REVIEW: It's Complicated

Plot synopsis for It's Complicated from moviefone.com:

Writer/director Nancy Meyers ('Something's Gotta Give,' 'The Holiday') directs Meryl Streep, Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin in 'It's Complicated,' a comedy about love, divorce and everything in between.

Jane (Streep) is the mother of three grown kids, owns a thriving Santa Barbara bakery/restaurant and has--after a decade of divorce--an amicable relationship with her ex-husband, attorney Jake (Baldwin). But when Jane and Jake find themselves out of town for their son's college graduation, things start to get complicated. An innocent meal together turns into the unimaginable--an affair. With Jake remarried to the much younger Agness (Lake Bell), Jane is now, of all things, the other woman.

Caught in the middle of their renewed romance is Adam (Martin), an architect hired to remodel Jane's kitchen. Healing from a divorce of his own, Adam starts to fall for Jane, but soon realizes he's become part of a love triangle.

Should Jane and Jake move on with their lives, or is love truly lovelier the second time around? It's...complicated.

One thing in particular nagged at me throughout the entirety of this movie: the false reality that writer/director Nancy Meyers creates. Sure, Streep's character Jane owns a thriving bakery, but is that enough to afford a million dollar addition to her already multi-million dollar home? And this addition is for the kitchen of her dreams because, apparently, the one with the two stoves and seating for six isn't enough. It looks like a Williams and Sonoma ad. In fact, the whole movie feels like an ad for luxury goods. Everyone is stylishly dressed (and, of course, super good-looking), driving luxury cars or hybrids, it was just way too much to have to swallow.

The saving grace of this movie is Meryl Streep and Alec Baldwin, specifically Alec Baldwin (Streep has a couple weird "giggly" moments). But Baldwin is winning and charismatic and, this might have something to do with my love of 30 Rock, hilarious. These two have amazing chemistry together. Given the convincing attraction between Baldwin and Streep, it was a stretch to believe that Jane would see anything in Adam, Steve Martin's character, who is a complete nerd. Martin and Streep's on-screen time falls completely flat.

The movie does have a few hilarious moments and some great one-liners. But it's mostly full of dumb jokes that go on too long (let's have Meryl Streep and Steve Martin smoke pot!) and throwaway gags (let's put John Krasinski in a pre-teen girl's pajamas!). Also there are these odd "we're having a good time" montages full of sap. Overall, despite a few laughs, this is not a movie I would recommend seeing.

(I'm going to go on an architecture rant before I finish here. I've seen about a half dozen films featuring characters who are architects and they all have a hard time getting it right. This movie, with Steve Martin's character as the architect, is no exception. Movies always try to glamorize architects when we're not that glamorous. I have a hard time believing that an architect designing single-family homes is going to drive a high-end Mercedes. Or that he is going to need a staff of 30 (in a brick loft, of course), all of them hand-drafting (hand-drafting!!). The kicker to all this is when Adam shows up to Jane's ill-conceived kitchen addition with a roll of drawings big enough to build a mixed-use complex in Shengxen. Attention to detail is not this movie's strong suit. OK, rant over.)

Wade: 2/5 stars
Kinsey: 2/5 stars

REVIEW: Up in the Air

Plot summary for Up in the Air from moviefone.com:

Juno's Jason Reitman heads into corporate America territory once again with this adaptation of Walter Kirn's novel Up in the Air for Montecito Pictures. The plot surrounds a human resource administrator (George Clooney) whose life up in the friendly skies becomes his only world as he works to reach his ten-millionth frequent flyer mile. Jason Bateman and Vera Farmiga co-star in the Paramount Pictures production.

Critics keep referring to Up in the Air as a "movie of our time," a reflection of the issues of today and the economy. While this is partially true (Clooney's character is a "termination facilitator," coming in to fire employees when their bosses are too weak to) it seems more a study of a man very critical of relationships and the circumstances that lead to the overthrow of this conviction. The cynicism of Clooney's character Ryan Bingham is almost too hard to believe at times. His "what's in your backpack?" theory encourages people to sever all ties, both material and human and to live a life of solitude. He enjoys a scattering of "single-serving friends" (to quote Fight Club), but without allowing lasting connections. Can anyone really espouse this as their one true value?

Even with this underlying cynicism, Clooney still makes Ryan Bingham into a character that we can't help but care about. But this may have more to do with good casting by director Jason Reitman than any great character development of the screenplay. I mean, who doesn't like George Clooney? You'd have to try really hard to make Clooney unlikable. While Bingham's eventual comeuppance is obvious from the start, its even more painful than one would expect given the surprising connection you feel to the character.

Another point on the casting, Clooney and Farmiga have amazing chemistry together, bouncing lines off each other like Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell, all with subtle sexual undertones. It almost makes you wish they would co-star in a romantic comedy. Almost.

The director, Jason Reitman, has a subtle light touch, but still finds times to be inventive. For example,the ballet-like routine of Bingham's packing and maneuver through airport security is charming and fantastically entertaining.

All in all, Up in the Air is a wonderful movie, beautifully shot and acted. Definitely one to see.

Kinsey: 5/5 stars Wade: 5/5 stars

REVIEW: Fantastic Mr. Fox

Plot summary for Fantastic Mr. Fox from fandango.com:

A wily fox uses his formidable cunning to outsmart three feeble-minded farmers, who resort to extreme tactics to protect their chickens in director Wes Anderson's animated adaptation of the popular Roald Dahl children's book. For 12 years, Mr. and Mrs. Fox (voices of George Clooney and Meryl Streep) have lived a peaceful life in the wilderness with their son, Ash (voice of Jason Schwartzman). Shortly after their young nephew Kristofferson (voice of Eric Anderson) arrives for a visit, Mr. Fox's long-suppressed animal instincts begin to take over and the faithful family man resorts back to his old ways as a cunning chicken thief, endangering not only his family but the entire animal community as well. When evil farmers Boggis, Bunce, and Bean force the animals underground in a desperate attempt to capture the audacious Mr. Fox, dwindling food supplies force the frightened animals to band together in one last attempt to fight for the land that is rightfully theirs. Bill Murray, Michael Gambon, Willem Dafoe, and Owen Wilson provide additional voices.

It seems that many people have written off Wes Anderson as a perfect example of "style over substance." And it's true that he does have a specific style, a "quirk" as many describe it. While some of Anderson's films do focus too much on being visually appealing, hopefully Fantastic Mr. Fox will put an end to the perception that he doesn't know how to put a charming, meaningful story together. And I think charming is the perfect word for this film.

Definite credit needs to be given to Wes Anderson for leaping into the medium of stop-motion animation. It's a gutsy move, but it fits the Roald Dahl source material perfectly. It has a wonderful childish, cartoon feel. Anderson uses all the nuances apparent in stop-motion to his advantage, whether it's the sometimes herky-jerky movements or the ruffling of fur from fingers moving the models. When there are close-ups on the characters, that subtle fur movement even adds an extra layer of depth and feeling to the characters. Attention to detail is superb in this film, with all the characters being nattily dressed, something of a staple with Anderson's.

I keep coming back to the word charming. So many little instances that just make a guy smile, like, for example, using the word "cuss" in place of actual cuss words which leads to a heated argument where every fourth word is "cuss." Or that when a nicely-prepared plate of French toast is placed in front of the tie-wearing Mr. Fox, he suddenly and viciously tears into it like the wild animal he is.

Despite the humor, the film does have some dark undercurrents, which come from the source material. Of course the guy who created Willy Wonka is going to be slightly sinister. Characters do die, there is violence, and the three villains, Boggis, Bunce, and Bean, are definitely frightening. This film strikes the balance in everything it sets out to achieve. In our opinion, Fantastic Mr. Fox was, well, fantastic.

Kinsey: 4/5 stars
Wade: 5/5 stars

REVIEW: Coco Before Chanel

Plot summary for Coco Before Chanel from IMDb.com:

Several years after leaving the orphanage to which her father never returned for her, Gabrielle Chanel finds herself working in a provincial bar both. She's both a seamstress for the performers and a singer, earning the nickname Coco from the song she sings nightly with her sister. A liaison with Baron Balsan gives her an entree into French society and a chance to develop her gift for designing increasingly popular hats. When she falls in love with English businessman Arthur Capel further opportunities open up, though life becomes ever more complicated.

The biopic is a genre that has been mined in Hollywood since the beginning of cinema. From silent films like the Passion of Joan of Arc to Yankee Doodle Dandy to modern films like Capote and Milk, famous lives are always good candidates for screen time.

Recently we saw the French film Coco Before Chanel, chronicling the life of the famous fashion entrepreneur Coco Chanel. Now, most biopics follow a standard pattern: a difficult childhood, unexpected fame and fortune, descent into some sort of vice, followed by a glorious comeback. Thankfully, Coco Before Chanel didn't follow this pattern explicitly, almost the entirety of the movie is spent in the development of her character and confidence. Her actual success in fashion is barely shown, really only occupying the last few minutes of the film. While this was a nice change from the typical formula, Coco Before Chanel didn't especially break any exciting new ground in the realm of the biopic. One of the only things that really drew my interest was a lack of any sort of knowledge of Coco Chanel's life. She was a very interesting character with many complex relationships.

While Audrey Tautou and crew all did a nice job in this film, one major fault was the character of Coco wasn't very convincing. Throughout the movie characters referred to Coco as charming, exciting, and entertaining, but all we ever saw of Coco was Audrey Tautou moping in the corner smoking a cigarette. I often found myself confused at references to her as an "exciting companion" Also, the entire movie underplays her knack for design so well, that when she actually does become known for this (only the last bit of the film), I was a bit unprepared. Other than one brief love affair, the film only gives a skin deep examination of the character. It would've been nice to see it go a bit deeper, find the origins of her antagonistic design sense. And at times the film did seem a bit overlong, with Coco spending enormous amounts of time sitting around her friend's mansion. Definitely could have used a bit more trimming in the editing room.

Kinsey: 3/5 stars
Wade: 3/5 stars

REVIEW: An Education

The plot summary for An Education from IMDb.com:

Jenny ( Carey Mulligan) a very bright girl on the cusp of her 17th birthday, finds herself in a whirlwind romance with the much older David ( Peter Sarsgaard). Prior to meeting him, Jenny was working hard at secondary school to ensure getting to Oxford University. When she sees the lifestyle David can provide, one she never imagined could be hers, she's hooked and thoughts of Oxford are forgotten. Then, when things are looking pretty good for Jenny with the dashing ( yet a little too smooth) David, the truth hits her like a ton of bricks. Jenny goes from being a bright eyed school girl and a sophisticated young lady, all the way back to questioning if she really knows who she is at all. 'An Education' won the Audience Choice award and the Cinematography award at the 2009 Sundance Film Festival.

Life is about choices. Who we are with, what we do, where we go. It has always seemed unfair to me that the choices we have to make in our late teens/early twenties can often have the greatest impact on our lives, just when we're the silliest and least prepared to make them. I marvel that so many of us make it through this time without making a disastrous mistake. Jenny, the protagonist of An Education, has difficult choices to make herself. Does she go to Oxford as planned and go on to lead a "boring" life? Or does she live her life of "fun" with David, her much older lover? Yes, sounds like a tense coming-of-age film with drama, mistakes, and tragedy. And it is, but An Education is surprisingly funny as well, starting with some light and energetic opening titles and then leading into a humorous argument with her parents. There is the struggle of making sense of it all and the weight of decisions that will effect the rest of her life, but its presented in a manner that, while stressing their importance, still gives the feel of looking back at your young self and laughing at your own ignorance.

This movie is fantastic in that it feels like youth, exciting, romantic, scary, and magical. There is the furious joy of a first infatuation, the wonder of new experiences, realization that parents can fail and that you can disappoint. As a viewer, I felt sucked into this intoxicating feeling. The things Jenny was experiencing felt new and at the same time old and familiar. While Jenny makes the decision that alters the course of her life, I found myself thinking, "this is not the right choice, but I can't remember why..." Jenny's youth and way of thinking had convinced me, as the viewer, of the wisdom of her choice as much as she had convinced herself. In the end the lesson is learned (by Jenny and the audience) that some mistakes can be corrected, but you never get back your "first time" for life's experiences.

There has been a lot of talk about Carey Mulligan, the star of An Education, and she does a great job. But the performance that really stood out to me was Rosamund Pike. She does an excellent job playing the dimwitted friend of David. Playing dumb in an effortless manner is very challenging, but Pike is wonderful as this nitwit of a character and is completely convincing. An Education is wrought with fine acting, from Alfred Molina as Jenny's father to Peter Sarsgaard as the selfish David.

I think its safe to say that An Education may well be the best film I've seen this year, and I wouldn't be surprised if it makes into my top 5.

Kinsey: 5/5 stars
Wade: 5/5 stars

REVIEW: The Men Who Stare at Goats

Plot summary for The Men Who Stare at Goats from IMDb.com:

A reporter, trying to lose himself in the romance of war after his marriage fails, gets more than he bargains for when he meets a special forces agent who reveals the existence of a secret, psychic military unit whose goal is to end war as we know it. The founder of the unit has gone missing and the trail leads to another psychic soldier who has distorted the mission to serve his own ends.

Reality is how we perceive it. At least, that seems to be the message from the new Iraq War comedy, The Men Who Stare at Goats, starring George Clooney, Ewan McGregor, Jeff Bridges, and Kevin Spacey. The film flirts with reality both on and off the screen. On the screen, George Clooney's Lyn Cassady truly believes in his psychic abilities, which appear to maybe exist… maybe. I mean the guy does stop the heart of a goat. But, of course, we are also shown plenty of proof that this psychic stuff is baloney. Off the screen, the film is supposedly based on some true events. The film begins with the caveat of "More of this is true than you would believe." But as to whether, for example, there really were attempts to locate Manuel Noriega through remote viewing or whether this was entertaining fiction remains unknown to the audience. If, as Ewan McGregor’s character states, you’re looking for something to believe in, this movie may just show you a whole other side to the US Army.

This ballad of psychic soldiers is played surprisingly straight by all, which is great because I don't think I could handle a whole bunch of winking at the camera. It could really be summed up as a war/buddy/road film with "The Dude" as a major in the Army. There's another "reality" thing right there. I don't know if the "The Dude" could've made it in the Army.

This film was really funny, yet still addressed quite a few serious topics, religion, terrorism, torture, the privatization of the Iraq War, just to name a few. All these topics were broached in the same humorous, beyond belief approach that the psych material was presented. It created an interesting contrast; as an audience member, you knew and recognized aspects of true events, yet the way they were introduced or concluded left doubt in their reality. Overall this was an interesting approach and made for an enjoyable dilemma to watch. But for some topics this didn't work, especially at the end. Some of the topics just seemed too heavy for this light, playful manner of portraying them. It accounted for some awkward and confusing moments. The film also left events and topics very quickly, before fully satisfy the curiosity of the viewers. While this was consistent throughout the film, it did leave for a slightly unsatisfying ending.

The acting in the film was all very fun and believable - great cast. Overall, we'd recommend you go see this movie; while maybe not amazing it was an enjoyable movie experience. Its also a chance to find something to believe in…

Kinsey: 3.5/5

Wade: 3.5/5

REVIEW: Where the Wild Things Are

Plot summary from worstpreviews.com:

"Where the Wild Things Are" follows the adventures of Max, a head-strong young boy who leaves home after having a fight with his mother -- only to find himself in a mysterious forest bordering a vast sea. Misunderstood and rebellious, Max sets sail to the land of the Wild Things, where mischief reigns. The adventure film will use a unique process to bring the story to life, incorporating the most dynamic elements of voice performance, live-action puppetry and computer animation.

I sometimes suffer from overexposure when it comes to movies I want to see. I read a lot of blogs about movies and movie reviews and I watch a lot of trailers online. So when a movie gets a lot of positive buzz and a great trailer like Where the Wild Things Are, I get pretty excited. I mean, this film had one of the greatest trailers I've ever seen. I was pumped to see it.

The film wasn't what I expected. That's not a bad thing. It's still a good movie . . . just different. I've heard the responses that the film is boring, meandering, plot-less. I don't buy it. I think the film does a great job of examining the complex psyche of a child, which to be honest, can be pretty meandering and probably won't fit into the typical dramatic arc of a Hollywood picture. Truthfulness to the subject matter might explain those negative reactions. The co-writer and director Spike Jonze transplants the complicated emotions of typical child Max into a multitude of "wild things." There's selfishness, loneliness, rage, fear, whininess, anger, lots of pretty deep stuff. The most intriguing thing about the film is how Max interacts with these embodied emotions that he himself has experienced. Does he come out a better person? That's hard to say. Max definitely learns that being in charge isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Max declares himself king when he first arrives and makes a lot of "pie in the sky" promises of happiness and of wishes granted and whatnot. Well, that, of course, doesn't really work out as planned (shades of political commentary perhaps?). But even with that lesson learned, Max isn't a changed person when he leaves the island. He's definitely not grown-up, he's still a kid and is likely to go on acting out in the way that kids do. Yet maybe he has a better awareness of the benefit of having someone else in charge, of having someone else to take care of him. This seems evident by the change in attitude towards his mother when he returns home; its obvious he enjoys his mother's comforting presence as she watches over him as he eats his soup.

One thing that is definitely an A+ is the art design, especially in relation to the original book. The wild things look just as they should and the process of using actors in costumes and computer animation for the facial features works great. And I don't know where they shot this film, but its perfect. Very grey and barren, overcast skies, just a really rough landscape. And Max Records, who plays Max, is quite good. The success of this movie hinged on the ability of the actor playing Max being a believable child. All the voice acting was also well done, and despite many well known actors taking a role of a wild thing, as a viewer their celebrity never stole attention from their character.

While based on a children's book, this is not a kids movie. I've heard it described as a family film, but I would disagree with that term as well. It has a very somber feel, and while there are some funny moments, its a pretty serious film.

Wade: 4.5/5 stars

Kinsey: 4/5 stars

REVIEW: A Serious Man

A Serious Man plot summary from Wikipedia:

“A Serious Man” is the story of an ordinary man’s search for clarity in a universe where Jefferson Airplane is on the radio and “F-Troop” is on TV. It is 1967, and Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), a physics professor at a quiet Midwestern university, has just been informed by his wife Judith (Sari Lennick) that she is leaving him. She has fallen in love with one of his more pompous colleagues, Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed), who seems to her a more substantial person than the feckless Larry. Larry’s unemployable brother Arthur (Richard Kind) is sleeping on the couch, his son Danny (Aaron Wolf) is a discipline problem and a shirker at Hebrew school, and his daughter Sarah (Jessica McManus) is filching money from his wallet in order to save up for a nose job. While his wife and Sy Ableman blithely make new domestic arrangements, and his brother becomes more and more of a burden, an anonymous hostile letter-writer is trying to sabotage Larry’s chances for tenure at the university. Also, a graduate student seems to be trying to bribe him for a passing grade while at the same time threatening to sue him for defamation. Plus, the beautiful woman next door torments him by sunbathing nude. Struggling for equilibrium, Larry seeks advice from three different rabbis. Can anyone help him cope with his afflictions and become a righteous person – a mensch – a serious man?

I love the films of the Coen brothers. The Big Lebowski, No Country for Old Men, Fargo, Raising Arizona are some of my favorite films. They're latest, A Serious Man, is a little harder to swallow. Ebert had a great quote from Variety's Todd McArthy in his review, "This is the type of film you get to make after you win an Academy Award." Ain't that the truth. I'm sure this is a deeply personal film for the Coen brothers. It's set in the time (the 60s) and place (St. Louis Park, MN) where the Coens grew up, its story hinges on its character's Judaism. In a lot of ways it reminds me of last years Synecdoche, NY, except its not such a twisted mind-screw. This film's inner meaning lies more in the heads of the filmmakers than it does on screen.

I did like the film, but a lot of it I just didn't "get." I think that's exactly what Kinsey and I said to each other after the film was over. I spent about 15 minutes later in the evening looking up stuff online, like what a dybbuk is and other random facts about Judaism. Like I said the film seems very personal to the Coen brothers, who are Jewish.

The film is excellently crafted, of course. The editing and soundtrack choices are wonderful. And Roger Deakins, the helmsman of such beautiful films as No Country for Old Men, The Shawshank Redemption, and The Assassination of Jesse James, is behind the lens for the 11th time with the Coen brothers. And the acting keeps pace. Michael Stuhlberg, who I think is pretty unknown outside of the theatre crowd, does a commendable job as the lead. It would be easy to play Larry Gopnik as either a lovable loser or a common schmuck, but Stuhlberg plays him with enough subtlety and compassion to make him feel human.

OK, now back to what happens in the film and what it means. After doing a bunch of online research and reading a bunch of other reviews, I think I got the gist of it. Now Kinsey doesn't agree with this explanation but I think it makes some sense. According to Ebert and A.O. Scott, A Serious Man is a retelling of the biblical story of Job. Now I don't think it's a straight retelling but there are aspects of it in there, along with some continuation and a bit of a twist. Its more of an artist's interpretation, like if Picasso decided to repaint the Mona Lisa. It probably wouldn't look much like the original, but you would still know the source material. In the Book of Job, Job is tested by God through multiple tragedies yet continues to be faithful. So, to sum up, he's a good and righteous man who has a horrible time. In the film, Larry Gopnik's travails are less severe, but seem to happen for little reason and he seems a decent chap. The continuation and twist come in when Larry gives into temptation and then feels God's wrath. At least I think so.

Its either about that or its about the hopelessness and pointlessness of existence. You pick.

Well, I pick neither. I disagree with Wade, and yes, even Ebert and the great A.O. Scott. Being that the Coen brothers are Jewish, I would expect that they actually know the story of Job. This is not the story of Job, and if the Coen brother were attempting a modern take of the story, they have failed horribly. Job is not tested by God, but by Satan, because he's a righteous man - right from the beginning of this movie it is eluded to that Larry is not especially righteous (his wife gets after him for putting off seeing the rabbi). Also there is no big twist at the end, just more bad things happen and things get worse. It makes sense to tie the increase in disaster into the actions that Larry takes at the time, but once again this is the complete opposite of the story Job. There are many, many other stories out there of temptation (all the trouble in Larry's life leads to this moment of moral collapse), and then the consequences due to them.

So what's my take? Well I'm not completely sure, but the most I can offer is that this is a father/son film. Larry's son is the only other character we get to share experiences with throughout the movie. He, unlike his father, openly commits transgressions, and sometimes he is caught, but the results always seem to work out in his favor (having his radio taken away leads to a connection with the most sought after rabbi;, despite drug use, he still performs his role in the bar mitzvah). So the film gives us two takes for comparison, Larry trying to do his best, yet numerous failures and troubles, and the son, trying to do as little as possible, and getting through. There is also the sheperd/father relationships with the three rabbis. As Larry seeks answers to why his life is falling apart they don't listen/help/or even agree to see him. Thus leaving Larry (and the audience) with what appears to be the main thesis of the film- WHY is life this way???

Kinsey: 3/5 stars

Wade: 3.5/5 stars

REVIEW: The Informant!

Here's a quick plot synopsis of Steven Soderbergh's latest, The Informant!, from IMDb.com:

Mark Whitacre has worked for lysine developing company ADM for many years and has even found his way into upper management. But nothing has prepared him for the job he is about to undertake - being a spy for the FBI. Unwillingly pressured into working as an informant against the illegal price-fixing activities of his company, Whitacre gradually adopts the idea that he's a true secret agent. But as his incessant lies keep piling up, his world begins crashing down around him.

If you look at the history of movie trailers, there's an interesting progression. The earliest movie trailers contained extended scenes from the movie, with all kinds of white text sliding in and out, and usually with some clever narrator talking about how the film stars are "back at it again." Then you got Don LaFontaine with his booming voice and his trademark "In a world..." phrase. Nowadays, trailers either give away the plot of the film or make the movie seem like something its not. The Informant! trailer is one of the latter. The film is pitched as an absurd comedy, but is much more serious than the trailer lets on. Sure, there are elements of dark humor and Matt Damon seems like a buffoon (key word "seems") but this really is a fairly serious film, like a somewhat light The Insider or All the President's Men.

And kudos to Steven Soderbergh, by the way, for taking a novel about corporate espionage in the agricultural sector and turning it into a good film. It is a good film, with the performance of Matt Damon being its centerpiece. Its really Damon's film more than Soderbergh's. It hinges on certain believable nuances of Damon's character and Damon definitely pulls them off.

I think Matt Damon is underrated as an actor. I told this to Kinsey the other day and she didn't buy it, saying he gets tons of praise already. Yeah, the guy's got an Oscar, but its for writing, not acting. He has an Academy Award nomination for Good Will Hunting, his first lead role, but since then, nothing. The Talented Mr. Ripley, Syriana, The Good Shepherd, The Departed, heck, even the Bourne movies; his performance in any of these films was good enough for a nom. The guy should have at least one Best Actor trophy on his mantle. Maybe it'll be this year, his performance in The Informant! is definitely worthwhile.

Kinsey: 3/5 stars

Wade: 4/5 stars

Mon meilleur ami (My Best Friend)

I decided to change up how I do these movie reviews. The part that I'm the worst at (and like the least) is trying to sum up the plot in a nice little package. I feel like I ramble a bit and leave out important items. So instead I'm just going to borrow a plot synopsis from imdb.com and then get on to the fun stuff: what I think about the film. So here is the IMDB synopsis about My Best Friend:

François is a middle-aged antique dealer. He has a stylish apartment and a fabulous life, but at a dinner with a group he considers his dearest acquaintances, he is blindsided by the revelation that none of them actually likes him. He's arrogant, self-centered and harsh, and they don't believe he knows the meaning of friendship. His business partner Catherine makes him a bet: if he can produce his best friend, she will let him keep the massive Greek vase he acquired that afternoon on the company tab. If not, it's hers. Having accepted the wager, François naively tears through his address book, trying to shoehorn an increasingly unlikely series of contacts into the all-important role. Moving through Paris, he keeps encountering a trivia-spouting, big-hearted cabbie named Bruno. Bruno's chatty, lowbrow ways grate against François's designer temperament, but he covets the other man's easy way with people. He convinces Bruno to teach him how to make friends and sets about learning the "three S's" - being sociable, smiling and sincere - though they don't come easy. Ultimately, François victory will depend on Bruno's naiveté in playing along, but what's the cost of cheating at friendship?

OK, now that's out of the way.

This film was recommended to us by Anthony, my brother-in-law, a little bit surprisingly because he doesn't watch a ton of foreign films. I think the fact that it was foreign was a big reason he loaned it to us.

Personally, I was able to sympathize with the main character Francois' dilemma. I also find it difficult to make friends at times, to "socialize." But Francois has a much more semi-tragic, semi-comic arc than what I've experienced. This stems mainly from what he thinks are the best ways to procure quality friends. His whole notion on this matter is symbolized in the Greek vase mentioned in the synopsis above. The Greek vase, as described at the auction, was created in tribute to a dead friend, and the creator then filled it with his tears. This is the devotion that Francois desires. But instead of simply keeping the idea of the vase in his mind, he gets in to a bidding war for it, spending 200,000 Euros of company money. The film constantly demonstrates how Francois attempts to buy friends. He goes up to strangers in a cafe and attempts to pay their checks, offers to buy the next round, he even spends 10, 000 Euros on a worthless table in an attempt to make Bruno's parents like him. It becomes pretty pathetic.

Francois doesn't improve much when Bruno, the chatty cab driver, becomes his friend out of pity. It reaches a culmination when Francois tricks Bruno into committing insurance fraud for him. When the trick is revealed, Bruno smashes the symbolic vase. It is only at this point that Francois sees clearly. This vase, which he valued as the utmost symbol of friendship, was only brittle terra cotta that was easily shattered, and by someone he considered a friend. It didn't have the tenacity that real friendship does. It's place on the Pedestal of Ultimate Devotion was too much to live up to; it was holding Francois back. Only after he thinks the vase is gone does he act as a true friend towards Bruno.

The movie makes a big deal out of Francois' "friends" stating that the hate him. They say he's self-centered, arrogant, obsessed with money. And although that is true in a way, I don't think Daniel Auteiul's (also in Cache) portrayal totally brings that home. But I think that's a good thing. It would have been bad for the film if it portrayed Francois as some Ebenezer Scrooge-like curmudgeon, not too mention a French one. Who's going to feel for that guy? Kudos to Auteiul for keeping the Francois character somewhat likable.

Overall, a funny, enjoyable to watch French film.

Wade: 3.5/5 stars Kinsey: 4/5 stars

REVIEW: Inglourious Basterds

Quentin Tarantino is one of those directors who usually inspires a whole bunch of disproportionate criticism/praise. There's no middle ground with him; it's a love/hate type of thing. Unless you're me. Personally, I could lean either way. I've seen almost every film he's directed (the exception being Deathproof) and while I've enjoyed the majority of them, they're not knocking on the door of my favorite movies of all time. So while I was expecting a good film when I went to see Inglourious Basterds, I wasn't expecting anything amazing.

I was wrong. Inglourious Basterds is one of the best films I've seen this summer and one of Tarantino's best.

Inglourious Basterds definitely fits into the director's style. Instead of gangsters or assassins, this Tarantino film deals with characters in the realm of WWII. The film, broke into five chapters, has three major character groups that become more interwoven as the film progresses. There's the evil Nazi, the femme fatale Jewess, and the gung-ho American soldier.

Even though this film uses actual history as a starting point, that doesn't mean that Tarantino is going to take said history seriously. Has he ever taken anything seriously? The intentionally misspelled title should tip you off that this is going to be parodic in nature. And it is. Actual facts are thrown to the wayside as fictional characters mingle with real people and major aspects of WWII are changed drastically. How to explain the over-the-top accents of Brad Pitt (his character, Aldo Raine, pronounces Nazi like Yahtzee with a N and a hard A), Michael Fassbender, and Mike Myers than to realize that the director/screenwriter is just having a good time? And, in that same thought, how to justify the inclusion of a comedic actor like Mike Myers?

But the parodic nature of the film doesn't mean that it lacks gravitas. Two scenes in particular, the opening scene on a dairy farm and the basement bar rendezvous, deliver tension and suspense in spades. Both feature inordinate amounts of talking capped by moments of extreme violence. That would be a good description for the entire film, lots of talking punctuated with violence. But that's not a bad thing. It's the great verbal banter that keeps this film moving through its 2 1/2 hour runtime.

The true surprise of this film is unknown (at least in this country) Austrian actor Christopher Waltz as Col. Hans Landa, the Jew Hunter. Waltz takes the character of Landa above and beyond typical villainy, creating a smooth-talking, smarmy, evil Nazi that you can't help but stay focused on. Rather than casting a "name" actor for his villain, Tarantino searched for someone who was right for the character, who could act in four languages, and Waltz is his perfect match. Great casting is another strong point of the film. Other than Brad Pitt (who is just a piece of the ensemble), there are no big names. Actors are cast for their similarities to the characters. Germans are cast as Germans, French as French. Its another quality aspect of the film that can be chalked up to Tarantino (I sure am giving him a lot of praise, but its really his movie, through and through).

So whether or not you enjoyed Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, or Kill Bill, Inglourious Basterds is really something to behold.

Wade: 4.5/5 stars

Wade's Ultimate Top 100 Mega List!

I don't know what drove me to do this. I must've been thinking about the American Film Institute or something. But anyway, I decide to compile my top 100 favorite movies of all time. Mainly I was trying to stay busy and out of Kinsey's hair while she studies for her certification exam. I do have a few criteria for these films. I ranked them based on rewatchability, initial impressions, and also a general notion of film quality and originality. Now, I'm not a professional film critic or anything so I'm sure there are hundreds and hundreds of great films out there that I haven't seen. This list will probably change in a few years. But, for better or worse, here it is, with the occasional descriptive blurb.

1. Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)

The most quotable movie ever. I could watch this every day for a year and not get tired of the popping verbal gymnastics.

2. The Apartment (1960)

A great mixture of lighthearted comedy and serious emotional issues. Plus Jack Lemmon is a dynamo.

3. 12 Angry Men (1957)

Tension filled. And it all takes place in one room.

4. Modern Times (1936)

I never realized how great an entertainer and comedian Charlie Chaplin was until I saw this film.

5. It Happened One Night (1934)

A timeless romantic comedy featuring two stars with actual chemistry together, Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert.

6. Pollock (2000)

A biopic about my favorite artist. I want to paint every time I watch it.

7. Young Frankenstein (1974)

Mel Brook’s best film and, thusly, one of the best comedies of all time.

8. The Third Man (1949)

Watching this makes me wish movies were still filmed in black and white. Amazing use of light and shadow. Plus a scene-stealing supporting turn from Orson Welles.

9. Finding Nemo (2003)

I think this is the most aesthetically impressive work from Pixar and its already six years old. Great voice work.

10. The Big Lebowski (1998)

It took awhile for me to comprehend this Coen brothers classic, but once I did I couldn’t get enough.

11. The Lion King (1994)

I like Disney and I like Hamlet. It makes sense I would like the Lion King.

12. Wayne’s World (1992)

My go-to movie during high school. I almost wore out my VHS copy.

13. Die Hard (1988)

The greatest action movie of all time.

14. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1966)

Clint Eastwood figures prominently on my list.

15. Blazing Saddles (1974)

Not quite at the level of Young Frankenstein, but close.

16. Toy Story 2 (1999)

One of the rare instances where the sequel is better than the original.

17. North by Northwest (1959)

Suspense! Hitchcock! Cary Grant! The perfect grey suit! Killer crop-dusting airplanes!

18. In Bruges (2008)

A pleasingly profane and superb script makes this film one of the best and most memorable films of the last couple years.

19. The Sting (1973)

Newman and Redford and the Batman and Robin of mid-20th century cinema. They’re the dynamic duo.

20. Unforgiven (1992)

Eastwood, Eastwood, Eastwood.

21. Rio Bravo (1959)

I’ve always been a fan of John Wayne and the subtle nuances of his persona shine through in this Western.

22. The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

The best of six Star Wars movies.

23. Some Like it Hot (1959)

Another great duo, Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon. Plus they’re in drag. And Marilyn Monroe!

24. Fargo (1996)

Gotta love the Coen brothers and their “true story” of murder and deceit in Minnesota.

25. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

Indiana Jones is the penultimate man’s man for most youth, including me.

26. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)

More Newman and Redford in a great revisionist Western.

27. No Country for Old Men (2007)

Is there any better use of silence in a modern film?

28. Amelie (2001)

Adorable French film.

29. Children of Men (2006)

One of the better sci-fi/dystopian/whatever-you-want-to-call-it films to come around in a while. Wonderful cinematography.

30. Rear Window (1954)

Hitchcock and Jimmy Stewart is a slightly better team than Hitchcock and Cary Grant but not by much.

31. The Blues Brothers (1980)

Great car chases/crashes.

32. Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (1986)

I wish I had the extroverted qualities of this guy. But I can’t imagine myself singing Wayne Newton and The Beatles during a parade.

33. The Departed (2006)

The only Scorcese that makes it onto my list. I enjoy the guy but not to the point of exhaustion that some people do.

34. Cast Away (2000)

Only Tom Hanks could express true sorrow over the loss of a volleyball.

35. Brick (2005)

The best high school-set noir ever made. And probably the only one at that.

36. Bringing Up Baby (1938)

Classic banter between Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn.

37. The Great Escape (1963)

A great WWII movie with an all-star cast.

38. Star Wars IV: A New Hope (1977)

No list is complete without this one.

39. Raising Arizona (1987)

Another classic Coen brothers picture.

40. Rififi (1955)

The heist film to end all heist films.

41. Babe (1995)

Can't get enough of those singing mice.

42. For a Few Dollars More (1965)

The second film of the Man With No Name trilogy. Sergio Leone is a master.

43. Ratatouille (2007)

Even though the chef is a rat, this movie still makes me hungry.

44. Fitzcarraldo (1982)

The best on-site film production ever.

45. Wall-E (2008)

46. Pan’s Labyrinth (2006)

47. O Brother Where Art Thou? (2000)

Criminally underrated Coen brothers movie.

48. Toy Story (1995)

49. The Truman Show (1998)

50. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

51. Spiderman 2 (2004)

52. The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)

Another Eastwood classic.

53. Man on Wire (2008)

54. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)

55. Big (1988)

56. Little Children (2006)

57. There Will Be Blood (2007)

58. A History of Violence (2005)

59. 8 ½ (1963)

60. This is Spinal Tap (1984)

61. The Incredibles (2004)

62. American Splendor (2003)

63. Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942)

This film literally crackles with James Cagney’s screen presence.

64. Groundhog Day (1993)

65. The Dark Knight (2008)

66. Romeo and Juliet (1968)

67. The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

68. Moulin Rouge! (2001)

69. The French Connection (1971)

70. All the President’s Men (1976)

71. Le Samourai (1967)

Great French film noir with the quite handsome Alain Delon.

72. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

73. After the Wedding (2006)

74. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975)

75. The Princess Bride (1987)

76. Amadeus (1984)

77. Pride and Prejudice (2005)

78. A Night at the Opera (1935)

79. Batman Begins (2005)

80. Adaptation. (2002)

81. Ed Wood (1994)

82. A Fistful of Dollars (1964)

83. The 400 Blows (1959)

If Francois Truffuat’s childhood was really like this, then… yikes.

84. Sense and Sensibility (1995)

85. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)

86. Monsters, Inc. (2001)

87. Fight Club (1999)

88. The Bourne Supremacy (2004)

89. The Return of the Jedi (1983)

90. Caddyshack (1980)

91. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

92. Up (2009)

93. Aladdin (1992)

94. Rosemary’s Baby (1968)

95. Beauty and the Beast (1991)

96. Citizen Kane (1941)

97. Almost Famous (2000)

98. Elf (2003)

99. The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)

Never has someone done so much acting with just their eyes.

100. Abbot and Costello in the Foreign Legion (1950)

Recasting the Matrix

The Matrix was first in theaters on March 31, 1999, a little over ten years ago. I'm a little late on this, as there were a bunch of tributes to the film around its anniversary three months ago.

Anywho, last year I entered this "recasting" contest on the website SpoutBlog. They had sponsored a bunch of these contests where readers would send in new cast lists for famous movies, like Caddyshack. I decided to enter and, lo and behold, I got second place, which netted me a T-shirt and a free DVD (it was Amelie). So, in reference to the tenth anniversary of The Matrix, I'm republishing my second-place entry.

Here's the original cast list just to jog your memory:

Keanu Reeves ... Neo
Laurence Fishburne ... Morpheus
Carrie-Anne Moss ... Trinity
Hugo Weaving ... Agent Smith
Gloria Foster ... Oracle
Joe Pantoliano ... Cypher
Marcus Chong ... Tank
Julian Arahanga ... Apoc
Matt Doran ... Mouse
Belinda McClory ... Switch
Anthony Ray Parker ... Dozer
Paul Goddard ... Agent Brown
Robert Taylor ... Agent Jones

And here's my winning entry with comments from the contest-runners at the beginning:

Second place: wadetown for his BBC production. My favorite part is Alan Rickman as Agent Smith--that guy always brings a campy danger to his villainous roles. And I'd love to see Paddy Considine (one of the two Andy's in Hot Fuzz) play Cypher. Considine has an uncouth charm, always greasy-looking and sporting bad facial hair.

The BBC presents The Matrix

Clive Owen ... Neo

When you think about it, this would be a lot like his role in Children of Men. A disillusioned character frustrated with his reality, except with a lot less baby-protecting and a lot more kung fu.

Sir Ben Kingsley ... Morpheus

Morpheus has to be bald.

Cate Blanchett ... Trinity

She can wear her wig from Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

Alan Rickman ... Agent Smith

This pick hinges on the availability of using a time machine to go back and get the Hans Gruber Alan Rickman from Die Hard.

Dame Judi Dench ... Oracle

A small role for her, but since its Judi Dench she'd probably get nominated for an Oscar.

Paddy Considine ... Cypher

Something about Paddy Considine screams for a role as a double-crossing weasel.

Chiwetel Ejiofor ... Tank

Not much reasoning behind this pick other than the Zion-born humans should be healthy and attractive.

Steve Coogan ... Apoc

Bringing much needed comic relief to this movie.

Freddie Highmore ... Mouse

His first adult role. And I really want to see him whip out two huge machine guns right before his character gets killed.

Thandie Newton ... Switch

Colin Salmon ... Dozer

My only obscure selection. He was in a couple of the Pierce Brosnan Bond films I believe. Plus he kind of looks like Chiwetel Ejiofor's brother.

Jeremy Irons ... Agent Brown

Another Die Hard villiain as an agent.

Hugh Laurie ... Agent Jones

For some reason, all my agents ended up being the snide, sarcastic Brits.

Growing Up in the Midwest, Watching Westerns

Today happens to be my Grandpa's birthday. When I think of him, its hard not to remember watching our favorite movies together while I was growing up. There were two movie types that were overly prevalent in my youth: Disney cartoons and Westerns. The Disney cartoons are a given; what kid doesn't love Aladdin? But the Westerns, I think, have a lot to do with growing up on a farm in southwest Nebraska. Now to put this to rest at the beginning, this wasn't a stereotypical "farm." We didn't ride horses or raise pigs. I didn't wear a cowboy hat or boots (but my Dad and Grandpa did). But there was still a connection to the Old West, with the wide open spaces, working the land, and machismo, which is why I had an enjoyment for Westerns as a kid.

Recently, I've gained more appreciation for Westerns as true classic films. Unforgiven; Rio Bravo; The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly; all classic films. But as a kid, I just thought they were a good time. And I've also come to appreciate the occasional modern rediscovering of the Western. There was a mini-renaissance a couple years ago with The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, There Will Be Blood, and No Country for Old Men. But what hasn't been reinvented and what seems to have totally fallen out of the spotlight, is the light-hearted comedic Western. It is this brand of Western that I really remember enjoying.

The Shakiest Gun in the West (1968)

This was my favorite movie as a child for a long time. In my book, there's nothing funnier than Don Knotts, and this movie takes his meek bumbling persona out West as a fresh-faced (not literally, of course) dental school graduate, looking to spread oral hygiene. Along the way he gets into his fair share of scraps, but is constantly bailed out by his wife Penny, who is a pardoned outlaw helping to break up a gun smuggling ring. There is a ton of great physical comedy in this film. And physical comedy coming from Don Knotts is hilarious because the poor guy looks so terrified all the time. The following video clip has the unforgettable theme song and a hilarious dental examination scene.

Support Your Local Sheriff (1969)

Another Western comedy that I watched again and again with my Grandpa. Isn't James Garner a slick operator? In this movie, The Great Escape, The Rockford Files and Maverick TV shows, he's always the guy with the plan. Would it be sacrilege to say he rivals Steve McQueen for on-screen cool? Maybe. In this movie, Garner is a small town sheriff who uses wit and ingenuity to overcome the local baddies. It's a "fish out of water" story in that Garner is the one smart guy in a town full of idiots. There was a sequel or companion film made called Support Your Local Gunfighter that was decent but not nearly as clever as this one.

Maverick (1994)

This is what I remember as the most recent attempt at a comedic Western. And it's, of course, a TV adaptation. Be that as it may, this film has one of Mel Gibson's best comedic performances as the suave gambler and Jodie Foster playing against type as a conniving Southern belle, and, of course, James Garner. Fifteen years since the last decent Western comedy. This movie was very funny and did pretty well at the box office if I remember correctly. It makes you wonder why they don't make movies like these anymore. Oh, well.

I still have fond memories of watching all these movies on VHS with my Grandpa. We'd sit with our stash of candy recently acquired from cleaning out the candy aisle at the local grocery, he'd repeat the witty phrases right after they happened in the movie, and then, inevitably, fall asleep halfway through the movie (don't tell him that though; he was just "resting his eyes.") So, on my Grandpa's birthday, I'll dedicate this post about our favorite films to him.

Foodie Film Featured Moments

A couple weeks ago, Kinsey and I saw Julie & Julia, which focuses much of its time on the life of esteemed chef Julia Child. It made me realize something: I love food. And I love watching food in the movies and on TV. And, very recently, I've also developed a newfound enjoyment of cooking food. So that got me thinking about my favorite food moments in the movies:

Babette's Feast (1987)

I had to watch this movie three times (that's right, three) during my first semester of architecture graduate school. We were doing a project involving slow food and deconstructing a walnut... anyways, at the time I wasn't really able to appreciate the film. I still hadn't really become aware of the glories of foreign cinema. But what I do remember is the namesake feast. Its the type of extravagance that I know I've never seen. I don't know if I ever will have a meal that includes turtle soup, buckwheat cakes with caviar, quail in puff pastry shell with foie gras and truffle sauce, and rum infused yeast cake with dried figs, but at least I can watch people eating one.

Big Night (1996)

The Big Night is a delightful little romp starring Stanley Tucci and a post-Wings, pre-Monk Tony Shaloub. These two star as brothers who run an authentic, struggling Italian restaurant in New Jersey. There is one dish that is served in the final third of the film that just looks crazy good: the Timpano (see picture above). A crazy combination of pasta, meat, pastry, and eggs that makes me drool. Now, I'm pretty far away from having any Italian blood in me (I'm German and Czech), but there's something about Italian food that draws me in. Maybe I'm watching too much Lydia's Italy on PBS, but I can envision Kinsey whipping up a Timpano some Sunday afternoon, cutting that first delicious slice, me going back for seconds and thirds, then realizing I ate the whole thing, and spending the rest of the evening lying on the floor moaning in agony/ecstasy while Kinsey stands above me, shaking her head. Yeah, I could totally go for that.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)

This one isn't nearly as delectable but still a clever scene. I'm talking about the scene in Temple of Doom where Harrison Ford and Kate Capshaw are served monkey brains, beetles, eyeball soup, and pregnant python. This scene is so over the top that it goes beyond insensitivity. I've never eaten anything that looked as gross as this meal, but the character reactions remind me of a bear stew that Kinsey and I whipped up once. We took one jar of preserved bear meat and assorted vegetables, let it cook all day, and were greeted with the worst smelling, worst tasting meal we had yet made together. Thank goodness for Papa Murphy's pizza.

Spanglish (2004)

I don't think this film got much acclaim when it came out, but Kinsey and I both really enjoyed it. It's nice to see Adam Sandler in a serious role, this time playing a chef. We enjoyed the movie so much that we bought the DVD (it was also really cheap). One of the special features is a behind-the-scenes look at the making of a special sandwich featured in the film. Its really just a BLT with cheese and an egg on top, but it is so good. Kinsey and I have made it a couple of times, and I think the DVD gives it an appropriate title as the "world's best sandwich."

Fried Green Tomatoes (1991)

This is a movie that Kinsey appreciates a lot more than me. I don't know why, I just don't get into it that much. It does have a memorable food fight scene with flour and blackberries that reminds me of Kinsey's cooking style a bit. The optimal comparable word would be messy. I could go on and on about the messes Kinsey has made in the kitchen, but the piece de resistance is the infamous hoison sauce incident. This involved a pan of hoison sauce, a wooden spoon, and the propellor-like motion of that spoon as it sprayed wall, ceiling, and floor with the sticky Asian sauce. Like Fried Green Tomatoes, quite the mess indeed.

Ratatouille (2007)

This is probably my favorite film about cooking. I can't even pick out one moment to mention because the whole movie is just so delicious (I've been using that word a lot in this post). Actually, if I had to, I would mention an early scene in the film, where Remy (the rat) is cooking a mushroom along with a few paw-picked spices over a chimney. If I had seen this movie in my youth, there's no way I could've appreciated this scene. I was a very picky eater. I especially had an aversion to mushrooms. I didn't have dietary problems or was allergic, I was just picky. And stubborn. But know, when I see that fresh mushroom post-lightning strike, well, I just wish it was real and on my plate, not animated and on a screen.

REVIEW: District 9

Have you ever thought that you were well informed about something but then found out that you weren't? I always thought I was pretty knowledgeable about major world events of the last couple decades, but after seeing Distric 9, from first-time writer/director Neill Blomkamp, I found myself doing a little online research about apartheid, and I definitely did not know the entirety of the events.

District 9 is an allegory for apartheid in South Africa, swapping out Africans for aliens. These aliens, degradingly known as prawns, have stalled out over Johannesburg and are being forced to live in squalor. The main focus of the film is an attempt to move the aliens far away from the city.



I think Kinsey summed it up best when she said this film was unlike anything we've seen in quite a while. Most summer movies can be easily locked into a specific category. Let's take a look at the movies we've seen so far this summer:

Julie & Julia - biopic
The Hurt Locker - war movie
Public Enemies - biopic
Rudo y Cursi - buddy/sports movie
(500) Days of Summer - romantic comedy
Up - animated movie, but I guess it would fall into the original category


(Wow, we really haven't seen that many movies this summer)


So we've got one fairly original concept and five movie types that we've seen before. And we don't even go see your typical summer fare. Now, on the surface, District 9 seems to be just a sci-fi film. But once you see it, you realize its a sci-fi/deep character study/action/mockumentary/political statement/social parable/father-son film all rolled into one. And what's even more impressive is that it did all that on a $30 million dollar budget, miniscule compared to most big summer movies.


Originality is a tough cookie. Anymore, its seems like originality is more about the parts then the whole. No one is going to say that Neill Blomkamp came up with the idea of aliens landing on Earth. That would be ridiculous. But he is one of the first to take those earthbound aliens and make them the meek instead of the mighty. It reminds me a bit of architecture school. We (the students) would pour over the works of famous architects, Louis Kahn, Herzog and de Meuron, MVRDV, Frank Gehry,Peter Zumthor, looking for bits of inspiration, looking for precedent. And in the end, if you were lucky, you had a mostly original work. It wouldn't be Peter Zumthor; it would be Peter Zumthor-esque. I would love to hear Blomkamp talk about his inspiration or precedent for District 9.

There are other fields of science fiction (which I have limited knowledge of) besides film, so maybe the concept of refugee aliens isn't as original as it may seem. But when it comes to the world of movies, District 9 is a novel and very thought provoking film.


Wade: 4/5 stars
Kinsey: 4/5 stars

Hidden Gems of the Public Library

Ah, the public library. Purveyor of books and, uh . . . other media. And also a very nice resource for free movie rentals, if you live near a good library. The Minneapolis Central Library had a great collection of films. I was able to see Modern Times, The Public Enemy, The Cabinet of Dr. Caliguri, all for free. I was sad to leave it behind.

But, lo and behold, Rochester's library has an even better selection, complete with organization by category. Today I checked out Croupier, The Legend of Drunken Master, and the Criterion Collection of The Red Shoes. And today I watched...


I'm sure most people have seen a Jackie Chan movie or two. Probably one of the Rush Hour films or maybe Shanghai Noon. But if you really want to see Jackie Chan in all his kung fu glory, you need to rent one of his Hong Kong made movies, like Rumble in the Bronx, First Strike, or Who Am I. Sure the acting is unintentionally hilarious, the English dubbing is awful, and the plots don't make sense, but these movies have some crazy awesome action sequences. There are three particular ones that stood out:

Jackie Chan vs Lau Kar Leung under train fight scene

This fight scene happens early in the film and is instigated because Jackie Chan's character, Wong Fei-Hung, has something stolen from him. The best part of the this video is the first two minutes, where Jackie Chan and Lau Kar Leung fight crouched under a train with a sword and spear, respectively. Notice how the camera actually sits still and focuses on the fight choreography, rather than having all kind of crazy jump cuts like you see in the typical Hollywood action movie.

Jackie Chan and Lau Kar Leung vs. the Ax Gang

Nothing like two guys fighting a hundred guys. This fight mixes in some comic relief and the ever-enjoyable use of everyday objects as weapons, this time a shredded bamboo pole and a table.

The Final Fight

Three things mesmerize me about this climactic fight: (1) Jackie Chan's lucid, flowing "drunken boxing" fighting style, (2) the fact that Jackie Chan crawls across actual burning coals, and (3) apparently the guy he's fighting has no joints below his waist.

If you're looking to not think and have a good time with a movie, check out The Legend of Drunken Master.

Julie and Julia

Due to the fact that we could not for the life of us get a TV signal with our rabbitt ears, Kinsey and I had to break down and buy cable for our new apartment in Rochester. Just basic cable, mind you. Very basic. But the great thing is that we get six PBS stations. It might be a bit dorky, but we watch the crap out of these stations. Lydia's Italy, Barbecue University, Mexico One Plate at a Time, we eat these shows up (pun!).

So it goes without saying that we were definitely in the mood for a foodie movie when we went and saw Julie and Julia last night. Julie and Julia is a based on a book which is based on a blog written by Julie Powell. In said blog, Julie chronicles a year-long expedition of cooking all 524 recipes in Julia Child's landmark cookbook, Mastering the Art of French Cooking. The movie spends half its time with Julie and her challenge and half its time with Julia Child coming into her desire to be a cook while in Paris in the 1950s.

The first thing that has to be said about this film is that Meryl Streep nails it once again as Julia Child. Not only does she nail the vocal tones and fluctuations and body movements, she takes it beyond mimicry and makes her "make-believe" Julia Child a full-fledged personality. Her interactions with Stanley Tucci (playing her husband) are subtle and fantastic. I was smiling every moment she was on-screen.

I wish I could say the same thing for the Julie part of the film. Not to take anything away from Amy Adams, who plays Julie, but her character is boring and self-absorbed. There's just no stakes, no conflict to really care about. With Julia, you have her attempt to break into a male-dominated profession, to break through a culture barrier, to rewrite the history of cooking. With Julie, you have burnt beef bourguignon and stupid fights with her husband. Frankly, I could have done without the Julie in Julie and Julia.

Wade: 3/5 stars
Kinsey: 4/5 stars