Love, Wedding, Marriage

So I ended up renting this movie because the one I wanted was out at the redbox. It looked pretty generic but my female-ness took over and convinced me to rent it because Kellan Lutz was on the cover. Interestingly enough it was directed by Dermont Mulroney (from My Best Friend's Wedding). The movie was only released in two theaters, which accounts for the reason I'd never heard of it before.

The movie stars Mandy Moore and Kellan Lutz as newlyweds, super gorgeous newlyweds that is. Moore's character is a marriage counselor and she has to deal with the stress of being a newlywed along with her parent's sudden and impending divorce, played by Jane Seymour and James Brolin.

Unfortunately the plot was pretty predictable and cliched. The characters were not very complex. The dialogue wasn't horrible and at times it was a little witty.

All of the cinematic elements were very bland and generic, including the score which probably was recorded in an elevator.

All of the actors were very handsome/pretty. Jane Seymour and James Brolin were funny at times when they were bickering. Mandy Moore and Kellan Lutz were super cute. I'll be honest and it was Lutz' shirtless scenes that made the movie worth it.

In the end, it was pretty generic. I was hoping for something more than what the movie poster looked like, but unfortunately it was just a run of the mill romantic comedy. "Do you promise to have sex at least twice a week?"

One Day

So even though I'd heard bad reviews about this movie, I still wanted to see it because it looked like a cute little love story and I usually like Anne Hathaway. The movie did pretty well overseas and took in a total of $56 million (with only $13 million in domestic sales) and made a nice profit from it's $15 million budget.

The movie is based on a book of the same name about two friends who are almost lovers and the story shows them on the same day, July 15th, for twenty years. Before seeing the movie I thought that they met up on the same day every year but thankfully the story just shows where they are on that day. It starts back in 1988 and goes up to 2011 and it's set in England.

Well the whole premise of the movie is quite gimmicky, but gimmicks can be sweet for a nice little fluffy romantic comedy - which this turned out not to be. It tried to be a realistic adaptation of this couple's life, which is fine but through in the gimmick of showing them on the same day for twenty years and it's like it was mixing it's signals. It also got very distracting trying to keep up with the changes from year to year. As endearing as Anne Hathaway can be, I did not like her character very much nor did I like Jim Sturgess'. Hathaway was weak and waited her whole life basically for a man that did not have very many redeeming qualities, if any. Yes, that is quite realistic because there are tons of women such as that out there, but that doesn't mean they're likeable or at the least bit entertaining. And plain and simple, Jim Sturgess' character was just an ass. So the gimmickyness (that's totally a word) was distracting, then the characters were not very likable (in my opinion). Their courtship was drawn out so long that by the time they did get together, the buildup was gone. Add to the mix the horrible ending. I'm not a fan of the ending, again yes it's very realistic but this movie was trying to be too many things at once and the first half it was trying to be a romantic comedy which totally kills the mood with the second half/ending of the movie.

Plot aside, they did a great job of recreating the 90's in this movie. The wardrobe, set design, and especially hair was fantastic. Really captured the essence of the time period. The titles were nicely done. The soundtrack was also very nostalgic.

So even though I'm not a fan of the plot, the actors did great. Anne Hathaway played the role well, even if I wasn't a fan of the character. I've also read a lot of criticisms of her accent, but I didn't really notice anything, but I'm not an expert on British accents. The only real fakes I can usually spot are the horrible southern drawls that some attempt. In any event her character was much more likable than Sturgess'. Don't get me wrong, Sturgess did a great job as well especially with his scenes near the end of the movie.

In the end, I wasn't a fan of this movie. It's hard for me to not like something about a movie if a lot of effort was put into it and I did enjoy the cinematic elements and the actor's performances. I just didn't care for the characters or the story. The gimmick of the one day thing took away from the seriousness they were trying to achieve with the story. I'm all for realistic relationship movies, i.e. Blue Valentine, but you can't send mixed signals, at least in my opinion. It's as if one half of the movie was a romantic comedy, although a little slow and boring, and the second half was a heartfelt drama. "She made you decent and in return you made her so happy, so happy."

The Art of Getting By

So I had wanted to see this movie for awhile since seeing the trailer awhile back. It just looked like it was going to have that existential indie flare that I've come to love so much. It's a directorial debut from Gavin Wiesen and it has Emma Roberts, Michael Angarano, Freddie Highmore, Blair Underwood, Rita Wilson, Elizabeth Reaser, and this little side character played by the Alicia Silverstone.

At it's core the movie is about two friends who are almost more, Emma Roberts and Freddie Highmore. It's also about Freddie's character and his struggle with his existential apathy which plagues him during his senior year of high school.

I loved the dialogue in the movie as all of the characters, especially Higmore's, was quite witty and self-referential. His existential inner debates with himself are totally relatable in my opinion. The movie plays out centered around the two friends who should be, could be, more which I always enjoy for some reason. All of the other characters in his life are just as complicated and plagued however they show/don't show it in different ways. It was really a very smart plot which I enjoyed greatly.

I'm downloading the soundtrack tonight! It opened with one of my favorite Shins songs directly from my iPod and continued with great tracks in keeping with the melodramatic tone of the Shins. Sountrack aside, the movie was filmed beautifully. Every shot was framed beautifully. I especially loved the shot of the two characters walking in opposite directions in a wide angle down the same street. Just beautiful. The soft focus used on the close ups were also equally as beautiful. Each scene had a different color palette according to the mood and it was just great. Loved it.

Freddie Highmore did a great job with this character, although I couldn't help but see the kid from August Rush up there doing grown up things. I kept thinking he's too young for all of it! Emma Roberts is really picking smart roles lately and I was impressed. Michael Angarano did great, as always, but it's the first time I've also realized that he's not that young anymore either. Perhaps my old age was just creeping up on me in this movie.

Overall, I really enjoyed the film. It's a little dramedy about existentialism and friends who should be more - two things I always enjoy. Not to mention that it was artistically directed. Props to Wiesen for putting the effort into all of the elements of the movie instead of just advancing the plot forward. "In the history of the world, there have been something like 110 billion people born and not a single one of them has made it".

I'm a Cyborg, But That's OK

So just the title of this movie made me want to see it. Of course I checked out the trailer since I hadn't heard of this movie before, which reminded me that I'm not that up to date on foreign movies. It looked really quirky and unique, which are two of my favorite things in movies - and people. The movie is from the same guy who directed and wrote Oldboy! This movie is far from that movie.

This is a Korean movie with that guy Rain(?) in it. It's about a young girl who believes she is, yes, a cyborg. She is admitted to a mental hospital where there are other funny/quirky crazy people there. She is befriended by a guy who can steal things from people, i.e. their sympathy, voice, ability to win at ping-pong games, regular stuff like that.

It's not one of those depressing, realistic, coming-of-age mental hospital movies. It's simply a fun 'romantic comedy' without being a romantic comedy. Make sense? Great. The plot was so fresh and unique, for a boring American such as myself. The story was really for those idealistic children at heart. All of the characters were interesting and funny without being obvious.

The editing was fast and fun and kept the movie interesting and heartwarming. The colors and set design was so beautiful and kept the tone of the movie fun and exciting. The imagery was so vibrant and just beautiful. There was also a lot of greens and blues in the movie which were so pretty. All of the angles and lenses were just smooth and great.

The girl, rather cyborg, did a fantastic job. You believed that she believed she was a cyborg. Rain was very entertaining to watch and kept the pacing of the story upbeat.

It was a nice and fun movie. Completely different from the mind-twisting Oldboy. Oldboy was a great movie, don't get me wrong, but this movie is never dark and my mind did not explode from watching this movie. "I'm not a psy-cho, I'm a cy-borg".

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

So, originally I wasn't exactly psyched when I heard about this remake. The original was so good and it transcended culturally in my opinion so I didn't see the need for a remake, but oh well. I then completely fell in love with Matt Reeves' Let Me In (which which is another American remake of an awesome Swedish movie) and that made me raise my expectations for this movie somewhat. The movie has been out in the theaters for about two weeks now and has grossed $32 million, with a budget of $90 million.

I've seen, and loved, the original movie and I've read a couple of chapters of the book it's based from. Yes, I lost interest in the book. I'm sure it's a great book, I'm just not into this whole murder mystery genre and lost my motivation to finish the book. I'm a fan more or less of David Fincher; Panic Room - hell yes!, The Social Network - not so much. I think the thing about Fincher is not really his stylistic approach to his movies, it's that he chooses great stories to tell and tells them well. That's really no different in this movie. At it's core the movie is a murder mystery but it bring in ingenuity with it's two leads, Michael Blomvkist and Lisbeth Salander, with the latter being one of the best written contemporary female characters in my opinion. A gothic androgynous hacker girl who teams together with a fallen from grace political reporter to solve a 40 year old murder? It's just destined to be a great story.

There were several key differences in the plot in this movie from the original, and unfortunately I don't know which was closer to the book. The differences in this movie were slight but they made both Michael and Lisbeth more equal in regards to their relationship. In the original movie, Lisbeth basically figured everything out on her own and helped out because of her interest in Michael. In this movie however, Michael was about equal, in terms of the investigation at least, well and also the relationship between the two. Their relationship is more linear in this movie. Also there is a lot more sex and nudity, but that's what Americans want right? Actually I'm not complaining, Daniel Craig is very easy on the eyes. The gore seemed a little subdued in this movie, which was surprising, but enjoyed by myself as I'm not a big fan of violence, or gore, and even gorey violence. The movie was about as long as the original: two and a half hours! This movie lead more into the second one which will give a nice tie in to the next one. Lisbeth was kind of more of a bad-ass in this movie as well.

The movie was not that stylized, except for the extreme imagery in the title sequence, the long rolling shots, and quick jump cuts. The title sequence was like a music video but pretty cool. I also did really like the long rolling shots like the one going down the tree-lined driveway to the Vanger house and Fincher also did a nice long shot during the horrible rape scene where the action would jump to a backwards rolling shot of the closed door and back. Yes, the score was good. One of the characters even wore a Nine Inch Nails shirt. Wink, wink.

So Daniel Craig did a very nice job in my opinion. He has a great body, but that's beside the point. He wasn't quite as vulnerable as in the original movie, which I suspect is closer to the book. Even though, he still played the character quite well. I guess Bond just can't play vulnerable that well. Rooney Mara did great. She didn't just wear black clothes and piercings, she played the character. Although Noomi Rapace made that character.

So in the end, it was all about the story. The score and cinematography blended together nicely to keep the story feeling genuine and interesting for two and a half hours, even though I knew what was coming. It felt a little bit more focused on the two characters than the original, perhaps because Fincher had the advantage of knowing that two movies would be following this one. I loved loved loved Let Me In because of the stylistic approach Reeves had taken to enhance the first but this Dragon Tattoo doesn't feel as stylized and just a larger budget re-telling of the same story where you don't have to read subtitles. It did feel smoother and had a more consistent pace than the original, which one would expect with $90 million. I enjoyed the movie. It was on the same level as the first. "Put your hand back in my shirt" -- The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

The Change-Up

So I had wanted to see this movie only because of Jason Bateman and Ryan Reynolds, well and because of all the talk about the R-rated humor in this movie. Other than that, it didn't seem very appealing given this plot has been re-done one million times. The movie did pull in $71 million, surpassing it's $52 million budget.

I don't even need to summarize the plot here but here it is anyway: Two male friends leading different lives switch bodies Freaky Friday style, or Vice Versa style, or The Hot Chick style, or I could go on and on.

This movie was written by two of the guys that also worked on Wedding Crashers and 27 Dresses. However they also worked on Mr. Woodcock and Chicken Little. The characters were pretty one-dimensional but I really didn't expect anything more given this was going to focus on the situational comedy, one-liners, and banter between the great Leslie Mann, Jason Bateman, and Ryan Reynolds. The only thing that really sets this movie apart from the countless rest, is the rated R nature of the plot. That being said, it was almost as if the movie was trying too hard to get that R rating and it didn't feel very natural. It was like there was a curse word quota thrown into each scene which felt weird and very scripted. Most of the bits fell flat for me. I mean, even the nudity was computer generated, again reinforcing the forced feeling of the R rating. Even though the plot was trying to be unique with it's adult themed humor, it fell victim to numerous cliches.

The sets were very pretty in the movie, I will give it that. Props to the set designer. Wardrobe was also nice. The pace was a little bit uneven and the movie jumped right into the plot within the first few scenes.

I still think that the three main actors did good. I wish they would've just let the cameras roll a little longer and got some more banter and ad-libbing in there instead of the scripted bits. Olivia Wilde seemed experienced in her role and believable.

In the end, I didn't find the movie very amusing. It just felt way too forced and scripted. A good comedy should feel natural and unprovoked, at least in my opinion. "You mean I can't sleep with my wife and I can't sleep with other women?! What's that? -- Marriage."

Our Idiot Brother

So who wouldn't want to see this movie; Paul Rudd, Rashida Jones, Zooey Deschanel, Elizabeth Banks, Hugh Dancy, Adam Scott?! Yes, please. Throw into the mix that it's directed by Jesse Peretz who happens to be the same guy who directed the funniest episode of New Girl (the bad in bed episode) as well as a slew of Demetri Martin's Important Things. The movie pulled in about $24 million worldwide, which is a pretty nice profit given it's $5 million budget.

I ended up renting the DVD and watching it with my dad and he now swears it's the best movie of the decade. I'm not quite sure where that's coming from but it was a good movie nonetheless. Best movie of the decade? No.

Paul Rudd's character was very well written and one of my favorite characters to come along in awhile. He is an idealist and I love his ideals! The rest of his zany family were well written however there wasn't enough time in the movie for them to develop as much as Paul Rudd's however they did have more layers than the normal plot device family members. The plotline of the movie is a situational comedy however it was really how these characters reacted to these situations that provided the best parts of the movie in my opinion. The ending was cliched while poking fun at the cliche at the same time and providing a little chuckle. This movie, in my opinion, was more about the characters and their outlooks on life rather than the situations they found themselves in.

The movie was bright and had unique locations which is impressive given it's $5 million budget (given the impressive cast I'd venture a guess that most of the budget went to the salaries). I loved the soundtrack. Full of subtle relaxing music. Just my style.

Everyone did great in the movie. Paul Rudd was the main character but everyone else was equally as supporting. Although Emily Mortimer's character was a little depressing. There was a chemistry between the family which felt real. I enjoyed seeing Zooey portray an R-rated version of the character that she seems to have perfected in her most recent roles. Paul Rudd did a good job of playing the character and not just playing himself in a hippie sketch.

Overall, it was a good movie. It was a feel-good movie without being a fee-good movie. That totally makes sense, once you see it. The only thing was there was a lot of cliches in the movie, but again it was the characters that drew you in and almost made you forget about the convenient timing and cliched plot turns. "I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt and more often than not, they will live up to it" -- Our Idiot Brother

Melancholia

So I finally saw it; this movie everyone's been raving about with Kirsten Dunst's Cannes winning performance. The movie has grossed almost $10 million worldwide, with most of it being foreign earnings. I'm not that up to date with Lars Von Trier's work but I did immensely enjoy Dogville from several years ago. 


The plot is somewhat original and interesting in that it follows two sisters as another planet approaches earth in a so called 'death dance' that will result in the destruction of both planets. 


While the plot premise at face values suggests that this might be an armageddon-type end of the world apocalyptic movie. However, knowing Von Trier of course this cannot be taken at face value. Now I won't claim to understand all of the symbolism and meaning in Von Trier's movies but here's my stab at it. The two sisters in the movie are very well written with one representing optimism and the other cynicism. Or, not exactly cynicism but rather a view of the world matter-of-factly and the sort of detachment that accompanies this type of view. The oncoming planet to me represents turmoil, disaster, war, the economy, etc. It's just this looming ball of destruction and how our two sisters deal with it's presence in their lives. The one sister, Justine (Dunst), attempts and fails to create any real attachments during the first part of the movie when Melancholia is still a distant star. However, when the planet is obviously on a collision course with earth, Justine is quite calm and prepared for this type of disaster, inadvertently becoming the strong sister. While Claire on the other hand, played by Charlotte Gainsbourg, is optimistic about the world and works hard to help her sister in the beginning. When Melancholia approaches, she begins to heavily rely on others for her own peace of mind and eventually becomes frantic at the reality of the world which is looming upon them. I think this shows how much each sister is connected and attached to the world they are living in. 

The opening sequence of the film is my favorite; highly stylized and beautiful. We're presented with several slow motion sequences showing us how the movie will end. Action and dialogue is given equal screen time in the movie, which is something I usually enjoy. I find it frustrating when movies jump from dialogue to dialogue without showing how the characters arrived there or what they did in between. Life is not filled with constant dialogue. 


Kirsten Dunst won best actress at Cannes for her role. I've always enjoyed her as an actress and she does superb in this movie as well. I was expecting something over-the-top in this role because of all the talk about it, however it was much more subdued and melancholy :). I'm surprised I haven't heard more about Gainsbourg's performance. I thought she did equally as amazing. Perhaps I empathized more with her character being a mother, but I think she deserves more credit. Stellan Skarsgard was also a pleasure to watch. Yes, I watch True Blood, but he did a good job in his role and played the character much differently than Eric. 

This is a movie that sticks with you. It's got lots of symbolism and I'm sure much deeper meaning than my mind can encompass. It is a Von Trier film so it's not for everyone. He is a stylized film-maker. His films are works of art. If you want to just escape into a story, this one's not for you although this does have a chronological plot. I think at it's core level this movie shows us different ways people deal with the truth of the world, whatever that truth may be. Some of us hide it completely and can't deal with the pressure when the truth comes out, others embrace the knowledge of the truth and therefore lose their connection with the world around them, and some cling to their connection with others to deal with their different emotions about the truth. It's an interesting film nonetheless. "It cost an arm and a leg . . . for most people"