Everybody Loves Saturday Night

things to look forward to this month

July 11: Hellboy 2 opens. I just got the first one via Netflix. I've seen it before, but so long ago that all I remember are basic shapes. So I plan on watching it again soon. It's a little Guillermo del Toro Film Fest around here, because I finally got around to watching Pan's Labyrinth last night. What a perfect film. Really. The story is fantastic and well-crafted, the visuals are gorgeous and magical and strange, and I don't think I was conscious of breathing until the movie ended -- upon which I burst into tears. Just, wow.

July 14: Bastille Day -- one of my two favorite non-American holidays. I'd like to try and find some sort of celebration to attend, so it's not just me in my apartment singing La Marseillaise to the cat.

July 15: Part I of Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog streams.

July 17: The Dark Knight opens. FINALLY. Holy shit, I cannot WAIT.

*ahem* Excuse me.

Also on July 17: Part II of Dr. Horrible.

July 19: Part III of Dr. Horrible.

July 21: I'm on VACATION! Plans include a quickie trip down to Philly, to hang with my Philly peeps.

July 25: several movies open. Brideshead Revisited (new adaptation by Andrew Davies, Emma Thompson as Lady Marchmain? very exciting), American Teen (documentary about high school seniors in Indiana), and . . . well, X-Files: I Want to Believe. Can't NOT see that one.

July 31: Long Winters playing free show at Castle Clinton. Yes, I will be blowing off work to wait in line for tix.

um.

Yes, please.

movies: wanted

Wanted is like a blind date. Maybe you were set up by a friend, or your mom, or something. You go into it with fairly low expectations, thinking of all the horror stories you've heard from friends and pop culture, but then . . . he's not that bad. You're actually getting along, in a friendly sort of way, with decent conversation and very few awkward pauses. He laughs at some of your jokes, you laugh at some of his. All in all, you're having a good time. This date? Does not suck.

That spark doesn't seem to quite be there, though. He's perfectly nice, fairly attractive, a few surprises up his sleeve. There are a few moments in which you think, "hmm, maybe there's something here..." but then two minutes later it's gone. It's nobody's fault, really. You're just not feeling it.

This is Wanted. Except fault can be found with the movie and methinks . . . it lies partly with direction, partly with script. Couldn't really buy James McAvoy as action man (he is awfully yummy, though, and I think he's fantastic otherwise. I say this just in case he stumbles upon this and thinks I hate him or something. I don't. You're lovely, very talented, charming, and you can call me anytime). Did like Angelina Jolie quite a bit, and I'm not ordinarily a fan. Can't help but like Morgan Freeman but felt the script cheated him a bit. Action scenes were for the most part fab, though near the end I found myself thinking, "yeah . . . this could end any time now." Not to point fingers or anything, because really, it wasn't a bad way to spend a couple hours and $12. I don't feel like I wasted my time or money. It was fun, you know? But I just wasn't feeling it.

movie: the incredible hulk

Yes, kids, it's true: my forecast for the truly awesome summer of movies hasn't panned out the way I thought it would, and The Incredible Hulk is the first movie I have seen in a theater since Iron Man -- not counting Reprise, the movie I fell asleep during. (Serves me right for trying to see an art house foreign film during the summer.) This should change with the coming weeks, what with WALL-E and Hellboy 2 and The Dark Knight, all of which I cannot wait to see. (Saw the trailer for Hellboy 2 last night, and it looks like the movie will kick some serious ass. Or at least be some serious fun.)

But anyway, to get back to The Incredible Hulk. My one-sentence review: It does not suck. Let me elaborate: it's actually not that bad. If you, like me, walked out on/turned off the Ang Lee travesty a few years back and are a little "once bitten twice shy" about going to see another movie version, I don't think you'll be too disappointed by this one. I mean, for one thing, the bar has been set incredibly low. I guess it's not saying much that this movie met my lowered expectations. I'm not saying you should run out and see it, either.

My primary objection to the movie was the overly cheesy dialog. I winced a lot. My secondary objection to the movie was the rather flimsy plot. To be honest, I didn't notice it so much because the cast works well together and there's a lot of action and a lot of pretty scenery. And Tim Roth is pretty cool. And there's a Lou Ferrigno cameo that I don't think half the audience noticed. And Ed Norton is . . . well, I like Ed Norton. I think he was a good choice to play Bruce Banner. For the first quarter of the movie I kept flashing back to Fight Club, though. Not that that's a bad thing, just a little distracting at times. Kept expecting Brad Pitt to show up.

There is also a Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark appearance in the movie, as no doubt you know. It should perhaps be a rule that every movie include Robert Downey, Jr. in it from now on.

really?

Upon adding There Will Be Blood to my Netflix queue, I was presented with other movies I might enjoy, including The Bucket List.

Algorithm fail.

Aside: I watched Becoming Jane over the weekend. I hated it. Here is why: near the end of the movie, the screenwriter chose to put one of the most glorious phrases ever written in the English language, "It is a truth universally acknowledged," into the mouth of a man who, by all accounts, is rather dull. (Hidden depths, my ass.) But it wasn't just that it was a man who GAVE her the line. It was the idea that the movie apparently didn't think Austen CLEVER enough to come up with the line on her own. BULLSHIT. I was willing to go along with the flimsy premise that Pride and Prejudice was a semi-autobiographical novel (I certainly winced more than a few times, but still willing to cut the film a lot of slack), but that was over the line, and shameful.

maybe you need a balloon intestine!

(no one is going to get that quote.)

But anyway, yeah. There's a movie going around the country called Twisted: A Balloonamentary, about exactly what you think a movie with that title would be about: balloon twisters. Despite my ardent belief that the fusing of any noun with "-mentary" or "-versary" is a practice that ought to have been put to bed many years ago ("-tastic" is still OK), I think I need to see this flick.

Trailer here.

movie: iron man

OK, seriously? There's no need for a multi-paragraph review for this one. This movie is AWESOME. One of the best comic book movies made so far, and good thing too. It's about time this movie came along, because the genre had been getting stale, movies made just to fuel a franchise.

Honestly, I went in expecting to like Iron Man, primarily because I thought casting Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark was brilliant. And he is brilliant. And you can definitely tell that the movie is directed by a non-Michael Bay type, which hello, major plus. The movie clips along rapidly even during the non-action scenes--there's no hidden identity dilemma, no major morality trip, no navel gazing and ruminations about power and responsibility, no long, contrived vengeance plot. There's just this guy who has his consciousness raised so he builds a big metal suit and starts kicking ass. Simple. Elegant. Awesome.

Go see it, and stay all the way through the end credits.

second thoughts: speed racer

I've been looking forward to this movie for several months now, thinking it safe in the hands of the Wachowskis. The trailers are dazzling and full of innovative visuals. Now that I've read some early reviews . . . I'm not sure that I'm going to handle it. Physically, I mean.

Apparently Speed Racer is a seizure-inducing optic assault for anyone over the age of 10 (Anthony Lane: "True, our eyeballs will slowly, though never completely, recover . . . "). Well, that much I could've gotten from the trailers. Hello -- Japanese cartoon + Matrix + car racing? Of course it's going to be visually overwhelming. That much I got from the trailers.

But the movie clocks in at 2:15. Two hours and 15 minutes. Over two hours of over-saturated acid flashback? I'm not sure I have the stamina for that. Maybe if I sit waaaaay in the back. And have someone there to talk me down.

I do still want to see this movie (just not in IMAX). I wouldn't deserve the appellative "nerdbabe" (tm Colleen) if I didn't see it. It's just now my more hesitant and timid self is projecting Clockwork Orange/Lost's Room 23 (link is spoiler to anyone who hasn't caught up with Season 3) scenarios and it's making me wary.

movie: forgetting sarah marshall

A word about Jason Segel: I have been a big fan since Freaks and Geeks, for two main reasons: his ability to convincingly go from adroably doofy to creepy, and his complete lack of fear (again, Freaks & Geeks fans know of what I speak). I have read a couple other reviews of Forgetting Sarah Marshall that call Jason Segel "schlubby" and claim that it is completely unrealistic to expect that his character could lure just one gorgeous woman into bed--let alone two or four. These reviewers are completely out of touch. Never mind that Segel's character, Peter, is a) a decent guy, b) emotionally supportive, c) employed. A large part of being on board with this character, and the movie in general, is Segel himself. And he is hardly "schlubby." He's more like that Everyman romantic lead that prevailed in the 70s/80s, before people got all air-brush and six-pack happy.

So by now you know the set-up for this movie: Sarah Marshall, star of L&O/CSI clone show, dumps Peter, he goes to Hawaii to recover, but she's there with her new boyfriend. Hijinks and romance ensue.

The movie owes a lot to conventional romantic comedy tropes--the idea that an entire hotel staff would rally behind some dude, for example, is fairly unrealistic but works within this genre. So too with the honeymooning couple (fans of 30 Rock are going to find Jack McBrayer in a role that will not surprise them at all--well, except for the sex part), the new love interest's ex-boyfriend . . . If you just go with it, it's fun.

Watching this in the wake of my own relationship's end perhaps gives me a different perspective on it than I would have otherwise, but I thought the interpersonal aspects of this movie rang absolutely true. I know that most people don't look for Truth in romantic comedies, but isn't it nice when you do find it? The main characters each have their own inner logic. Sarah's new squeeze may be a self-absorbed hedonist, but he's also just this guy who wants to get along with everyone--he isn't particularly jealous (because he's a rock star who can and will sleep with everyone) and he genuinely wants to be friends with Peter. And it makes sense that he's not going to be the emotional support that Sarah needs when she gets some bad news, which then makes her return to Peter completely in character and believable, as is how that situation plays out.

More importantly, the movie makes clear that Peter bears some responsibility for the dissolution of the relationship. Nearly all the characters are believably human, including Sarah--not what you'd expect from the advertising campaign. A handful of characters are written with broad strokes, and they do stand out as weaknesses in an otherwise perfectly enjoyable movie. 

Yes, there are moments of raunch and some full frontal shots. There are a couple cringe-worthy moments but mostly the movie made me laugh and laugh and laugh. Again, it may be in large part because I simply adore Jason Segel. It may be because I am for the most part a fan of the Judd Apatow oeuvre. Within that spectrum, I would place Forgetting Sarah Marshall closer to The 40 Year-Old Virgin than the others. Definitely worth seeing.

movie: smart people

This is primarily for Carolyn--I started writing an email about the movie and then thought it could be a post. I've been meaning to write more pop culturey things here but haven't been very good about remembering that when I face the blank Typepad page. So anyway. You all get to share in my superior taste and judgment now.

Movie ticket prices in Manhattan are between $11 and $11.50. It's absolutely ridiculous, but it has made me even pickier about which movies I choose to see in the theater and which ones I can wait to rent. There are certain exceptions, like when you get together with a friend and choose to see a movie, but then there isn't any "must see" movie playing, so you choose one that looks interesting, that's received a fair share of positive reviews, and has a cast of which you approve.

Such was Smart People. I'd read a decent review and actually had been looking forward to this movie for some time because a) I really do love Dennis Quaid, and b) the movie is set against an academic backdrop, with Quaid playing a literature professor specializing in the Victorians. Check that: a grizzled, disillusioned, completely pompous and self-absorbed professor for whom teaching no longer holds any pleasure--if it ever did. In other words, me in 20 years had I stayed with the profession. Academic stories hold that sort of fascination for me--I'm always curious if they're going to reflect my own experiences.

And this movie, for the most part, does. What it ultimately reminded me of was David Lodge's university-set novels (down to the two-word title), and it made me wonder if this was the kind of story Lodge would tell if he were American. I thought that in particular the purely college scenes--Quaid teaching, meeting with committees--were very well done and true to life. It was extremely gratifying to have the movie start with Quaid lecturing on the character of Mr. Casaubon in Middlemarch (which as some of you know is one of my very favorite novels), which clues those who have read that novel into Quaid's character right away.

Ellen Page plays the college-bound daughter who has absorbed most of the house-related responsibilities like laundry and cooking since her mother died. When this actually happened is rather vague, but what I liked about her situation is that it felt...rather Victorian. It's clear that in addition to working her ass off in school in order to please her academic father, she also sees herself as his helpmate--much as Dorothea Brooke in Middlemarch fantasizes about helping Casaubon with his Key to All Mythologies, by positioning herself as daughter to his Milton. But it's also clear that she's very conflicted about the role that she seems to have willingly accepted--that her youth is rebelling from her over-tuned sense of responsibility. Though much has been made of Ellen Page in this movie--that it's "Juno 2" or "Juno's sequel," and it's true that the two characters are both sarcastic and quick-tongued, I honestly don't think it's fair to layer Juno's success on this movie. To me her character in Smart People is completely different.

My main problem with this movie was the romantic relationship between Quaid and Sarah Jessica Parker. It apparently derives from her old schoolgirl crush on him, when he was her professor. But he crushed her hopes then, prompting her to switch majors from English to Biology/pre-med. I never fully bought their attraction to each other. I never really got on board with the way the relationship progressed--it just wasn't believable and frankly, it was a little disturbing. Is she interested just because it's the fulfillment of a fantasy she may have had 20 years ago? Anyway. Not a fan of the romance in this movie.

But a big fan of Thomas Hayden Church. Jackie and I agreed that he was the best part of this movie, and ultimately the reason I would say go see it. He plays Quaid's brother (which Quaid consistently amends to "adopted brother," ala Royal Tenenbaums), a completely unreliable layabout with some rather unfortunate facial hair, and yet someone who doesn't fall into the "unreliable layabout = amoral skeeze" trap. Now that I'm writing this, actually, I realize his character is the moral center of the movie.

The trailer I linked to above really does its job well--it presents the movie's best potential, but the movie itself doesn't quite live up to it.