Pigging out

Penelope - Mark Palansky - 2006 - 5/10

This was a pretty entertaining flick that had a great concept with only an "okay" follow through. Most of the film left me pondering what it could have done, what it could have been, and also, how similar the concept was to Shrek.

Summary:

Christina Ricci plays Penelope, a kind girl who's great great grandfather's actions brought a curse on the family that in turn left Penelope with a pig's snout and a pig's ears. However, there is a way Penelope can break the curse - if she can get "one of her own kind" (presumed to be a blue blooded richman) to fall in love with her. Her overbearing mother (Cahterine O'Hara) has tried everything, finally bringing in a high profile matchmaker and installing one-way glass for Penelope to stay behind as her mother carefully guards the family's embarrassing secret. Then one man doesn't run away (James McAvoy), and in fact keeps coming back. Will he be the one?

Critique:

The acting is one of the best parts of this movie which would have been little more than passing amusement without great performances by Christina Ricci, Catherine O'Hara, James McAvoy, Richard E. Grant (her father). I'm a big McAvoy fan and he carefully steers his character away from the cliched reactions most actors would have succumbed to - especially his facial reactions which are especially scrutinized because of Ricci's face.

Peter Dinklage's amusing yet mysterious investigative reporter is also played well but the movie misses every opportunity to flesh out his character. Most of his actions have no depth behind them - why he does things has almost no answer. This is especially puzzling because his actions are the turning points of each act and his story provides most of the conflict for the film. At the end, you aren't sure whether you should pity him, empathize with him, or just shake your head at him.

Speaking of the film's "acts" the movie hurt itself with a surprisingly short act that failed to develop Penelope's first true romance which was really necessary to set up the whole drama of the rest of the movie. This in turn makes me question the revelations and growth of each of the important characters because they are supposedly because of their connection and inspiration by Penelope. The other implication is a way too long second act that makes the film sort to drag and is further plagued by unnecessary characters like Reese Witherspoon playing the rom-com friend without any of the good parts of the rom-com friend (like emotional explanation and establishing character goals).

I did like the few twists the movie through in - which surprised me because of the movie's generally weak script. I thought through most of the movie that the ending would leave me unsatisfied, but instead I loved the ending and it brought a smile to my face. It also made me think that the rest of the movie could have been better...

Sexually Charged

Sex and the City: The Movie - Michael Patrick King - 2008 - 8/10

There's nudity, graphic sex scenes, flatulence jokes and pubic jokes, and this isn't Beerfest or the next movie from the directors of Beerfest, but Sex and the City: The Movie. The movie struggles from a bout of identity confusion as it waffles between Vogue fashion show and humor even Adam Sandler wouldn't touch. But for the most part, it works, despite the movie's loss of the show's perfect balance between witty humor and dramatic sexcapades.

Summary:

The movie picks up four years later after the dramatic conclusion of season six with Carrie and Big about to live happily ever after in a new apartment, Samantha in LA managing the career of her boy-toy, and Charlotte living with her beautiful adopted little girl Lily. And then there's Miranda. I always hated her character and her character's plotline but Miranda's career is destroying her marriage and blah blah blah it just gets annoying from there. But happiness starts to unravel when Carrie's wedding plans begin to wear down the happiness she and Big share and Samantha grows tired of monogamy and that evil "R" word, relationship. Charlotte meanwhile enjoys total happiness while Miranda quickly descends into yes-I-can-be-more-annoying-than-you-even-thought-possible mode.

Critique:

The first half IS little more than a Vogue fashion show and it does it in a way that gratuitously genders the movie. Sure the show is for girls, I get it (cue comparisons to why Entourage is for guys) but the show was still funny and a bunch of guys watched it for the sex (for a kid who never had cable before to discover Sex and the City...). But the movie's fashion is thrust down your throats in pointless inefficient scenes that have the nerve to inform you of the exact designer names, sizes, and prices. Do you want your receipt?

The second act of the movie moves in a much better direction - a much more entertaining one - albeit at the cost of some respect for the show. While the humor on the show was usually based on the hilarity of awkward situations or the fact that one character could be so blunt, "Bye. Good Sex." But the movie struggles to reach that witty humor nexus and instead relies on cheap gags that would seem politically incorrect in most frat comedies. Apparently women find crapping your pants and disgusting pubic hair hilarious. And guys are the "pigs" who go crazy when they see boobs in National Lampoon direct-to-DVDs but Sex and the City can't wait to up the ante and throw in a little male frontal nudity.

By the end of the movie its become painfully obvious that all of the other characters and plotlines have received painfully short shrift due to Carrie's storyline hogging all the attention, aided by an unnecessary new character to the show's dynamic (played very well by Jennifer Hudson). Charlotte's absolute happiness is pretty much assumed from the get go and her character pretty much has ZERO conflict. Samantha's "conflict" seems a little petty and the resolution seems like a foregone conclusion. Miranda's conflict is probably the most realistic and I would have liked it if I would have sympathized (or empathized) with Miranda at all, but I just learned to hate her more.

But then in the car ride home with a die-hard Sex and the City fan awaiting my opinion of a movie she'd already seen several times I realized that the movie was actually pretty good. Sure there were things I would change to be more true to the show. But what they did change appealed to their core viewers - who rewarded them by buying tickets several times. Just accepting the movie for what it was did a hell of a lot for me to realize that for what it was, the movie was pretty good. In terms of the story that fans wanted to see, the story delivered. In terms of following the characters and trying hard to reach the same tempo of the show, the movie succeeded.

The acting was good, which was hard for me to admit because besides these two characters, I pretty much hate Sarah Jessica Parker and Chris Noth, but they did wonders. The rest of the characters had little screentime to really do more than they did in a 25-minute episode but the addition of Jennifer Hudson added a solid performance from a character who seemed genuine, and someone that most fans could relate to.

What really surprised me was (despite how predictable the ending became after a few scenes) was that the movie did not leave itself open to an obvious sequel. This surprised me because I thought the show would reach a midway point - resolution of the storylines so half of the girls were still out in the cold. But there wasn't and now there is a push for a sequel and even I don't have an easy answer for what direction it could/should go in.

Wheezing

I've liked Weezer for a long time and I've enjoyed their transitions from the Blue Album, to the Green Album, and now to the Red Album, their latest. They seem to be able to seemless integrate new sounds and influences into a distinctly unique sound that is still Weezer. This album is more different than most of their other album maturations but it is still a decided Weezer album. When I get back to my apartment and buy a bunch of CD's this has got to go to the top. Almost as much for curiosity's sake as much as it is that I want to listen to the album. If that makes much sense.

The first single, Pork and Beans is pretty good - containing an even greater than usual amount of pop culture references among Rivers' lyrics and unexpected Weezer rifts (that are now paradoxically expected). It has a great sound but more importantly it has a really cool music video that seems to touch on a lot of the major viral experiences of the last few years. The video is fun and seems to lend even more heart to a song that already has the normal endearing feel of Weezer's usual songs.



Another song I really liked is "Heart Songs" which is already receiving a bunch of fan buzz. For a Weezer ballad it seems to stand out to me for a reason that I can't quite put my finger on yet. But it is worth checking out for sure. Clicking that link will take you to a youtube link with just the audio really which is also a place where you can listen to the whole album essentially. Before you buy the album of course.

Too Many Dresses

27 Dresses - Anne Fletcher - 2006 - 4/10

It’s never good to start anything on the defensive, but I have to say I saw this movie on an airplane, so give me some slack.

Summary:

The summary goes like this: that old HILLARIOUS phrase “always a bridesmaid never a bride” applies to our main character Jane (Katherine Heigl)! No way. But she does have this guy she’s crazy about, her boss, George (Ed Burns). But he’s just fallen for her super hot, super slutty sister Tess (Talin Akerman). No way. But since Jane is such an expert wedding planner she agrees to plan her sister’s wedding to her dream guy. Oh my God. Along the way she meets this guy who is falling all over himself to ask her out (James Marsden) but she keeps refusing, only relenting when she needs to vent about her sad marriage woes. But then as he starts to make her laugh and integrate himself into her life it turns out that he’s really this super sexy wedding-beat reporter whose writing Jane loves! No way! (Stiffles yawn). Make your own conclusions, most of which probably do not require seeing the movie, or after this summary, any of the preview.

Critique:

I don’t even know where to begin. I feel like I’m being pulled in all directions. On one hand my mom really liked it so I know it’s a chic flick that I’m obviously biased against. On another hand I think, as a chic flick, the movie was good at what it was. BUT the chic flicks Achilles heal – unoriginality and cliché cluttering comes out in strong force here. We’ve got the “best friend,” “the perfect guy,” “the perfect sister” (I love how a woman like Heigl is supposed to be jealous of Akerman, I mean really, they’re both freaking knock outs) and everything else. Nromally I wouldn’t dwell on the clichés so much but it really sucks a lot out of the movie, especially when Marsden looks like he’s actually acting without his Cyclops goggles for a change and Heigl is ALMOST likeable. One other glaring thing that popped into my head is that bosses like George don’t have assistants like Katherine Heigl for years on end and not sleep with them. I mean, that’s why they hire them! And he hasn’t noticed her? Or realized she worships him? Come on. I hate movies that can’t respect the viewer because we’re “stupid” or “fickle” and need to be force fed this crap.

Oh well. This review has left me feeling widely unfulfilled and like I poored out a nonsensical rant but hey, its just another rom-com chic flick.

Indiana Jones and the Disappointing Cracked Skull

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - Steven Spielberg - 2008 - 4/10

I cant quite figure out if writing this review is really even close to worth it. I had enough Indiana Jones type hurdles of my own that stood in the way of me finally posting this: writing SaltyStix articles, studying for a test, general laziness…lots of things. But I decided that per Spielberg and Lucas’ dues ex machina of Indy, I had to find some unnatural power to finish the review.

The first thing that comes to mind is that the film was soo disappointing it was almost sad. I felt like crying. Sure I knew what Lucas does to sacred trilogies (defiles them) but I thought Spielberg’s directing and another writer would balance old George out. FALSE. Instead the movie is full of Lucas’ overindulgence – unnecessary special effects. While this movie just has monkeys to compare to Jar Jar, it still makes me wince – especially because the first movies did not seem to be cluttered with Lucas’ ILM crap. Jar Jar was annoying but by the end of the trilogy you saw the point of him – what was the need to swing from the vines? Or survive a nuclear blast?

Perhaps the movie was doomed from the start with the absence of Denholm Elliot (who unfortunately passed away in 1992) and Sean Connery (who stubbornly maintained he was ‘retired’). To fill the gaping hole of Elliot’s Dr. Marcus Brody the film inserts another character designed for comic relief: Ray Winstone. Winstone’s character is supposed to have this deep relationship with Indy which is supposed to yield deep humor as well as clever plot twists but fails in both because he is just too brand spanking new to the franchise. To make up for the comedy of Connery-Ford they try for Ford-LeBeuf and almost succeed but LeBeuf’s character is just so ridiculous.

The largest problem for me is more conceptual in that the movie moved away from the religious occult (the arch, pagan religions, and the grail) and into well, something else. Maybe they needed a new frontier and I understand that what they chose was based on 50’s era pulp-themed movies that they loved. I get that. It still sucked. The religious occult had a different feel to it as well as more history and more lore that gives an ephemeral feel. What we’re left with here seems forced and feels like you’re watching bad Sci-Fi reruns again. Chalk up that the “puzzles” and “clues” as well as the “answers” are dangerously close to modern pretenders like National Treasure and the like, and Indy quickly loses his mystique.

What helped saved the movie was Karen Allen’s character. I hope that isn’t really a spoiler because she IS in the movie. Once she hit the screen the Indy charm and humor seemed to replace the old-tired-act Harrison was sleepwalking through. Combined with the action in the last hour, the last half really shapes up to be pretty good. I will say that the story timeline liberties Spielberg and Lucas pulled a long time ago damaged the franchise here. Not many know that Temple of Doom was made as a prequel to Raiders which was then followed by Last Crusade. So events that happened in Raiders, say, socially, are not that far removed from Crystal Skull.

The best thing Spielberg and Lucas did was pay homage to the first part of the series with references to Raiders in the opening scene and good throwbacks to the value of Indy’s hat from nuclear explosions to chapels including some scenes that might have people thinking if “Mutt Williams” is going to take over the franchise.

I’ll close with the three things this movie needed to be really good – to give Last Crusade a run for it’s money. First, a younger Harrison Ford – which was quite possible if it hadn’t been for Lucas’ constant screen revisions and stubborn refusal to accept earlier story send ups – we’re talking a good seven to ten years here – Air Force One Harrison Ford instead of, well, Crystal Skull Harrison Ford. Second, the appearance of Sean Connery – which again, was possible if the film had been made earlier. It is curious that Connery’s part – supposedly a small cameo is SO small that Connery must have really thought the script was crap. Third, no CGI bullshit – this would probably have changed the whole opening scene and made the film a hell of a lot better. Maybe given us a classic intro where Indy is in the field looking for some treasure and bam! Cate Blanchett swoops in. But alas, no such luck.

Another month

I just got back from Europe and my head is chalk full of things I'll never get to blog about - basically detailing all of my adventurous exploits, commentary on the obama/clinton/2008 mess, and lots of other things that suddenly are not coming to me.

About books - all the ones I read toward the end of second semester that I thought would help me start posting book reviews here (mostly classics I never read in high school) or the ones I read on my trip (mostly Cormac McCarthy's The Road).

About all the gelatto I ate in Europe - my rankings of the cities (1. Rome, 2. Florence, 3. Trier, 4. Meersburg, 5. Lindau, 6. Venice, 7. Bregenz, 8. Munich, 9. Gindelwald, 10. Lux City, 11. Paris, 12. Kaysberg (Alsace), 13. Sion, 14. Zurmat

But I will start blogging again since its summer for whatever its worth.

The Kingdom...a crowning achievement

The Kingdom - Peter Berg - 2007 - 9/10

Summary:

A terrorist attack on U.S. citizens on Saudi Soil draws the personal attention of FBI Agent Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx) who cuts every corner to make sure his team (Chris Cooper, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman) gets on the ground despite the massive physical and political obstacles. Their liaison who has been tasked as more of a baby sitter, Colonel Faris Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom) tries to everything he can to help Fleury's team because he wants the men who killed his guards. The movie shows the different cultures that are strikingly similar as the team seeks to uncover the group responsible for the largest murder in modern Saudi history.

Critique:

I'll be honest - I had low expectations for the movie. It started off with an efficient, audio and visual history of western involvement with Saudi Arabia using real footage and real audio from the different times as well as powerful quotes to convey a complex story in a few words. I thought the movie would be downhill from there, but I was wrong. The name "Peter Berg" flashed, reminding me that the creator of Friday Night Lights was at the helm. Actually that was just a shameless plug for my favorite TV show, and while Berg IS the director of the movie, the movie itself showed how great it was. I will take the time to praise Berg now though. His style from FNL shines through loud and clear - his attention to small story detail as well as close camerawork is evident - he even shows similar musical choices. The small story detail is a pleasant bonus because it brings life and personality to every part of the movie - the family scenes on both sides of search show the similarities - and differences between our two cultures. The political scenes are unbiased, yet show the political tiptoeing that is necessary in these issues.

The acting - all around - was very good. Which says a lot coming from me because I went into the movie thinking most of these actors (minus Chris Cooper) weren't very good. Jamie Foxx always annoyed me as his general personality does. Here he chose to act for once and played a good part. There were definitely scenes were the Jamie I hate was trying to rise to the surface, but this acting Jamie kept him down and played a good role. Jennifer Garner was good in her limited scenes causing me to consider that I might have given her a harder rap than she deserved considering I've started to notice how good she is in a couple movies. Chris Cooper was great as always in his few scenes - not much more to say on him that I haven't already said elsewhere. Jason Bateman was pretty good - clearly the weakest link of those four because he overacted in some parts. But it is what it is. The real scene stealer was Ashraf Barhom who was GREAT as Colonel Ghazi. I have a feeling that in longer cuts his family scenes were longer and more numerous but beggars can't be choosers. I'd like to say I look forward to seeing him in more movies, but that seems unlikely.

Generally I really enjoyed the movie. It was tense, fast paced, and different in the sense that it wasnt the guns-blazing movie I thought it would be. Berg's "blockbuster" was much more of just a solid movie that really took pains to show the culture clash as well as the American influence in Saudi politics and Saudi oil as well as the repercussions of those actions. When I thought about the intro while the movie was just starting I smiled at the fact that they had used their title sequence and a handful of minutes to do what Syriana did - except better and in a more entertaining way. That held true for the whole movie because the style was very similar to Gaghan fast-camera, multi point storytelling with the pleasing difference that there was a clear central story (and set of characters). That Gaghan chose a macro-issue (oil) in our relationship with the Middle East was brave but fatal. It accomplished less that what a microcosm could do. The Kingdom's smaller story that accessed the big issue in everyone's mind - terrorism killing westerners (yes, cliche, but unfortunately true) seemed to be a better route. And to think that The Kingdom did it in about twenty minutes less and in a much easier way only made me enjoy the movie more.

When my brain was churning about what I would rate The Kingdom I had almost decided on an "8" because I thought the movie was pretty much as good as it could be yet it didnt have the 9 and 10 level power that the classics do. Then two amazing scenes at the end made me realize that giving the movie less than a 9 would be ridiculous. Two scenes at the end - between Jamie Foxx and a Saudi boy and a parallel scene that involved Foxx and his team really brought the movie together. The positive similarities of our culture and the importance of US-Saudi cooperation as well as the negative similarities of how our cultures are so similar. That the movie made such a pointed argument about how violent both of our cultures are - and how true it was - really pushed the movie over the top.

Verdict:

Buy it now!

If you liked this movie, see...
...Syriana
...Three Kings