Precipitous Declines

As I was flipping through the movie channels last night in a feign attempt to not go to sleep, I randomly found the movie "Freaky Friday". You know, that mother-daughter body-switching movie that is just soooo hilarious. No, I'm not speaking of the awful 1995 made-for-TV adaptation or even the original 1976 Disney version starring Jodie Foster (yep, that Jodie Foster), this one features this good-looking, red-headed actress named Lindsey Lohan (yep, that Lindsey Lohan). This was during her "Mean Girls" hey-day. *swoon*

What is forgotten (I'm guilty of this as well) about Lindsey is that she was a pretty decent actress. Not Oscar-worthy, but better than most of the teen idol slop that is out there today. It was a weird viewing experience because I found myself wishing that I would be able to see a new film from this gorgeous actress, in the same way I dream that I was alive when Humphrey Bogart was making films. I was longing for her like she was dead, and that made me sad.

Now, I know this topic has probably been discussed a million times, but it's something I thought about last night: Has there ever been an actress/actor who has fallen further, faster out of popularity than Lohan? I, mean, short of killing their ex-wife and her friend.

The first one that comes to mind for me is Robert Downey Jr., but I don't know if he was at Lohan's mainstream popularity when he went off the rails. Obviously, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Downey Jr.'s was as fast as Lohan's. Maybe the Coreys? Yeah, the Coreys are a better example.

Stories like Lohan, Downey Jr.'s and the Coreys are interesting because it shows both sides of fame: The ability to make lots of money and the ability to allegedly blow it all on...well, blow. Here's to the hope that Lohan has a comeback like Downey Jr.'s, and doesn't become a reality TV whore like the Coreys. But I honestly wonder if an actor can feasibly make a complete comeback anymore, especially with Google and social media never letting the public forget their past.

Also, if you can think of any other examples, I'd love to hear them.

Apologies and an Update

Hello, everyone!

I apologize for my absence from the blog, but fear not, I have not abandoned you. Truth be told, I was a little burnt out from my attempt to do 365 Days of Netflix Instant. After 87 days of watching movies ranging from Oscar-worthy to "Little Hercules", I felt the enjoyment of the project slowly fade away. But for narrative purposes, I blame "Sleeping Beauty" (not the Disney cartoon), so don't watch "Sleeping Beauty", trust me on this.

During my time away, I've seen an uptick in my writing and survived another rental season (hopefully my last). So the past few months have not been a waste. I also have a few upcoming projects that I can't really talk about right now, but will let you know as soon as everything is finalized.

In terms of this blog, my plan is to write short entries, so that my time is more balanced between this, my writing and any other projects that I may be involved in. It may not be daily, but I hope to update three to four times a week. For those that enjoyed the podcast, it is on hiatus until I can set a schedule with Melanie or rework a whole new format.

Over the next month or so, I will be posting reviews and thoughts on this season's new TV pilots. A few I've already seen, but I will wait until they air to post my thoughts. And for those that have, I will be posting shortly. I'm most excited for "Nashville" (better than you think), "Revolution" and "Last Resort". As with most years, there will also be a few surprise shows that weren't on my radar (I'm looking at you "Ben and Kate").

I appreciate those who have continued checking the blog over the summer, and hope that my new format will be entertaining and allow me to keep my sanity. Or not, which would end up being more entertaining for you.

Also, don't watch "Sleeping Beauty".

Day 87 -- Sleeping Beauty

Released: December 2nd, 2011

Starring: Emily Browning, Rachael Blake, Ewen Leslie
  
Writer/Director: Julia Leigh

Description: A haunting portrait of Lucy, a young university student drawn into a mysterious hidden world of unspoken desires.

[Review may contain spoilers. Please watch movie before reading, unless you don't care. Most of these films have already been released for a while, so they should be readily available.]

***

There is such a thing as a bad art house film. Just like any other genre of movie, it has poorly produced and terribly executed releases each year. What is different when it is an art house film as opposed to your standard mainstream production is that these movies are critically acclaimed for reasons that I have still yet to understand. Sometimes it appears that all you have to do is take on a taboo topic and you’ll be praised as this progressive filmmaker. But if your movie makes absolutely no sense it doesn’t matter what subject you tackle; it’s still a terrible movie.

“Sleeping Beauty” is one of the most frustrating movies that I’ve watched in a long time. At first the story seems to be easy-to-follow, but as the plot moves along, I began to lose track of what exactly was the meaning of the story. In the first 10 to 20 minutes, your lead to believe the plot is about a girl struggling to make ends meet and takes any job she can get her hands on, including being a lab rat, a copy girl in an office, and a waitress in a barista. Then about halfway through she answers an ad to be a waitress at functions for rich people. And apparently the job involves half a dozen naked women serving these people their drinks, their food and their nightly eye candy.

From the moment that Lucy (Browning) took this unique job, her character is nude for about three quarters of the remainder of the movie. While I feel there’s a place for nudity on film -- and even to some extent, gratuitous nudity -- there’s really no need for it in about half the scenes. I understand that all the scenes where she’s being a server or being the “sleeping beauty” need to have the nudity in order to tell the story, but what I don’t get is the random breast flashing and ass shots that, more or less, feel like they’re in there for shock value.

One perfect example, is when she goes back to her boyfriend’s apartment and she finds him in bed, and I assume he is dying (honestly, I couldn’t tell if he died) so she decides to take her shirt off – and only her shirt – and crawl in bed with him. The emotion in the scene was all about his death, which could’ve easily been portrayed without her taking her shirt off. I appreciate the nude female form, but at some point enough’s enough. If I want to watch boobs for 90 minutes, I’d watch Skinemax.

Needless to say after the first hour, the nudity blended into the background and I got to concentrate on the performances. Emily Browning, better known for her role in that “filmmaking masterpiece” “Sucker Punch”, was in every scene in this film and really gave an okay performance. I knew the emotion she was trying to portray, but she never made me feel as sorry for the character as I should’ve been. Now I don’t know if that was the writing or her acting skills, but there’s a very big disconnect between Lucy and the audience. If I hadn’t seen “Sucker Punch”, I would’ve erred on the side of the writing. Yet, Browning shows glimpses of being able to carry an emotional movie, maybe even becoming an indie darling, which would net her a good career. But in this film, she fails to reach the vulnerability needed for this character.

It was hard to gauge any the other actor’s performances because Browning dominated screen time, but that could also be a bad thing because supporting actors are what makes movies good. Rachel Blake, who portrays Clara (the madam of the movie?), plays the role as icy as it needs to be done but she completely falls apart in the one emotional scene she has at the end. Again, I don’t know whether it’s poor writing of the supporting characters or poor choice of actors for these roles, but not one of them had a standout performance and that’s not good news.

Speaking of direction and writing, let’s discuss the God-awful ending. Spoiler alert for anyone that actually wants to see the movie, her last job as a sleeping beauty ends with her client dying next to her. The final scene of the movie is the session recorded from the spy camera that Lucy had planted, and all it really is two people sleeping in a bed – unless I missed something. From what I can gather, and trust me I’ve thought about this way too much, her client wants to die and would like to do it next to a beautiful woman. Clara obliges, and gives him enough of the sleeping medicine to kill him, but for some reason she becomes panicked when Lucy does it awake immediately in the morning. Lucy eventually does gain consciousness, but appears to be having a reaction to the medicine, which I guess is because of the pills and alcohol she did the night before.

After all that, I still have no idea what the ending is trying to tell me. It feels like they cut the movie off right at the end of act two. There’s rising action (well kind of) and everything seems to be falling apart for our protagonist: She’s lost her boyfriend, she’s taken drugs and had sex with a coworker and her client has died in the bed next to her, but all of this is supposed to lead to some kind of ending; not be the ending. Concluding the movie the way Julia Leigh did, is both pompous and disrespectful to your audience. Even a story that kicked you in the gut as much as the “Passion of the Christ”, has some sort of redeeming ending before the credits roll. The arrogant thing to say is ‘that we all can have happily ever after’, but ending the movie when a character is about to get enlightened; is the equivalent of giving the middle finger to your paying customers. She’d of been better off killing Lucy, which she may have, but left it too ambiguous for someone to grasp on first viewing.

“Sleeping Beauty” is a movie that I don’t think he knows what it wants to be. Does it want to be a coming-of-age tale? Or does it want to be an uncomfortable, emotionally-gripping drama? Because the way this movie was made, it's nowhere close to either. The movie ends too soon to be a coming-of-age and the lack of connection with Lucy keeps it from being the latter. I think the writer had a good high-concept idea with the sleeping beauties --young girls that older men pay to do anything they want with them sans penetration -- but what she forgot was to make an actual compelling story around this idea. I honestly do not know how it got the praise it did because it is an awfully executed movie – from top to bottom.

Rating: 3/10 – This is the first movie in a long time that made me do a dismissive wanking motion as the credits ran. It really felt like a waste of my time, and I’ve watched Little Hercules. At least that movie had structure, even if was very poor structure. A film needs to have a beginning, middle and end, and that end must conclude the movie; whether it’s happily ever after or not, it still needs to finish the movie. I can see comparisons to "Inception", but that movie concluded even though it left the dream or not a dream question.

Day 86 -- No Strings Attached

Released: January 21st, 2011

Starring: Natalie Portman, Aston Kutcher, Jake M. Johnson, Kevin Kline, Ludacris, Olivia Thirlby
  
Writer/Director: Elizabeth Meriwether/Ivan Reitman

Description: A guy and girl try to keep their relationship strictly physical, but it's not long before they learn that they want something more.

[Review may contain spoilers. Please watch movie before reading, unless you don't care. Most of these films have already been released for a while, so they should be readily available.]

***

Usually my choices for this project come from either an actress that I enjoy watching on screen, or a subject matter that seems interesting, or it's an indie that got a lot of praise. While this film does have Natalie Portman in it, which satisfies the first quota, she was not the reason I chose it. In my many hours of listing to podcasts, I heard Elizabeth Meriwether talk about the process of getting the film produced and how it was in process well before the very similar "Friends with Benefits". Well, at least the premise was the same.

Meriwether's writing style is easily recognizable in "No Strings Attached", especially for those who are fans of her TV show "The New Girl". Her quirky sense of humor is littered throughout the movie, and her propensity to create an independent and unique females character is what helps separate this movie from other romantic comedies. Even though it does fall into the traps of most rom-coms at times, her strong comedic writing make the jokes funny rather than eye-rollers.

The film's story consist of Adam (Kutcher) and Emma (Portman), who first met at summer camp when they were 14, and periodically run into each other over the next decade. After a night when Adam is drunk dialing everyone in his phone, he eventually passes out at Emma's place. They have spontaneous sex and leave the apartment. From this point forward, the plot takes a little bit of a detour from your stereotypical rom-com as male character is the one who develops feeling first, and the female character is the one who just wants sex.

No offense to Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake, but the chemistry needed to make this love story believable require the talent and experience in the genre that Kutcher and Portman provided. The audience believed almost every second of their relationship. Obviously there were scenes that induced the groans that are natural while watching a movie of this ilk. The glaring example was the milkshake with two straws part of the "date" which was the weakest part of the movie's story. Only because almost every other convention in the film was written with a different spin, but this scene screamed lazy  But Kutcher and Portman's chemistry allows you to glance over this mistake something the other two actors wouldn't have been able to do.

I have to admit, I forget how good Portman is in a comedic role. Even though I've seen "Garden State", her comedic timing always surprises me. Probably more known for her dramatic roles and who can blame people after she won the Oscar for "Black Swan", Portman can hold her own and improve any film from any genre. She is one of the best all-around actors of our generation.

Kutcher has a niche, and this type of film is it. He was born to be the lead in romantic comedies. While some would see this as a derogatory comment, it's really a compliment. Think of how many actors try and fail to succeed in the genre. Ben Affleck wishes he could pull it off as well as Kutcher, and even Matthew McConaughey falls short in most of his attempts. Kutcher has the charm and timing to create an interesting character; it is impossible to not root for him to succeed. It's a skill and shouldn't be mocked.

There were very few moments or performances that disappointed me, which isn't to say this was the greatest rom-com ever, but it one of the best I've seen in a while. Meriwether's writing made me laugh out loud a few times and I never rolled my eyes at a punch line. Even the "period" scene was done in a way that was funny and interesting. The bit about Adam making Emma  a "period" mix-CD -- every song was about blood and flow -- was fresh and perfect way to show the progression that Adam's character had made toward showing his feelings for Emma. 

"No Strings Attached" succeeded because of it writing, acting, and it's terrific supporting cast, which included the always funny, Kevin Kline. Most rom-coms tend to follow a paint by number script that's all too familiar to veteran movie-goers, but Meriwether's fresh take on the genre gives us hope that a good story can actually exist in the rom-com world. 

Rating: 5.5/10 -- While it's fresh and new, it's still being held back by some conventions that I'm disappointed weren't changed. Kutcher and Portman look good together and create some good chemistry. A prime example of what a great support cast can do for a movie.

Day 85 -- The Poker House

Released: June 20th, 2008

Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Selma Blair, Chloe Grace Moretz, Bokeem Woodbine, Sophia Bairley, David Alan Grier
  
Writer/Director: Lori Petty

Description: A dramatization of Lori Petty's teenage years spent in small town Iowa.

[Review may contain spoilers. Please watch movie before reading, unless you don't care. Most of these films have already been released for a while, so they should be readily available.]

***

Before going into the review, let's talk about the idea of a writer/director creating a movie based on their life. Most people would see that as the best way to make it realistic, but in most cases, it becomes an over-dramatization of the situation. The most realistic biopics are when the subject helps out, but is not directly involved in the production. This allows the movie to avoid a woe is me, emotional beatdown that can occur within a true story told by the person the film depicts.

"The Poker House" is a day in the life of Agnes (Lawrence) in 1970s Iowa. Agnes is the on-screen doppelganger of writer/director Lori Petty -- you know, Kit from "League of Their Own." Agnes is the eldest of three children, who all live in a whore house with their drug addict, prostitute mother played wonderfully by Selma Blair. Agnes is the most mature of the clan, and is completely independent from the craziness going on at the Poker House. She is a star basketball player and a budding poet, and appears to be well-like by everyone she knows.

But she falls into the same trap her mother does, and falls for the local pimp, Duval (Woodbine). Agnes truly believes that Duval is in love with her, but her fantasy comes crashing down when he rapes her on the living room floor. Her mother has no sympathy for her and chooses Duval over her daughter when Agnes threatens his life. The strong willed girl puts all of this drama behind her, goes to her basketball game and somehow single-handedly wins the game after arriving in the fourth quarter.

The performances in this movie are so much better than any other part of the production that I felt sorry for the actors. Lawrence, once again, is spectacular. She is a chameleon when the camera is on, and she always finds a way to take the character right to the height of emotion without over-acting the dialogue. All of the great things she does in "Winter's Bone" she does here, but the writing and direction are so subpar that I doubt many people even know about this movie.

Going in I already knew that Lawrence was the lead, and was expecting her typical A+ performance, but I was surprised by the supporting role of Chloe Moretz -- best known as Hit Girl from "Kick Ass". She has maybe five or six scenes in the movie, but she steals them all. The most entertaining scenes in the film involve her and David Alan Grier talking in a bar. Grier plays a local drunk who's tweaking during his day drinking, and Moretz is the youngest sister, who has stayed at the bar because she doesn't want to go home. There is one particular monologue by Moretz about Goldfish crackers that highlights the talent of this future star. She made up for the pitiful acting by Sophia Bairley, who played the middle sister.

If Lori Petty was going for an emotionally draining experience instead of a well-crafted movie then she succeed, but if she was trying to make a good film, she failed miserably. The movie is very choppy in its editing, confusing in its timeline, and anti-climatic in its ending. The drama of the basketball game was so weak that it elicited a yawn from me.

It felt like a collection of scenes rather than a well-threaded plot. Not much happened until the rape scene. I'm all for character building, but it needs to be done well to overshadow a weak conflict. The under the surface conflict of Agnes' relationship with her mother was told mostly through voice overs than actual dialogue between the characters. The lack of build-up makes the confrontation after the rape seem forced.

"The Poker House" has a really good movie somewhere inside of it, but the failure of its writer/director/subject makes the movie a giant mess that is hard to stay interested in. If it wasn't for Lawrence, Moretz and Grier, there wouldn't be anything redeeming about the film. It's the perfect example of the person behind the story getting too involved in the production, and making it all about her rather than what the real story should be. The lack of development of the supporting character is what makes this movie forgettable, and the polar opposite of a movie like, "Winter's Bone".

Rating: 4/10 -- The performances in this movie are the only thing that make it watchable. It is always intriguing to see breakout stars in the films they made before the notoriety. Lawrence and Moretz are always worth the time spent watching them perform.

Day 84 -- Chalet Girl

Released: October 14th, 2011

Starring: Felicity Jones, Ed Westwick, Sophia Bush, Brooke Shields, Bill Nighy, Tamsin Egerton
  
Writer/Director: Tom Williams/Phil Traill

Description: Pretty tomboy Kim Matthews, 19, used to be a champion skateboarder - but now she's stuck in a dead end job trying to support her Dad. Opportunity comes knocking in the form of a catering job in the one of the most exclusive chalets in the Alps.

[Review may contain spoilers. Please watch movie before reading, unless you don't care. Most of these films have already been released for a while, so they should be readily available.]

***

It is nice to see that other countries produce mind-numbing films just like America. Usually there's a mystique about British films in the U.S. in which most audiences assume that every movie produced is like "Sense and Sensibility" or "The English Patient".  But, alas, they make really terrible romantic comedies just like us.

"Chalet Girl" was originally chosen for this project because another movie with Sophia Bush in it ("The Narrows") has been pulled off Netflix. I was intrigued when I noticed that Felicity Jones, who I love in "Like Crazy", was the star of this film, and Bill Nighty never disappoints. But this movie follows every overdone archetype in the history of rom-coms. Rich guy falls for poor girl who is witty and unlike anything else in his life, but is also exactly like his mother. 

Yet, the one concept that is supposed to make it stand out was one of it's most blatant plot holes. So the story is about Kim Matthews (Jones), who was a prodigy skateboarder that disappeared from competition after a car accident killed her mother. This is all laid out in the first five minutes by a commentator covering a skateboarding event. We find out later that Kim quit skateboarding because she has flashbacks to the accident when she attempts to jump.

There are two things wrong with the concept in both idea and execution. Kim is built up as this nation-wide skateboarding phenom, but somehow she goes unnoticed in her small hometown. Now, I'm not saying paparazzi need to be following her around, but I find it hard to believe that she'd be able to work at a fast food restaurant in which hordes of teenagers would patronize on a regular basis. The commentator make it out to be that no one in England knows where she is, or what she is doing right now, and that is contradictory to how they introduce her a mere 30 seconds earlier.

Now let's move on to the tragedy holding her back, which has never been done before (*cough* "Blue Crush" *cough*). The one thing I don't understand is how exactly this car crash is stopping her from performing. I understand if something happened during a competition, but something like a car accident is hard to explain without using stereotypical feelings. Kim can do everything else involved with snowboarding except jumping because she see her car falling off an overpass, and this fear is the reason why she's stopped competing. The major flaw in this is that she snowboards down high peaks without any fear, but put a ramp in front of her and she freezes. The concept tries to create sympathy for Kim without really explaining the core reason why she's like this, and even when they try to it's very elementary and shallow.

Producing a movie with these two flaws would be enough to make any movie mediocre, but Tom Williams decided to throw in a poor girl falls in love with the son of the rich family she works for, and just to "spice" it up a bit, he was engaged. Unlike other romantic comedies, the fiance, Chloe (Bush), wasn't evil, she was the in-the-way girl, which is totally original. The love story was the most paint by number one I've seen during this project. And yes, it had the two friends who love each other, but don't know it yet B plot going on too.

With all of the failures in the script and concept, it was a shame to see solid performances by Jones and Westwick wasted in this movie. Jones, in particular, stood out to me because my only exposure to her was in "Like Crazy", which was more romantic than comedy. She has solid comedic timing, and is probably the British version of Anne Hathaway. Westwick is perfectly suited for being a leading man in rom-coms. He's charming, has sex appeal through the roof and is more than adequate in the acting department. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing him pop up in more once "Gossip Girl" is over.

"Chalet Girl" is a British rom-com with lots of problems that occur because studios are unwilling to take any chances with the genre. They know they can milk money out of girls no matter how recycled the material is, and with each passing year a new crop of young adult girls enter the movie-watching audience and ensure that money never dries up.

Rating: 4/10 -- Generic rom-com, who's only redeeming quality is the adorable Felicity Jones, whose beauty is hard to explain, but is obvious to those who watch her. Also, I chose the poster because the "snow-mantic comedy" line is too ridiculous to ignore.

Day 83 -- The Nines

Released: August 31st, 2007

Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Melissa McCarthy, Hope Davis
  
Writer/Director: John August

Description: A troubled actor, a television show runner, and an acclaimed videogame designer find their lives intertwining in mysterious and unsettling ways.

[Review may contain spoilers. Please watch movie before reading, unless you don't care. Most of these films have already been released for a while, so they should be readily available.]

***

Films that don't reveal what they are truly about for two/thirds of the movie can either be frustrating or brilliant. M. Night Shyamalan knows both sides of this, with "Six Sense" as the latter and "The Happening" as the former (plants, really?!). No matter how good you set-up the twist, the reveal is all that matters.

"The Nines" has a story that clear and convoluted at the same time. Throughout the films three parts, you get snippets of information about the truth about the world you are watching. The first part is all about an actor having a mental breakdown and slowly begins to realize that he might be in a "Truman Show"-esque situation; Part two is all about a screenwriter who is trying to create a new TV show, and he is also the subject of a reality show. Then, at the end of this section, we are lead to believe that he is in the most boring video game ever. Finally, the third part he plays a video game creator who gets lost in the wood, but by the end of this segment the audience and the character find out that "G" (Reynolds) is a god (get it "G").

The reveal is so clunky that I felt the need to say out loud to no one in particular, 'this is stupid.' The idea of the story is fantastic and on par with inception, but instead of leaving us with just one big question, "The Nines" leaves its audience with many small questions, which makes the ending confusing. Don't misconstrue this as a statement that everything should be spelled out for the audience, but rather, I'm campaigning for writers to know what questions to leave hanging and what ones to answer. You can answer questions and be mysterious, but if you leave too many loose strings, you undermine the entire first two acts of the film.

There are many ways to interpret the story of "The Nines". One is to take it at face value as a film about a god-like being that got too involved in the world he created, or you can take it like I did, as a metaphor for screenwriting. 

Before you roll your eyes, think about it, "G" can change the world with a single thought, and he says that the final world is his 90th, which can be equivalent to a writer's final draft. The two other examples that stick out to me is when "G" mentions to "M" (McCarthy) that the worst scenario, if he stops being involved, is the fiery destruction of the world, which is a reference to what could happen once a screenwriter hands his script over to a director. Finally, the line "S" (Davis) says during his "intervention"spoke to me as a writer, she says, 'If you stay, you'll keep changing the pine cones,' which refers to revision. The process of revision is a hard one because you start agonizing over the most minute details of your script or your world, or as she said, 'the pine cones'.

The performances were uneven. Reynolds only stood out in the middle section, McCarthy was great in the opening scenes, and Davis, and it may just be me, was painful to watch. The inconsistency is the byproduct of having actors play three completely different characters in the course of a 99-minute movie. It's obvious that none of the actors ever got comfortable in their role, and McCarthy especially had a hard time playing herself in the "Reality Television" segment. With all of the different intersecting moments and convolution in the story, the film needed about another half-hour to properly build the characters and clarify the story.

"The Nines" is an interesting idea that was just rushed to fit its run-time. John August did a really good job setting three different tones in each section so that the audience could understand that these were different world. Despite all of the good work he did, his failure to properly pace the reveal is the film's undoing.

Rating: 5/10 -- Inconsistent performances and uneven storytelling mar an otherwise solid film. Reynolds and McCarthy are good, but again, Davis pulls the quality of the film down.