For Meg at 2birds1blog!

On the topic of Hookworms:

Guest Reviewer: An Education

Hello Kittens since I'm busy with school work and being lazy I have asked my friend Brittan (who has a very popular blog herself at www.brittanclaire.com) to review An Education for me.

Take it away Britt!

Directed by Lone Scherfig

Starring Carey Mulligan, Peter Sarsgaard, Alfred Molina, Dominic Cooper, Rosamund Pike, Olivia Williams, Emma Thompson

SYNOPSIS: A 16-year-old girl in middle class 1960s London can only dream of a life beyond her rigid schooling and application to Oxford until a much older man sweeps her off her feet and into the glamorous world she’s dreamed of.

THE GOOD: The writing! Every character in this simple coming-of-age story is richly developed appropriately flawed, and the supporting cast brings so much to their roles. The story is adequately paced to allow for character development and still keep the audience’s attention. Nick Hornby’s screenplay is smart and honest. The adults who surround our teenaged protagonist, Jenny, are often troubled and naïve but speak and act like the adults they are. Jenny (the perfectly cast Carey Mulligan), by contrast, is written as a wide-eyed, smart but inexperienced girl. She speaks like a teenager, albeit a teenager with an Oxford-worthy education. Other writers could take a few lessons from Hornby there. (I’m lookin’ at you, Diablo Cody.) I appreciate the honesty of the bourgeois, white, 1960s characters. This is just as much a film about race and class as it is a coming-of-age drama. There are uncomfortable reminders throughout of the context in which these characters exist, and there is no attempt to gloss over or modernize that context. Finally, this film could easily have gone the route of dark and sinister, with Jenny walking into a far worse trap than she did, or at least Scherfig capitalizing on the creepiness of the “older man” element. Thankfully, the story never delves beyond moderately creepy and we are left with an even more unsettling conclusion about the reality of adulthood.

THE BAD: This has been an incredible year for film, so An Education has to be judged in relation to its competition. Although this is definitely one of the better interpretations of this kind of story, it is still something we’ve seen quite a bit before. Maybe I’m a little tired of the coming-of-age film with a beautiful, fresh faced lead character, but with all of the incredibly original stories out there right now, it’s hard to get completely behind a film that’s not doing anything especially new or bold.

THE VERDICT: Definitely one of the more worthy contenders in the Oscar nominee lineup, especially for best adapted screenplay. It will get one more wide run thanks to its nomination, so see it while you can. If you gave your money to Juno, you should give your money to An Education. It’s only right.

I give it 4 ½ out of 5.

Thanks for letting me play, Candace!

Possible New Feature!!

Hey Guys,

I have a lot of thoughts, many many thoughts that often don't go into my reviews. What I wanted to ask was would you guys be interested in a kind of the Movie It Could Have Been Feature. I have a load of ways to fix Leap Year, but it would be time-consuming and you all know I'm lazy. If there's no response in a week, I'll just write one and see what you guys think. Also do you like the pictures! No more walls of text!

--partial prejudiced and ignorant film student

Oh Amy Adams...: Leap Year

Who is she proposing to? Me?

Directed by Anand Tucker

Starring Amy Adams, Matthew Goode, and John Lithgow for exactly 2 minutes

SYNOPSIS: Apparently in Ireland a woman can propose to a man on Leap Day. Why this seemed like a good premise for a movie remains a mystery.

THE GOOD: Matthew Goode is really good looking. I mean really good-looking. It had very pretty settings. It's clear that they shot on location in Ireland, which is nice to see in a movie rather than substituting Vancouver for New York (yes this is a common practice in the industry). Amy Adams is so cute, it's hard not to root for her despite her character being a spoiled brat, which I'll talk more about below.

What's my motivation? I don't know just look sexy.

THE BAD: Well...it really was just a poorly written movie. Let's start with the premise. Apartment stager (does this actually exist?) whose name I've already forgotten...oh it's Anna it's on the poster good. Ok anyway Anna lives a privileged life. She has a weird job, a weird looking doctor boyfriend, and she's months away in living in her dream apartment. The one thing Anna wants is to be married, but her boyfriend doesn't deliver. It sounds ok so far right? Except Anna's character is about as developed as light exposed film, which is to say not at all. There's no reason why Anna wants these things. The movie relies on an outdated code of cultural values that don't really make sense in a modern world. Add to this the fact that despite Anna's posh life she was raised poor by a deadbeat father. This might explain why she lusts after this so called "perfect" life, but there's not even a hint of trying to develop this part of her life.

I wonder if I can exchange this bag for a well-developed character?

Even a simple flashback could have solved a lot of Anna's character problems. I think it's alright to leave some character traits to the imagination, but to have to infer the entire motivation of a character means a lack of writing and thought. Also I can understand that as a consequence of her poor upbringing Anna wants a better life, but I did not believe that she could become such a spoiled brat! Everything about her says materialism, but if you worked two jobs as a teenager I think you could understand the value of money without it making you some sort of uptight socialite. And it would be ok if this was just a mask to fit into upper crust society, but it's not. It's who she has really become and I just don't buy it.

Another issue besides the character development (I didn't talk about the others because they're standard cliches-The jilted grumpy love interest whose cruelty masks a broken heart and the posh, a little cold-hearted fiancee who is all wrong for our heroine) is the actual plot of the film. Again these outdated cultural values create a convoluted premise. Why does Anna need to travel to Ireland to propose? The film could have stood on its own without the Leap Day proposal aspect. I think the writer just wanted a time constraint. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a woman to propose to a man in America. Add to this the perfect uselessness of John Lithgow as Anna's father who appears only to give the information that it is considered "appropriate" for a woman to propose to a man on Leap Day in Ireland. I mean really, that's literally all he says.

The brief appearance of John Lithgow

Honestly, by the end I think even the actors were tired of this pantomime. The chemistry between Goode and Adams was practically non-existent by the denouement. Admittedly it's hard to get into a character who you know nothing about and whose character seems to be in contrast with their experiences. The love story was completely lacking. It's not enough for them to be attractive and hating each other and then just fall in love. That doesn't make sense! There needs to be some sort of bond forged between them-I don't know I'm just brainstorming.

Why did we do this movie?

THE VERDICT: It's really not worth it. At all.

I give it 1 out of 5*

CHUCCCCCCKKK

EVERYONE CHUCK IS ON TONIGHT! SEASON 3 PREMIERE! WATCH SO IT WON'T GET CANCELLED!!! CHUCK CHUCK CHUCK CHUCK!! 8/7 C NBC!!!

Cry God for England, Harry, and St.George!: Sherlock Holmes

Directed by Guy Ritchie

Starring Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams, and Kelly Reilly!!! Plus Mark Strong

SYNOPSIS: A re-imagining of the classic Sherlock Holmes tales with an undeniably Ritchie twist.

THE GOOD: What wasn't good about it? The acting: Superb! The setting: Excellent! The Action: Totally Wicked! Do you get it? It was awesome! Robert Downey Jr. was great as Holmes bringing both a vulnerability and sharp intellect to the character. I loved Jude Law as Watson he embodied him perfectly as described in the books! He was suave, a little sarcastic, and a great counterpoint to Holmes' eccentricities. You all know I love Rachel McAdams and big shout out to my favorite underrated actress Kelly Reilly who stars as Law's fiancee! Oh and I can't forget Mark Strong who was an excellent villain, but he's always excellent too. Who is Moriarty??

Ritchie's directing was excellent, his use of slow-mo to illustrate Holme's intellect and his great action sequences reminded me just why I love him. He brings a smartness and depth to turn of the century London that is quite amazing to watch.

THE BAD: It wasn't long enough!! I loved it! I'm looking for to the next installment!!! It was so nice I saw it twice!

THE VERDICT: Go see it, please? For me, would you?

I give it 5 out of 5*

A note on posts

Sorry there sparse y'all, but despite my visual memory I found myself with not much to say besides "Go See Them!!" A friend *cough cough Brittan** has told me I have to do a top 10 of 2009, which is a daunting and almost insurmountable task! I expect to have that list for you, dear readers, on December 31st 2010! So be ready!!

-partial, prejudiced, and ignorant film student