#017 - Terminator: Salvation (2009)

(Note: for anyone unaware, the titles of my posts often act as hyperlinks to notable pages. Try it on this one. Oh Google, you're so clever.)

Director: McG

Writer: John D. Brancato & Michael Ferris

Runtime: 115 min

It should be public knowledge by now that I'm reppin' a serious man-crush on Christian Bale. As far as I'm concerned, the dude is gold. And his blow up popularized by youTube has only increased my desire to see this movie. Not to mention a kickin' sweet trailer. Say what you will about the Terminator franchise. It has a very recognizable theme, one that can pump you up pretty good.

So it turns out that this movie is pretty solid. Not spectacular or anything, and one of the weaker movies Bale has been in for some time (dating back to The New World, maybe). But that's much more of a vote of confidence for the other ones, and less a knock on this one. He actually isn't even really the star of this film. Sam Worthington, who plays the post-human droid in the story, pretty much carries throughout. His presence is actually a bit more demanding on screen than Bale's is, potentially due to the fact that it's a breakthrough role for him.

As opposed to the ridiculous action-explosion vehicle that was Terminator 3, this one actually has a relatively clever plot. There are a couple twists and turns, and if you can look past the typical "Kyle Reese has yet to be sent to the past so if he dies, I die" cliche, overall it's an impressive little tale. For the first time we really see direct confrontation between humans and machines, since T3 just opened the door up for those posibilities. And in the movie, humans are pretty much consistently out performed by machines. They are smarter, stronger, and more ruthless, which is an updated take, since in the past I feel like man vs. machine stories have always ended up falling in favor of man for some ridiculous little loophole reasons.

Overall, there's not much more to say for this. Enjoyable movie, though I didn't have very high expectations for it, so I think that might have buoyed my level of satisfaction. It won't go down in history as a classic, but it filled the slot for early-summer action blockbuster just fine.

#016 - Fire David Letterman. Right Now.

Click that link. Fun stuff.

In case anyone is unaware, sometime last week Letterman made a joke on his late show that went something like this:

"Sarah Palin got a real surprise last week when Alex Rodriguez impregnated her daughter in the 7th inning of a Yankees game."

Apparently Palin actually attended the game with her 14-year old daughter, Willow, and not her 18-year old daughter, Bristol, the one who recently had a child. There's been a lot of outrage about this, people claiming Letterman to promote statutory rape, slandering the girl for being a prostitute, all this kind of stuff.

I think this is kind of getting out of control. Let's take a look at some of the facts:

-Palin is a public figure. She's controversial, polarizing.

-She had a young daughter who got preggers.

-ARod is a public figure. He's controversial, polarizing, and seemingly has no sense of humor about himself.

-His sexuality has been a bit of an issue recently, and something to poke fun at.

Letterman apologized for his joke, saying that he had intended to combine the elements of Bristol's pregnancy with ARod's absurd public persona, which have both been topics of jokes on his and other shows for months. He didn't mean to suggest it was supposed to be Willow, I guess he didn't do his homework about which daughter it was who was at the game, and he didn't clarify which daughter he meant at the time. I guess it's one of those things where theoretically it's funnier if he lets the audience decide, but in reality it just turns out to be much more controversial. Looking at this list of facts about the situation though, and knowing he's a comedian, who makes jokes for a living, and belongs to a community of comedians who do this sort of thing all the time, is it really so ridiculous for him to make the joke? He'd basically be doing his job wrong if he didn't take advantage of a highly public situation like that, a perfect opportunity to utilize the coming together of two divisive personalities. It turned out it was not a funny joke, one that people kind of cringed at, but that doesn't mean he should lose his job. A lot of comedy is sick and twisted. If you thought comedians were actually in favor of all the topics they discuss during their acts, I think they'd all be arrested no questions asked.

Not saying he made the right decision by making the joke, but he apologized, it's kind of an absurd reaction for people to have to attack him like this. I'm not even a huge fan of his, really, and I never watch the show. But he's a comedian. He's supposed to utilize shock value. Maybe it would be more effective to go out there and picket all the ACTUAL rapists and pedophiles out there? As opposed to someone who mistakenly made that reference during a stand up comedy routine. Just a thought.

#015 - Away We Go (2009)

Director: Sam Mendes

Writer: Dave Eggers & Vendela Vida

Runtime: 98 min

By all accounts, this is a charming little movie. Only, one could say it's not exactly a little movie. I was highly surprised when I first saw the trailer of this film. It was clearly pulling directly from the Juno aesthetic, the "indie film that could". John Krasinski, Maya Rudolph, and Dave Eggers score major nerd points, but then at the end I noticed a fairly inconspicuous little note: "Directed by Sam Mendes". Sam Mendes?! As in, Revolutionary Road? American Beauty? Jarhead? Road to Perdition? Was this a direct attempt by a major studio to copy the indie feel, enlist some of the hottest names on the market, and sign one of the biggest names in directing to try and pull the wool over our eyes?

Who knows what the real story is. It worked. Of course I immediately wanted to see the film. Check out the trailer for yourself, it's chock full of little quips and quirks, and no matter how much you can pinpoint, "Hey, they are deliberately trying to do something here..." in the end, it makes for an intriguing concept:

The basic storyline goes: Burt (Krasinski) and Verona (Rudolph) are expecting a child, living in a run down home in a quiet rural area near Burt's parents, who have told them they are excited to help raise the baby. Only his parents decide last minute that they are going to move to Belgium, and feeling abandoned, Burt and Verona decide to go on a tour of the continent, visiting friends and family in an attempt to find the place where "they belong". Each one of these voyages is accompanied in the film by a title slide stating "AWAY TO ______", so you are certain not to miss it.

The movie's got a pretty solid if expected mix of comedy and drama. It's fairly weighty. They're expecting a baby but Verona doesn't want to get married. They are in flux with their professional careers. Verona's parents are dead. Burt longs to give his child everything she could ever need. Their friends are a special mix of caring, supportive, psychotic, out of touch, and depressed. But the comedy nonetheless chugs along. There are an enormous amount of cameos, most of them of a comedic nature--Jim Gaffigan, Allison Janney, Catherine O'Hara, Jeff Daniels, Maggie Gyllenhaal. But personally I feel like the best side characters were the serious ones, played by two actors who fly a lot lower under the radar than the names above, Chris Messina and Melanie Lynskey. They were absolutely terrific. Round, fully developed characters, with likable personalities, even though they only spend about 10 minutes in the story. And it's their introduction that is the start for the film's emotional turn, shifting away from the slapstick and cardboard and towards a wholesome, cathartic conclusion.

My favorite part of the movie is that the writers don't make the assumption that you, as the viewer, are seeing the ONE time these two characters will ever have a specific type of conversation. For instance, when Verona complains that she is fat and will be ugly for the rest of her life, Burt tries to assuage her concern with a little bit of humor. "I will always love you," he says, "even if it takes you years to lose this weight." Then he goes on to say some more vulgar things, but sometimes as viewers you might be prone to thinking, "Wow, what a jerk he is to not take this as seriously as she is." But in reality, she's pregnant. She's in her early 30s. They are a couple, this is not the first nor last time they'll ever have that type of conversation. And when you love someone and you have the same conversation 5, 6, 10, 20 times, you can't always be as serious about it as you would be if it was just that ONE time. They did a fantastic job with this concept throughout the film. It was a refreshing slice of reality. A film is a story of two hours in the lives of these people who have been together for years. Yes, they are two important hours, but they have already talked about everything before, and I appreciate the respect they showed the audience by not slopping on the gravitas.

See it. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

#014 - Some Men Are Truly Saints.

I don't even really know where to begin with this story.

Just read it:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=reilly_rick&id=4247723

It's almost unfathomable that this kind of person exists in the world. I understand he just wants to make a buck, and that, realistically, he's only taking money from a professional sports organization and nobody is getting hurt here since they make plenty. But come on. What he's basically going to do is drive sports franchises to the point of never offering special promotions, especially on Mother's Day, a day which has become immensely popular across Major League Baseball for its support of breast cancer-related causes and expression of gratitude to all of the mothers and women out there (who are normally invisible to sports marketers). What he's trying to say is, "Hey, let's NOT promote women's health! Those bitches are always getting their way!" It's almost the same as going to an AIDS clinic and saying, "I don't have AIDS, but I want the drugs anyway." And then when they refuse to allow you to deprive a seriously ill person the treatment that they need, you sue them. Hooray for lawsuits. I propose that they form a committee, of 101 members (2 from every state plus me, the chairman) that overlooks all potential lawsuits, and just throws out the truly absurd ones like this. If you are in favor, clap your hands twice.

And it's again somewhat baffling that this comes from the state of California, a state which I feel like for a while had the perception of being forward-thinking, a haven for open sexuality, and a home to money-grubbing studio execs.

The studio execs are as money-grubbing as ever, but what the hell is going on with the rest of the state?

#013 - There's One Wrong Way

I have eaten many, many Reese's cups in my day. They are a favorite of mine, they are a favorite of my family's, every Christmas I get a giant bag of them in my stocking, yeah I pretty much devour any Reese's cup that has crossed my path.

If there's one thing I've learned through this time, it's that Reese's definitely come in two very distinct varieties--one that is awesome, and one that sucks. I'm not saying they are manufactured any different, or that there are two Reese's factories out there and one of them screwed the pooch on the recipe. There are probably a number of factors that lead to this schism. Before we get into those, though, let's take a look at the distinct qualities of both tribes:

-AWESOME-

Generally sleeker. The chocolate on the outside is crisper, you can run your finger across the top and not pick up any residue. The chocolate is not melty, in fact, often times when you remove the brown paper wrapping from the outside, the tops of the tiny crown around the fringe will crumble off into your lap. This is always a good sign. The peanut butter inside is smoother, creamier, not clumpy.

-SUCKY-

Generally less appetizing. The first sign is that the chocolate is of a lighter complexion or melty. If you lightly press your finger into the top it will bring back a splotch of chocolate with it, or leave an indentation in the surface. When you remove the wrapper, the chocolate is very likely to remain stuck to the bottom. Inside, the peanut butter is clumpy and dry, lacking a smooth consistency. Your mouth is not as pleased when eating this variety.

For those of you who appreciate visual stimulus in addition to verbal, I have obtained the following photos, courtesy of me at lunchtime.

Notice the bitemarks. Instead of a clean, crisp break from the remainder of the cup, the chocolate is smeared and sticky. This is also not good for teeth. Leads often to the dreaded crap-across-your-front-teeth look that results in minutes of ridicule and a significant drop in self confidence.

A terrific example. Instead of being crisp and upright, the crowns along the outside rim are melted and droopy. The chocolate is completely stuck to the bottom of the wrapper, and has a light brown color. The peanut butter inside is visibly clumpy, even on a camera phone.

There are many possible explanations for this phenomenon, though I think it relies not heavily on one, but rather on a combination. They might be significantly older than the awesome variety, having sat on the shelf for considerably longer and more prone to the wear and tear we all experience with age. They're also probably not being stored in the proper climate. Too warm, too humid, a dank closet somewhere, possibly even dating back to their original production and shipment. And last, but least likely, they could have even been made in a separate batch. Maybe 3rd shift, when the best batchmasters have gone home for the day and are sleepy snugly in bed, knowing the sheer volume of delicious cups they have produced. The newbies and low-wage workers take over for the night shift, tired and unfocused, maybe the production line is hurried. I'm not sure what the explanation, but these cups are clearly less appetizing. For all of these reasons though, I would suggest finding a store that you can rely upon for the preferred cups. Probably one that rotates through its stock often and keeps the room a cool, moderate temperature.

If you're unsure of the variety one store might be selling, however, you could employ a few tricks to help make that judgment last minute. Sometimes I like to lightly press on the outside of the package with the tip of my finger, see if I can feel a noticeable indentation made in the top of the cup. Melty chocolate is a clear sign of impending failure. If that's hard to judge, you could attempt tapping on the surface of the cup lightly. If it feels like you're tapping a relatively hard surface, like that of a credit card, I would call that a good sign. If it feels like tapping the top of a cupcake, watch out. You can always act like you changed your mind at the last second, pick up a Payday or something, this is an important decision.

And hopefully, for your sake and mine, when you finally open that package, you will not experience the same disappointment that I did when I opened mine yesterday. On sight I knew I had erred, and would only pay for it with dissatisfaction.

#012 - *Handsful (see #011)

I chose the word "Handsful" in the previous post about The Brothers Bloom, then turned to ask Dan (of this fame) if he thought it would be inappropriate to use that word. He then informed me that I knew nothing of the English language, that he believed I resembled a familiar pack animal, and that he had intimate knowledge of my mother. After I was done wiping my eyes, he apologized and offered a solid suggestion--that I should just use whatever word I wanted to use, and then tell people that I knew it was wrong, but that I wanted to do it my way anyway.

It's not common, but I've definitely heard people use phrases like, "I have two brother-in-laws." Well, I'm not a fan of this. You have two brothers-in-law. It's noun-descriptor agreement. And I feel like this is a similar case, with the word "handfuls".

Argument 1: A "handful" is an amount. Designated with a word in the dictionary. To pluralize a single amount, you pluralize the entire word. One tablespoon, two tablespoons. One handful, two handfuls.

My comeback: Whenever this word was invented, it was most likely in this manner--Grab one hand full of flour and mix. How much? One hand full. What if I want to double the recipe? Well then you grab TWO hands full. Two handsful. The reason I would not want to pluralize the word "full" is that it's an adjective. For a word like "armlength" though, I would pluralize it. Two armlengths. Why? Because the length of the arm can be doubled. The full of the hand can't be doubled, that doesn't even make sense.

Argument 2: Don't be such a snob. You're no better than anyone else, you use incorrect speech all the time as well. (Not that handfuls is incorrect. The hole grows deeper.)

My comeback: I live in a green apartment. I painted everything green. The windows are green, the refrigerator is green, the carpet is green (though I bought that, not paint), the walls are green, my bookshelf is green, all of my clothing is green and even my eyelids are painted green so when i go to sleep I disappear into my green bed. What color are the stairs? Now see, you don't even remember what we were arguing about.

#011 - The Brothers Bloom (2008)

Director: Rian Johnson

Writer: Rian Johnson

Runtime: 113 min

If you liked Rian Johnson's first feature, the 2005 drama/mystery Brick (link), well, that's good for you, but I don't think it will be any indication of how you'll enjoy The Brothers Bloom. In fact, in some sense both of these movies draw on a weird counterplay, as if one perfectly complements the other (and I mean completements in the sense that one is everything that the other is not), and this is an idea I just came up with now, in the midst of writing this sentence. Follow closely: Brick, a cold, gritty tale of drugs and intrigue, is set against an almost satirical backdrop--a suburban high school. While it's not a stretch to say that lives hang in the balance in high school, especially these days, with relationships taking on far too much meaning and cliques and drug use controlling many kids' lives, very, very few students would take such a hard-nosed detective approach as Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Brendan. Johnson stylizes this contrast in two classic scenes: Brendan's iron-fist, closed-door meeting with the school's Vice Principal (on the seriousness of his demeanor), and his kitchen table confrontation with The Pin during which The Pin's mother interrupts with glasses of orange juice (on the relative absurdity of the setting). Now let's view the flipside, The Brothers Bloom: there are literally millions of dollars at stake, handsful* of lives, ancient artifacts, yachts, museums, Russians, guns, bombs, all the stereotypical things you'd associate with the crime/drama genre. Yet it's posed in a pretty comedic fashion. Saccharine characters, high-stakes schemes with little palpable threat of impending doom, quick pacing, and a feel for dialogue that seems to come from the 50s. Not that the "swashbuckling adventure" hasn't been done before, but the interesting thing to me is the flip of tone.

Quick Synopsis: Bloom (Adrien Brody) and Stephen (Mark Ruffalo) are brothers (I must have missed the part where the name Brothers Bloom makes sense) who take to the art of the con. Bloom does it for adventure, because he strives to impress his brother, because he falls in love with the story at hand, and because he is, as Stephen knows, an expert salesman. Stephen does it for the riches, and because he's an expert narrative craftsman. He sees the ins and outs well in advance, knows all the moves from a young age. They take to traveling the world, hoodwinking others for thousands and millions, Bloom growing more distressed with each successful con. They target loner heiress Penelope Stamp (Rachel Weisz) with their last mission, only she surprises them by being more daring and adventure-starved than they had predicted. Bloom struggles to not fall for her, trying to maintain her sweet innocence and not lose the last of his crumbling spirit. Stephen struggles to concoct the perfect scheme, the one where everyone wins.

Even within The Brothers Bloom, there's a tonal contrast between what comes off as lighthearted and amusing (exploding bombs, signing away $1.75 million checks) and what is downright grave (love, family, attaining one's dreams). The flow of the direction matches the characters themselves. The brothers are expert storytellers, highlighting the most charming anecdotes and skimming over the drudgery. Johnson is the same way. Certain sequences and exchanges made me laugh out loud, others brought a wide smile to my face. The whole thing was very theatrical, perfect for a couple of showmen, and Johnson utilized all the tricks at his disposal to keep the story bouncing along--clever cutaways, rapid fire editing, elaborate sets, and really terrific costuming. At least I thought it was terrific. Someone more well-versed in costuming would probably point out numerous flaws (as is the case with risky, noticeable wardrobe). In the end, though, there was definitely a lot of heart behind the story. It was a classic buddy/brothers story, no matter how much they do to pester each other throughout the arc of the film, in the end they're brothers and they love each other and they just want what's best for everyone.

The movie was quite enjoyable. It wasn't outstanding, I don't think it left as big an impression on me as Brick did, but I would still call it a success for Johnson in his sophomore feature. Young filmmakers typically run risks two ways: either they follow up their debut with another film in the same style/genre and risk being labeled as boring or unimaginative (similar to what happened with The Strokes), or they make a film that's quite different from their original and people criticize them for getting away from what made them successful in the first place (we can call this the Bloc Party corrollary). Johnson seemingly took the riskier approach and went with a shift in tone, but I kind of think (and hope) that what he was able to achieve was a lesson that a filmmaker's style does not particularly have to remain constant across each feature, but that HAVING style is something of a gift, and being able to adapt his creativity to fit the story at hand is a noteworthy talent.

Also props on the Joseph Gordon-Levitt cameo in the post-title afterparty scene.

#010 - Last Chance Harvey (2008)

Director: Joel Hopkins

Writer: Joel Hopkins

Runtime: 92 min

It's going to be nearly impossible to write full blown reviews for every movie I see. I mean, I do have a job. And it's full-time at that. But still. If I see something, it deserves to be mentioned. So while I watched this movie about 8 days ago, I feel it's valid to go back and give my viewpoint on it, even if that viewpoint is not very complex.

It's not that the movie is bad. Rather contrary, it's a really charming little movie, starring Dustin Hoffman as Harvey, a really down on his luck loner, and Emma Thompson as Kate, a really down on her luck daughter. (Not his daughter. Just A daughter.) They really do the best they can to make Harvey seem completely inept for the first 2/3 of the movie. He's a pianist who can only get jobs writing jingles for commercials, he gets booted from his accounts in favor of younger talent, he travels to London for his daughter's wedding and is the only guest to check in to a hotel, he's overdressed to the rehearsal dinner, he fumbles with his cell phone throughout the meal, and he gives an intensely awkward toast in front of relative strangers. There's almost nothing redeeming about Harvey, save for a bit of charming sheepishness, and the other characters in the story really let him have it. His ex-wife explicitly states her concern for his dignity, and, in a refreshing turn, his eventual love interest Kate serves him a cold dish of rejection when he first tries to make conversation. I have to hand it to the filmmakers, they took the typical story of "here's a guy that fails constantly, and we have to root for him to win in the end" and put a nice, realist type spin on it. He doesn't really fail as a result of outside sources. He fails because he is forgetful and misguided. With a movie as short and as narrow-focused as Last Chance Harvey, it's easy to spot the formulas. But despite the fact that the formulas are so ingrained into our collective consciousness that we know how movies end before they even start, a LOT of filmmakers are reluctant to fiddle with them. I give Hopkins kudos for his unabashedness. (Or I would, if it were a word.)

The movie ends rather quickly. It takes Hoffman about an hour (of realtime) to charm the socks off of Kate, a woman who appears desperately helpless with men and somewhat resigned to her fate. There is only the slightest hiccup in their burgeoning relationship, one that lasts about 2 minutes of screen time, so as far as romantic comedies go, the wrenches in the way are almost negligible. All of the actors involved seemed to nail their roles, almost predestined to be cast as these characters, sometimes to the fault that such effortless performances are kind of unimpressive. But still, it's sweet, has been known to move some to tears at times, and is certain to be a movie-night hit for most couples, especially the 35-and-older variety.