production? REMEMBER WHEN YOU WERE THE JESUS, JOHN TUTURRO?) not for someone whose career is just beginning in earnest.

You could have been an indie darling. Now you’ve lost any acting chops you once had. You’ve sacrificed them to cars to bots, action figures, and El Diablo himself-Michael Bay. If they offer you Transformers 3: Optimus Prime Battles The Go-Bots, run in the opposite direction. And do a good film soon please. It’ll be refreshing to see you acting against an actual human being with emotions and not Megan Fox.

All my love, Sarah

So I’ll be watching A Streetcar Named Desire and possibly On The Waterfront.

I hate that Old Hollywood is dying so much.

In my own defense, I didn’t pay to see this movie. If I paid for this movie it would have been like tipping the exucutioner on the way to the gallows. Don’t make the noose too loose sir!

This movie was an affront to everything good I know both as a fan of movies and as an actual, living human being. I’m not exactly sure why films like this insist on aiming for the middle but they do and people pay for this and they were all paying to be insulted. That’s what this movie did to me. It insulted me.

If you’ve seen the trailers for the film then you know exactly what happens. Sandra Bullock is a BITCH (responsible career woman) who gets her cold heart melted by the office worker (Ryan Reynolds) who is KIND OF DOOFY (a boy). They SPOILER ALERT fall in love by the end, even though there is no fucking reason for these people to do that. They hate each other, quite obviously. Ryan Reynolds and Sandra Bullock, say what you will about them but they are charismatic. That being said they have chemistry with everyone else in the movie except each other. But oh that’s not the only leap this movie will have you make.

Can you believe that there is a Latino man in a podunk Alaskian town? Of course there is because he’s WACKY and FOREIGN and OH GOODNESS AN EXOTIC DANCER. He’s played by Oscar from The Office. Yeah, have you ever wanted to see his pubes? Because you do.

And poor Betty White. She needs to live just long enough to at least star in a revival of On Golden Pond because if she goes out on this movie, what a blemish on a stellar career. (She also does a mildly offensive homage to the Native Americans, but it’s fine because she’s OLD and isn’t that CUTE?

UGHHHH there was nothing good about this movie. In the end this strong career woman shows that her heart can be thawed with the all ending power of looooooove. So much so that Reynold’s character tells her to shut up and she subjugates and does. That’s not her character. She is strong and then became weak. And this is a lovely message.

I can take shit like this in a movie from the 1930s. Even remakes of movies from the 1930s. Let’s be real here. One swallow doesn’t make a summer and it takes more than a weekend in Alaska and taking her hair down from a ponytail to change the entire course of her life.

I’m so ashamed to say that I kind of liked this movie. It was ridiculous and so far off the grid and not even plausible (they stole. the Declaration. Of Independence) but it’s a live action Disney movie for kids. I’m sure the starving newsies didn’t dance around either. Anything is possible in Disneyverse. Nic Cage plays Ben Franklin Gates (I’m not joking) a man who is a part of a long line of people who think there is a conspiricy involving the masons, the declaration of independence and a treasure of more wealth to make Solomon blush. He’s got a team, of course, one of which is Sam Bean (Boromir!) as the villian…because he’s British. There is also Justin Bartha as Riley-the best part of the movie. He’s the comic relief and the only part of the movie I truly loved. He fit in the ridiculousness of the world and the cartoony nature of the characters. Let’s talk about Nicolas Cage for a hot second. He’s not good. I don’t find him to be good in most things. But you can see in this one that he’s actually trying! Ben is a rounded character and I think he has a little trouble playing that completely. He does action movies, and this was in a sense an action movie, but it also has to have a plot and it has to have characters beyond what is expected from a normal, blow-em-up action flick. I mean, Jerry Bruckheimer did produce it. I think that was the problem with the character and thus, the problem with Nic Cage’s performance. But also I can’t see anyone else as the character besides him, which is awkward. Somehow he was perfect for this role. Positivity about Nic Cage? The world should be ending any minute now.

File this under where ever one files the movies that I’ve seen specifically for one actor because I heard he does sexy things in it. Actor was Adrien Brody. The sexy things was a strip show that he does to turn the menfolk on in the summer of 1977.
This is only the 2nd Spike Lee “joint” that I’ve seen and I’ll still watch the rest of his films because he seems to attract the A-list pretty consistantly despite not being all that great at what he does. I think this is because most people fear that they could miss out on the next Do The Right Thing when really that’s clearly not the case.
Don’t let the title fool you-this movie is only marginally about the murders comitted by David Berkowitz AKA the Son of Sam. That was my other draw (I love serial killer movies). This one could have been a precursor to Zodiac if Lee had decided to go that way with it, but that wasn’t meant to be.
The film focuses on a predominantly Italian neighborhood in the super hot summer of 1977 with the murders as a backdrop to a plot that doesn’t really need it. The film could have been about the tensions that run high as one person from the neighborhood (Brody’s character Richie) dares to move away from the crowd and become something different (in this case, a punk rocker with a band that plays at CBGB’s). Being someone who for quite some time thought that she was 100% anti-establishment, it was really great to see that attitude brought to the forefront and being played with such sympathy by Brody. He’s the only character you care about and it says something about the other actors in the film (John Leguzamo especially) that they are all so good at making you hate them.
I will say this about Lee-he knows how to set the tone for the movie. The whole thing just feels sticky, hot, and oppressive. It was like the sun was in the room with me as I watched it. He nails the tone of summer, but not much else.