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

333-DDDD: Avatar!

Directed James Cameron

Starring Sam Worthington, Sigourney Weaver, Zoe Saldana.

SYNOPSIS: After a 15-year wait James Cameron finally unleashes Avatar on the unsuspecting public. Utilizing 3-D camera technology that he developed himself Cameron treats us to a visual journey into the realms of impossibility.

THE GOOD: 3333-DDDDD....Sorry, but really the visuals in this are astounding! I've never seen anything like it! It was so awesome! The story was pretty cliche, but the world was so lush and real that I didn't care. I'm also in love with Sam Worthington and Sigourney Weaver smokes!

THE BAD: Um...the interwebs makes me feel bad about liking this movie, but I really did. I mean the plot is cliche-white guy saves indigenous people-and the denouement was to be expected, but come on people were you watching it with your eyes?? It was so beautiful that any qualms I had were blown out of the window.

THE VERDICT: Go see it! Preferably in IMAX-3D It's worth it I promise!

I give it 4 out of 5*

Are You Ready?:The Princess and the Frog

Directed by Ron Clements and John Musker

Starring the voice talents of Anika Noni Rose, Bruno Campos, Keith David, Terrence Howard, and O-o-o-who-Oprah!

SYNOPSIS: In a return to traditional 2-D animation Disney brings a new twist to the class Frog Prince tale starring the first African-American princess.

THE GOOD: A lush setting, great music, and great voice cast. New Orleans serves as the backdrop to the story and it is full of life and music. I loved the story and basically it just made me feel good. The music was excellent and up to par with more classic movies like The Lion King and Aladdin. The animation was downright amazing and beautiful. The setting really helped provide an excuse to make every scene colorful and vibrant.

THE BAD: It was slightly depressing. But this seems to be the new thing in animated movies. Pixar has been playing with more dramatic themes and it seems Disney has decided to go this route as well. It was moving and tastefully done, but left me a little sad.

A note on the controversy surrounding the film: GET OVER IT!! I was not offended by anything in the movie and I think most of it is people looking for something to get upset over.

THE VERDICT: Go see it! If by the time of this review it's actually still in theaters.

I give it 4 out of 5*

**sorry if this is a little sparse I saw this about a month ago and since I am lazy am just reviewing it now.

What is the Haps?

Hey dudesters! Sorry I've been MIA, and yes I did just write the word dudesters. I'm cool right? Anyway same blah blah blah about being a grad student and papers, and projects, and my heroin addiction*, and smiling at Liev Schreiber. I was actually able to cobble together a post for you, but I promise I have more forthcoming this week! The semester is winding down and I'm finishing things up which gives me more time to devote to this blog...that 5 people read. I do it all for you.

So a preview of coming events: Reviews for The Fantastic Mr. Fox and The Blindside. I may throw in some DVD picks of the week and maybe, if you're good, a retro movie of the week too. See I'm capable of maintaining a blog of some sort on a nearly regular bi-monthly/annual basis!

-your partial, prejudiced, and ignorant film student

*Mom-I am not actually addicted to heroin.

Why Don't You Ever Wear a Shirt?: New Moon

Directed by Chris "I'm a Hack" Weitz
Starring the Twilight Trinity and some hot shirtless dudes

SYNOPSIS: If you don't know what Twilight is can you tell me what far away tropical island you live at so I can escape there? But seriously, the first one was about some vampires. The second is about some werewolves. Some teen shirtless werewolves.

THE GOOD: Once again the soundtrack delivers. I'm a big fan of Carter Burwell and his soundtrack for Twilight was a nice mix of instrumental with some great indie music thrown in. Amazingly for New Moon they got Alexandre Desplat to do the soundtrack! This amazes me because he has an amazing roster of films. This year alone he's done the soundtracks for The Fantastic Mr. Fox and Coco Avant Chanel. How do they do this?? And then they get bands like Death Cab for Cutie, Muse, Bon Ivor, Thom Yorke, and Ok Go to contribute tracks. And not just tracks, but original tracks. That they wrote. Just for this movie. Honestly, it's mind-boggling.

Also worthy of note is a "montage" with some great transitions and camera work. I probably liked it mostly because of the song choice for the scene.

THE BAD: Oh Lord, where to start? The writing, the acting, the cinematography? It's all just sub-par. Well let's dive right in.

The writing: Everyone knows, at least everyone with a brain knows, that Stephanie Meyer writes like a 12-year-old. Her oddly compelling, must-read staying up for days at a time deal with the devil writing style has snared me in its horrible, obsessive claws. Yes I will admit it on this blog: I am officially obsessed. Anyway, if I were the screenwriter I would try and tone down the obvious, hit-you-over-the-head melodrama and cheesy dialogue. Maybe it's just me, but I would actually try and make a good movie, possibly one that subverts the books themselves cause I'm ironic like that. Instead, Melissa Rosenberg chose to emulate, and even at times make worse, Meyer's original writing. This involves a series of montages that don't tell any story, bad dialogue, and poor scene choices and transitions.

This leads into the acting: Again as a director I would try and actually bring out the latent acting talents of my cast possibly adding more nuanced layers to two-dimensional and unrealistic characters. Chris Weitz, in his infinite wisdom, chose not to go that route. Instead he chose to increase the horrible dialogue by ramping up the awkwardness of each character action, instructing his actors to talk three inches from one anothers' faces, and encouraging them to talk in awkward, stilted phrases. Also have you heard of lavalier mics, Chris? They're these little mics you can hide on your actors so I can actually hear the dialogue over the absurdly loud rain you've got going in some of your scenes, for no reason I can fathom. I don't know maybe the dialogue's important to the film, but what do I know Chris? I'm an ignorant film student and you're a "big-time" director. Besides the dialogue is horrible anyway. Maybe you could just do a cut where all the dialogue is covered by inappropriate rain sounds, the like of which I have never heard in real life. (Whoa...did that get a little bitter there? Sorry dudes, but its just...so easy to fix...even in post...sound mixing...gaaaaah...)

Finally the cinematography: Trick photography is cool, I'm all for 360 degree rotations, upside down transitions, impositions, and dissolves, but preferably not in the same movie. Within five minutes of each other. Don't rely on trick photography to cover up your inability to competently direct a movie. I am not impressed that you can turn a camera around a chair. Hey have you heard of a guy named Joe Wright? You should he's actually a good director. He did this little thing in a movie called Pride & Prejudice where he uses a swing and 360 degree pan to illustrate the seasons passing. It doesn't have cuts and it's an extremely beautiful shot. Oh heyyyy there's a shot in New Moon exactly like that, except I get to look at the back of a chair for about 30 seconds. Wow, stealing a better directors technique, normally I would applaud you. It's a cool transition, but hey if you're going to steal do it right. And don't half-ass your way into a horrible scene transition that is stupid and I hate it. I hate it, ok? I hate it and I hate you Weitz! That's right! You don't get a first name anymore. You ruined The Golden Compass and now you've...ruined...well that's not right, but you've kind of ruined this movie. Really only for me. Silly me, I was actually expecting something. Anything. Cause it was going to be bad anyway. Yo Summit Entertainment, if I email you a script for Breaking Dawn will you read it? Just kidding I have better things to do with my time than write a ground-breaking script for a mediocre, best-selling, fan fiction turned into a novel.

whoa long post, dudes-hope I didn't scare you off.

THE VERDICT: Just don't. Don't go see it. Even ironically, hipsters. I mean I totally saw it unironically, but it was a disappointment even for my low expectations. There's so much potential. I know those people can act-somewhere there's a good movie in there I just know it. You've got to believe. David Slade...you're up!

I give it 1/2 out of 5. That's right 1/2...I'd give it a 0 if it weren't for the soundtrack.*

sidenote: I refuse to call it a saga...a saga is something epic and not about sparkly vampires...oh I could go on and on and on...I told you I'm obsessed, but I'll spare the reader from my ramblings.

Disney's A Christmas Carol 3D

Directed by Robert Zemeckis
"Starring" Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, and Robin Wright Penn

SYNOPSIS: Yet another iteration of Charles Dicken's A Christmas Carol. This time Robert "Motion Capture" Zemeckis has tried to bring the classic story to life.

THE GOOD: I will preface this by saying I don't like Robert Zemeckis, at least not anymore. Yes he directed Forrest Gump, but his recent foray into the world of 3D has left me confused and also frightened. Very, very frightened. Basically he uses motion capture technology to digitally animate actual actors and then puts them in 3D. I find this ridiculous. Why not just shoot real actors in a real environment. Not to mention that his visualizations end up looking profoundly creepy resulting in double takes of the "Is it Colin Firth or not?" variety. Beowulf is a prime example of this-he didn't even bother changing their appearance! It's just Angelina Jolie glowing with a tail! And when the lute came out I was just...done. Okay rant over.

This has a lot going against it. Namely that studios have just beaten this tale into the ground. However, Zemeckis does some cool things with his cinematography, stuff that obviously would not be possible in the real world. It is also a decidedly darker version of the tale. If you've ever read the story it's dark. Dickens was a moralist and all of his books have a certain slant. Most of the time it isn't pleasant and certainly not kid-friendly. So Zemeckis has made it dark, but with many funny moments, although I might have been scared if I was a kid. What I liked most was his portrayal of the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. It was very well done, although his scene didn't really make any sense to me. I won't spoil it for you, but it was definitely new and really cool looking. The 3D really does add a nice visual component as opposed to some movies who rely only on the novelty to entrance viewers Zemeckis really uses the technology to tell the story and immerse the viewer (run-on sentence I know).

THE BAD: Well the ubiquitous of the story is definitely a negative. Zemeckis doesn't really do anything new with the story, although he adds a great visual element that is definitely new. I don't want to belabor this point, but the people in the movie are not people. There is something decidedly off about them. Maybe it's because he was trying to change existing actor's anatomy, but everyone looks a little weird and I was generally frightened. Especially when they're my favorite actors. I just can't help wondering why Zemeckis wants to use real actors for his facial characteristics. The technology is so good that he could create entirely new people, so why make Gary Oldman look like some sort of mutant hobbit? I just don't know.

Although I liked the faithfulness of the dialogue it just doesn't translate to a modern audience. Using 19th century dialogue while telling a story in 2009 is a hard thing to pull off and Zemeckis doesn't quite succeed. Coupled with the fact that often Jim Carrey is barely intelligible and I could see how audiences might get lost.

THE VERDICT: I'm really torn on this one. I know my being creeped out by the characters is something that maybe only I feel. But I can't help but feel that this just isn't worth seeing. Yes the 3D was cool, but I don't really see any other strong points other than the visuals. And even those visuals CREEPED ME OUT. Did I say this enough? I was creeped out. So I would say wait for it on DVD...maybe...unless you really like 3D....but don't pay extra.......yeah.

I give it 2 out of 5 stars*

Note: I re-read this post and it's riddled with contradictions. Is it scary? Yes sometimes, but it's also funny. Did I like it? I honestly don't know-I'm befuddled by it so take this review as is I guess.

Nightmare Before Christmas

Editing is hard gang! But I have slaved away on my poorly shot iPhone movie and edited down to the part with Nightmare Before Christmas stuff. It has a soundtrack and everything! Credits to Fall Out Boy-I hope I won't have to take this down...I think it counts as Fair Use? Anyway here it is for you viewing pleasure! More videos soon...I have have a whopping ten whole minutes of footage!

Leave That No Account Oogie Boogie Out of This!

The Tim Burton Exhibit at MoMA featuring original content and films by the master himself! Through April 26th, 2010

Well dear readers, I have some content for you at last!! My awesome cousin Hallie got me tickets for the preview of the Tim Burton exhibit at MoMA. It was packed and awesome!!! I went with my friend Brittan and took a lot of video which I will edit and post on the site sometime this weekend. There were models from Corpse Bride and The Nightmare Before Christmas, original sketches, notes to directors and modelers (even one to Johnny Depp about a line in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory!). There was a model of Oogie Boogie that glowed in the dark. Original shorts and commercials. Free drinks and more! I highly recommend you go see it if you're in New York. It's open until April of next year!
Also free drinks! And weird breadstick thingies! MoMA will also be showing all of his films over the coming months, which kicked off with Pee-Wee's Big Adventure on Wednesday. A nice guard let us in near the end of the movie even though we didn't have a ticket. We heard he was introducing the film and thought we might catch him, but sadly he must have snuck out...Pee-Wee was as good as I remember it though!
So an Awesome Night followed by an all-nighter to finish a long paper! But fun was had and I don't regret it!! Anyways video forthcoming!

No News is Good News, Right?

Hello readers, all 5 of you! I know I've been MIA this past...well...month, but school is hard. I don't get that many opportunities to see movies anymore. In fact I haven't seen any new movies in weeks. If you don't count me watching the Corpse Bride repeatedly on Netflix. So once the break comes I know I will have reviews for you! Keep obsessively checking my site for new content, it makes me happy to see my numbers go up (Thank You Google Analytics!)!

Blindness

Directed by Fernando Meirelles
Starring Julianne Moore, Mark Ruffalo and Danny Glover

Sorry no witty title...it was too good! Also got distracted reading the imdb message boards....

SYNOPSIS: Before you read this I highly recommend that you read the book by Pulitzer Prize winning author Jose Saramago of the same name. Basically the plot centers around an outbreak of "blindness" in a small city. In Saramago's book it's a metaphor for human interaction and he probes the depths of what it means to be human in his book.

THE POSITIVE: I don't want to end up talking about the book but it's written almost stream of consciousness without names or punctuation. I was quite surprised when it had been adapted, but didn't go see it because I read critical reviews that panned it. Remind me never to trust critics again. I thought it was beautifully and wonderfully acted by everyone involved. Julianne Moore especially stands out because in the film she is not affected by the outbreak. So of course a lot of the film centers around her and how she copes in a world suddenly without sight. The cinematography was also excellent. Saramago's novel is very visual and the film conveys that through point-of-view shots and steadicam work. There's also a washed out look to most of the film that really works with the tone and subject. Basically I loved it.

I'm going to digress here and talk about my somewhat hypocritcal stance on film adaptations. While I agree a film should stand on its own as a work separate from its literary counterpart that is not to say that it should completely disregard the literary works original style, tone, and substance to achieve that end. This film is a balancing act for me. Since I've read the book I obviously got a lot more out of it than the average user a fact brought home to me when reading the imdb message boards for the film that read WORST FILM EVER. And there's not just one like, there are several. Then upon actually reading what people have to say and discovering that their opinions are completely uninformed and unjustified makes me want to go on a long and extensive rant. Which I am doing right now on this blog since I refuse to post on the message boards. But what was I saying...Oh a balancing act yes. For the average moviegoer this film is not the average movie. It requires a little more understanding to work it out. I'm not in a position to say if without reading the book you could enjoy because I have read the book therefore my opinion on the subject can't really be taken into account, but I do think if you walk into the film with an open mind you can sincerely enjoy it.

Whew! Done that was a long one sorry about that...Also since I like to think of myself as a filmmaker, even though I don't make films. Basically I fantasize about turning movies into books. When I finished this book I had a perfect shot in my head for the ending and guess what? THEY DID IT!! That alone sealed the deal for me liking it.

THE NEGATIVE: There isn't any...it's just so awesome. I guess a negative would be that you have to read a book to fully understand it, but since when is reading a book a bad thing? In fact go read the book right now.

THE VERDICT: Definitely see it! It's on netflix right now!!! With or without having read the book! It's totally awesome!

I give it 5 out of 5*...yes you read that right.

I've Always Hated You: The Invention of Lying

Directed by Ricky Gervais and Matthew Robinson
Starring Ricky Gervais, Jennifer Garner, Rob Lowe, and Tina Fey with a whole bunch of cameos...

SYNOPSIS: Imagine a world where no one can lie. Then some dude can. What happens?

THE POSITIVE: I liked all the actors in it. Jennifer Garner is so cute and I love Ricky Gervais. I thought it was well acted. There were also some very good humorous moments.

THE NEGATIVE: It was way too long. The plot made sense in a micro way, but as I left the theater and thought about all the implications of a world without lies it fell through. The concept of the film basically also implies that there is no imagination hence no lying. While this is interesting it doesn't explain how the world evolved. Without imagination most of the inventions we have wouldn't exist. The love story also didn't work for me either. I think Ricky should have not starred in the lead role. I'm so used to him being an unlikable character that it was hard to see him as actually nice. It was also not very funny which is not what I was expecting.

The big "controversy" of the film is that the world never evolved a religion and it also implies that religion is an invention of mankind. While hard core Christians might take offense at this I think that everything in reality is largely an invention. How we perceive ourselves and each other is largely a manifestation of our own particular world views. Sorry to go all pedantic, but it seemed like a moot point to me. It's not treated in a crass way, in fact the genesis of his religion is from a very, unexpectedly, sad and touching moment. I don't think it was meant to make fun of religion, but perhaps to expand our thinking.

THE VERDICT: Even with all the thought-provoking I wouldn't go see it in theaters. I would definitely rent it though. I feel bad for Ricky, but this was not his best work.

I give it 2 out of 5.*

What Kind of Place is Japan Anyway?: The Informant!

Directed by Steven Soderbergh
Starring Matt Damon, Melanie Lynsky, Scott Bakula, and Tony Hale

SYNOPSIS: Based on a true story Mark Whitacre is an executive for a large corn plant or something. He becomes embroiled in an FBI investigation and acts as an informant for the government over corruption in the corn industry. I know what can be corrupt about corn? Oh so so much...

THE POSITIVE: Extremely well-acted. This is a great point for the film since it as very character driven. Most of the action of the plot revolves around Mark Whitacre himself and I think Matt Damon does a superb job in a nuanced role. The film really pivots on Whitacre's testimony and how it eventually unravels. Damon portrays a man on the edge very well, but also a seemingly normal guy caught in a bigger situation. I also love Soderbergh's direction. It's very old school and captures the mood and kind of zaniness of the case very well. The entire cast acts as an excellent straight man to Damon's Whitacre. Really just a superb film

THE NEGATIVE: It's not for the average movie goer. If you're expecting a conclusion or easy answers you're not going to get it in this film. Not everything is packed together nicely, but it works for the film. It was a tad too long, but I really don't have anything negative about it.

THE VERDICT: Really awesome! You should totally go see it! I loved it!

I give it 4 out of 5.*

SPIKE JONZE!!

So a quick post about what I did tonight:



-Went to MoMA and saw Spike Jonze's film about Maurice Sendak and their collaboration: Tell Them Anything You Want

-Heard Sendak and Jonze talk about what inspired them to make Where the Wild Things Are and talk about their friendship

-Watched a short film Spike Jonze and Catherine Keener made for Maurice Sendak's 80th Birthday-sooooo funny!

-Saw a clip from Jonze's new film Where the Wild Things Are (Out Oct. 16th!)

-Saw Julianne Moore, Karen O. (of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs), and Catherine Keener

-Spoke to Maurice Sendak and told him what a fan I was

-Embarrased myself in front of Maurice Sendak because I was told he wasn't doing autographs and I had my sketchbook out

-Ogled Karen O. and Catherine Keener (Julianne Moore skipped out quick) wondering if I should try and get their autographs-I didn't

-Got Spike Jonze's autograph in my sketchbook!!!!!



On an unrelated note I also saw Matthew Morrison, Mr. Schu, from Glee walking down 5th Avenue. It's been a good week. Going to DC this weekend so maybe new posts Tuesday..

Brittan went with me here's a link to her blog post about it: http://brittanclaire.blogspot.com/2009/10/i-met-spike-jonze.html

She rights way more eloquently then me plus she has more pictures!

Let's Celebrate Mediocrity: Whip It!

Directed by Drew Barrymore
Starring Ellen Page, Drew Barrymore, Kristen Wiig, Juliet Lewis and Academy Award Winner Marcia Gay Harden

SYNOPSIS: In the small town in Bodine, Texas Bliss is a lost girl looking for her passion. Her mother forces her to do beauty pageants, but her real talent is in roller derby! Enter motley crew of bad ass roller derby girls! From there the film becomes about Bliss affirming her identity and challenging her town's preconceptions.

THE POSITIVE: Once again Ellen Page manages to blow me away. Her range is great and she really does a great job in this film. The rest of the cast supports her well. Kristen Wiig once again shines being both comedic and dramatic. Drew Barrymore plays a sideline in the film, but it's actually very nice to see an actor-director not insert themselves unnaturally in a film (I'm looking at you M.Night Shyamalan!) I also thought the story was well written and executed. It managed to be both light-hearted and touching at the same time.

THE NEGATIVE: I thought this film could have done with some editing. It was a little too long. There seems to be a trend going on with longer films, but this story could have been told in less time. Even though I found the story interesting I knew where it was going. I don't know if this is just me, but it seems like every movie I've seen recently has been a little unexciting. While I liked this film I didn't really get very excited by it.

THE VERDICT: I think it's a cute story and despite my qualms it's worth seeing. So go support Drew's directorial debut at the box office!

I give it 3 out of 5.*