Twilight is Garbage and Other Thoughts

Off the Mark Thoughts Podcast

First off, I'd like to thank everyone who read the blog over the past month. These were fun posts to write, and more fun to discuss. As promised this post will be dedicated to my ranking for favorite acting/directing performances, and the podcast.

I was able to convince (bribe?) friend of the blog, Anthony, to join me to discuss the list and other things in world of movies. We break down my selections, discuss actors and directors and reveal Anthony's top-5 movies of the year. Here's an easy to follow guide to the podcast:

1. Intro
2. Nos. 20-16
3. Worst movies of the year
4. Nos. 15-11
5. Awards Talk
6. Nos. 10-6
7. Argofuckyourself
8. Nos. 5-1
9. Anthony's Top-5
10. Goodbye

We go off on a tangent a few times, but all in all we kept everything on target. Hope you enjoy, and I will try to bring you more of these in the future.

Now, I am proud to present the 2012 Off the Mark Thoughts favorite movie awards (trademark pending):

Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln
       Runner up: Daniel Craig, Skyfall (Leonardo DiCaprio, if he eligible)

Best Actress: Jennifer Lawrence, Silver Linings Playbook
       Runner up: Kara Hayward, Moonrise Kingdom

Supporting Actor: Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln
       Runner up: Ezra Miller, Perks of Being a Wallflower

Supporting Actress: Dame Judi Dench, Skyfall
       Runner Up: Emma Watson, Perks of Being a Wallflower

Director: Quentin Tarantio, Django Unchained
       Runner Up: David O. Russell, Silver Linings Playbook

Perks of Being a Wallflower: Modern-day Breakfast Club

1.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

There are very few times when I completely fall in love with a movie. It doesn't matter how good the film is, or even if it was very popular, there's just need to be something special that grabs my attention and makes me think about it for days. I can never tell exactly what it is, but I know it immediately after the movie's over.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower is my new obsession. There is a certain charm and realness to the movie that occurs very rarely on screen, especially in a movie set in high school. The issues, while melodramatic in spots, are something that every one of us has gone through during our teenage formative year. There's love, heartbreak, friendship and insecurities. There is not a character that is not relatable on some level. And writer/director/author Stephen Chbosky's tone and dialogue flawlessly illustrates the roller coaster that is high school.

I wonder if my love of the movie was helped by the fact that I didn't read the book beforehand. There were some of aspects of the book that were not covered in the movie. They weren't included for a number of reasons: Time, not essential or to keep the cast small. I recommend reading the book either before or after you see the movie just so you get the full picture of Charlie's life. If I knew most of the story beforehand, especially the twist that happens 2/3 of the way in, I wonder if it would have had as much impact. I hope so, but I'll always wonder.

If we take the movie as just the movie and eliminate the book, I think it has the chance to be a modern day Breakfast Club. The issues are more relevant to the current generation than John Hughes' films was to his. Hughes' movie are deeper than most 80s teen movies, but they still spotlight the superficial issues of popularity and money.

Chbosky's Perks, on the other hand, digs a lot deeper and gets into sexuality, mental health and child sexual abuse. He does this while still framing it around the superficial aspect of Hughes' films. Perks, in many ways, is the dark version of those classics, and therefore more apropos of the current generation. For an apples to apples comparison of Hughes' films, see Easy A.

For the movie to reach into those dark places, the actors needed to be top notch, and he nailed just about every role. The riskiest choice he made was casting Logan Lerman as Charlie. Lerman hadn't shown much in the way of talent during his screen time in Percy Jackson and The Three Musketeers. This is another instance where casting calls were essential to the movie as Lerman is absolutely heartbreaking as Charlie.

His choice for the title female character, Sam, was fortuitous one because without Emma Watson using what power she had in movie industry, the movie doesn't get made. As important as casting Watson was important to the success of Perks, the role itself was as important to Watson career. She needed to find a role that would both further her career and separate her from Harry Potter and Hermione. Sam was the perfect role. 

She broke out of the uptight English-school girl look and embraced a more sure of herself American high schooler (see the Rocky Horror scenes). While her accent wasn't perfect, it was so good that by half way through the movie I forgot what her normal voice sounded like. She proved that she wasn't just a part of an ensemble cast, but a future leading lady.

But the star of the film — and a name you will be hearing for many years — was Ezra Miller. If you haven't seen We Need to Talk About Kevin, go see it now; it is the definition of a breakout role. 

Miller's Patrick was the heart of the movie. He made you laugh and cry, but most importantly, he made you wish that he was your friend. He should be recognized in some way for this role, and if that means all he gets is better roles, I think he'll take it. Patrick will be one of those characters we remember for a long time, or at least those of us that have seen the film.

And if you haven't seen it yet and it's still playing in theaters near you, go see it immediately.

Release date: September 21st.

Reason for ranking: Perks is one of the few movies that turned me into an unpaid marketer. This is a movie I will randomly watch on a boring night, and one that I won't turn off when it comes on TV. It is now on a list of about a half-dozen films that I can unequivocally say, 'I Love,' with a capital L.

Lincoln: An Entertaing History Lesson

2.

Lincoln

Period pieces are always hard to execute correctly. They are either too traditional and boring, or they have too much of a modern flair and completely miss the point of being set in the past. But when a film does everything correctly, it can be one of the most powerful movie going experiencesyou can have. Add the best actor of our generation, and Lincoln may be the best period piece ever created.

Much of my excitement prior to the film's release came from my love of history. I've watched countless documentaries on WWI and II, the American Revolution, and the Roman Empire. But there was always a blind spot in my knowledge of history: the American Civil War. And as luck would have it, around the time that Lincoln was released, I had recently started to watch the History Channel's documentary on the war. With the details of the time period fresh in my mind, I bought my ticket to see Lincoln.

Lincoln was everything I wanted it to be and more. My biggest fear going in was that Hollywood would try to keep Lincoln out of the dirty politics that surrounded the passing of the 14th Amendment, but right from the opening act you saw that Lincoln was going to do anything in his power to pass the amendment, including hand out government jobs for votes.

This was a very important feature that was needed in the movie, and I don't think the role of a toeing the line Lincoln could have been played better by anyone other than Daniel Day-Lewis. He should hands down win the Oscar for Best Actor, but I could also see the Academy not wanting to give him the award a third time, too. Day-Lewis is equal parts charming, powerful and vulnerable. His intensity throughout the movie almost convinced me that he was Lincoln. He was that good.

While we're on the topic of awards, Tommy Lee Jones should win best supporting actor. Thaddeus Stevens is a complicated character — both in the movie and history — that was both Lincoln's ally and enemy, and to play him correctly, Jones needed to match Day-Lewis' performance in every scene. Stevens had to be Lincoln's equal, and Jones had to be Day-Lewis'. It should be a clean sweep in the male acting categories, but we'll see if politics gets in the way.

It should come as no surprise that Steven Spielberg captured a time period so perfectly. Lincoln is to post-civil war America, what Saving Private Ryan was to WWII Europe. It felt like I was watching the events through a mirror, and that these were the real people not actors. The authenticity of the sets is the number one reason why I adored this movie.

Between the portrayal of historical figures, the realistic sets and the events taking place on screen, my inner history geek was in heaven. My only complaint is that the movie could have ended prior to his assassination (spoiler?), and probably should have. But the events surrounding that night in Ford's Theater are too known to ignore, and Spielberg did what he should and not show the actual shooting, but rather the reaction to it. This movie will be one that I will make sure my children watch when they begin to learn U.S. History.

Release date: November 16th

Reason for ranking: Epic. A very well done movie that teaches you American history and you are none the wiser. Should be required viewing for kids when they learn about the Civil War.

Skyfall: Bond as it Should Be

No need for an introduction. The tile should say it all.

3.

Skyfall

Now this is a Bond movie.

I have been a fan of the James Bond series since I first stole my grandfather's VHS of From Russia With Love and saw Sean Connery fight a blonde Robert Shaw on a train. Something about the suave and quick-witted spy captured my attention at a young age and held through the good (GoldenEye) and the bad (Quantum of Solace) and everything in between.

Yet as much fun as those early Connery — and especially the Roger Moore films — were, there was always something missing. Bond was too clean and lacked any true emotion in his movies. Maybe that's the way the character was intended to be, but as I grew up, the need for a more realistic Bond increased. The films needed to get grittier.

My desire for this type of Bond film hit a fever pitch when I saw Batman Begins and saw what Christopher Nolan did with that character, and I wondered if someone could see the same potential in Bond. My prayers were answered in 2006 with Casino Royale, which immediately landed in the top-5 of my favorite Bond movies. But my enthusiasm quickly burned out when I saw the Bourne inspired follow up, Quantum of Solace. It would be an understatement to say I was disappointed.

And that brings us to Skyfall.

This movie is the Dark Knight of the latest iteration of the Bond character. Every piece of this movie is near perfect. Javier Bardem is the best villain in more than 20 years — maybe even 30 years. He carries this air of invincibility through out the last half of the movie that should inhabit every Bond villain going forward. And his back story is one of the most personal to Bond and MI-6 that has ever been written. If there was ever a time for a villain from a Bond movie to be nominated for awards, now would be it. Can't say enough about Bardem.

Besides the villain, the choice for "Bond girl" in this movie was truly brilliant. It wasn't a supermodel, nor an A-list American actress, or even the return of Dr. Christmas Jones; it was Judi Dench as M. The lack of an emotional connection to his damsel in distress was always a weak point in the earlier Bond films. Casino Royale remedied that slightly with the Vesper Lind storyline, but that just felt like new wrapping paper on an old gift. But capitalizing on all the ground work laid in the first three films with Craig allowed the final hour of this movie to be fascinating when it could have very easily been boring.

There was very little I could find wrong with this film, even the choice for Q was a stroke of genius. This film was raw, gritty and everything I've been hoping a Bond movie could be. To say I'm excited for the next film would be the ultimate understatement.

Release date: November 9th

Reason for ranking: Bond. Really, that's it. My love of 007 is the only reason it ranked ahead of Django. And I didn't want to cheat and have a 3a. and 3b., so my tie-breaker was Daniel Craig.

Django Unchained: Tarantino at His Best

Prior to the post, I would like to discuss the trailers that preceded Django Unchained. I don't know if it's the quality of the movies that were previewed or that the trailers themselves, but — of the ones I hadn't seen before — none of them made me want to see the films.

Bad trailers are nothing new, and most recently, the preview for Admission staring Tina Fey and Paul Rudd was — for lack of a better term — awful. At my showing for Django, I saw Movie 43, Oblivion, Dead Man Down, Pain and Gain and Zero Dark Thirty. Besides the last one, the others looked terrible. I have no idea what Movie 43 is supposed to be about (maybe that's the point), Oblivion looks generic, Dead Man Down has some good actors in it but nothing stood out, and Pain and Gain is produced by Michael Bay and has a roided up-looking Mark Wahlberg and The Rock as the stars.

My only question is, who decided these trailers were good and thought that the Django Unchained audience would be the best target? My thought is money has to be behind this, and the studios are sending the trailers to every movie in order to build an audience, instead of knowing it.

I digress:

4.

Django Unchanied

If I'm going to properly begin this post let me start by saying: the n-word.

For all of the things that occur in this movie, the controversy over the use of the n-word is the most ridiculous. The film is set in the pre-Civil War South, and the people in that place, and of that time, said that word like we say bro or dude. If Tarantino didn't include it, he would be ignoring a big part of the movie's setting and tone. Racism occurred, and is part of Django's back story.

Outside of the controversy, this movie is pretty freaking great. It is classic Tarantino, and a whole lot of fun. The humor is on point, the blood is as cartoonish as ever and the performances are top notch. Christoph Waltz has to be the find of the century, and it's a wonder how he wasn't discovered earlier by Hollywood. His chemistry with Jamie Foxx is the best part of the movie.

It will come as a shock to no one that Foxx was the perfect choice to play Django. His mixture of intensity and wit brought the character to life better than any other actor could have. My favorite Foxx moment was not during one of the action scenes or his tremendous banter with an on-top-of-his-game Leonardo DiCaprio, it was the quiet moment when he asks Waltz' Dr. Schultz to tell him an old German tale. The vulnerability of Django in this scene is a testament to both Foxx's acting and Tarantino great script.

Just like every other Tarantino film, the supporting actors give the movie personality. The last hour belongs to Samuel L. Jackson. He appears on screen and steals the movie. Kerry Washington looks heavenly, and the quick cameo by Don Johnson is exactly what you'd expect.

My only criticism of the film is that it's about 10 minutes too long. The scene between the climax and the conclusion is too slow and drains the momentum of the movie. I understand where Tarantino was going with it, but instead of slowing the movie down, he slammed on the breaks. But after this interlude, the movie ends exact how you were expecting it to 10 minutes earlier.

Release date: December 25th

Reason for ranking: Pretty much even with the next film on the list, but one key factor separates them for me personally; read the next post for the exact reason.

The Avengers: A Surprisingly Entertaining Superhero Movie

Before the review, I have a couple quick announcements:

1. On December 31st, I will be post my favorite actor, actress, director, etc. of 2012.
2. Depending on scheduling, I may have a podcast up discussing the list, which will accompany the post on the 31st. Guest to be announced.

Now that that's out of the way, let's continue the list:   

5.

The Avengers

Crossovers, whether it be in movies or TV shows, have the chance to be amazing or completely un-watchable. There are plenty of examples of success, albeit to varying degrees, on television. The most successful one that comes to mind is Buffy and Angel, which had a lot to do with the genius of Joss Whedon and his writing staffs. And on the complete opposite end of the scale are the crossovers that occur on the Disney Channel, which has a lot to do with these shows having completely different writing staffs.

Most of the time these collaborations, for better or worse, occur over a short period of time and have very minimal build up. So their success or failure, doesn't harm the individual shows. The Avengers, on the other hand, had a completely unique and insane build-up for a crossover.

It all started with an after the credits scene during Iron Man in 2008 that began a four-year build up, which culminated with a $220 million dollar gamble to combine four franchises in to one movie. And fortunately, for fans of the comics, the producers and Marvel Studios the gamble paid off big time. And it was no surprise that the master of crossovers, Joss Whedon, was at the helm.

Whedon's script took the best from each movie and combined it into a seamless 2-hour-plus narrative. The villain made sense, the reason for the Initiative was plausible and the conflict between the heroes seems genuine and not superficial. Instead of sculpting an all-star team, Whedon turned the Avengers into a dysfunctional family, which made the movie better because there was an emotional component that coincided with the main conflict, aka "kill the baddie". He made them seem human even if they may be gods.

This is just a fun, fun movie. Sure, it has the popcorn action moments (that are awesome), but it also has heart and comedy, which again is a hallmark of Whedon's scripts. Every actor plays their role as well as they did in the individual films, and even the change from Edward Norton to Mark Ruffalo felt like the right move. His style fits the script better than Norton, which helped the chemistry and contributed to the greatness of the film.

Release date: May 4th

Reason for ranking: There's not a better example of a movie being ranked high just because I enjoyed the film. In a "Best of" list, this may have come in lower.

I may have a thing for Jennifer Lawrence...shhh: Nos. 10-6

The Top-10.

Whether you admit it or not, we all make top-10 list in our head. Most people don't go to the extreme of writing them down and posting them on the Internet, but when prompted we can rattle off a list of 10 favorite somethings.

Sometimes we subconsciously make this list, and sometimes we verbalize it with friends over some beers. The least thought about top-10 list people create is on their iTunes account. Go ahead and look at your most played songs. I'll wait. In most cases (unless you use your account to DJ), the first 10 songs are your favorite 10 songs, which would make it...(drumroll)...a top-10 list.

As I reveal the remaing movie on my favorite movies of 2012 list, I expect that you will be surprised, confused and in some cases, questioning my sanity. With that said, I'm excited to reveal the 10 movies that will all be a part of my Blu-Ray collection in the near future.

Enjoy:

Not The List You Deserve, But The One You Need Right Now: Nos. 15-11

Final cuts are always tough, whether it's for a sports teams, a job opening, or the last scene in your script that needs to be removed for time. You sit down and evaluate each position, candidate, or line of dialogue to determine if the there's a clear choice. No matter what your decision, you'll either make a person's day or ruin their evening. There is no way to make everyone happy. So you spend way too much time looking at it from every angle, and eventually you make a choice and deal with it.

I knew as I moved up this list I would come across a movie that would make me second guess it's placement. You see, it's never the top of a list like this that is hard, it's that decision between 10 and 11 that tends to be the most difficult.

In people's minds, there's a big difference between top-10 and not top-10. Is it fair that the thing in the No. 11 spot is downgraded because it missed out by one spot? No, but that's what happens. On this list, the gulf between the movies I loved and those I liked is located between 11 and 12.

But nonetheless, I am prepared for the criticism that my choice for No. 11 will bring.

Here we go:

Makers, Teddy Bears, and Tom Cruise. Oh, my! Nos. 20-16

Well, if you were waiting for controversy and thought it would happen later, surprise! Each section has it own slice of disagreeable choices, and the biggest one still lies ahead. Hopefully, it will arouse a healthy conversation (argument) among the few but proud (?) readers of this blog.

These five were the easy ones for me. Sixteen may have been the only one I gave a second thought to before settling on its placement. Some of these were poplar, some lesser known, but all slashed at least two-hours off of my life.

Unlike the tease from last week, the mini-reviews will be longer for the next few posts, and then the final five will be full length. Remember, these are my favorites, not what I think were the best. With that said, not much would change if it was a "best of" list.

Without further ado:

Favorite Movies of 2012

Sometimes ideas for the blog come to me out or the blue, or during an innocuous conversation amongst friends. The next series of post was conceived from the latter. At a surprise party for one of my good friends, avid reader of Off the Mark Thoughts and real life compadre, Anthony, brought up the question: Who will be the Best Picture nominees this year?

While it would be an awesome project, it would also be a completely uneducated guess at which movies would populate what essentially is the Academy's top-ten list. Only because I have not seen enough "Oscar-Caliber" films to compile a competent list.

So in lieu of that, I thought I'd rank the top-twenty movies that I've seen in 2012. Yay!

If you haven't figured it out yet, I have this OCD issue where I need to list every thing in order from favorite to least favorite. Video games, songs, movies, breakfast cereal (Honey Nut Cheerios, end of story) nothing is off-limits. Most lists are fluid, some are solid, and they are all usually more time consuming than they need to be.

How this will work is that numbers 20-16 will be in one post on December 5th, 15-11 will follow on December 12th, 10-6 will be on December 19th, and the top-five will each get an individual post starting December 26th. The time between each post will be allotted to discussions/arguments about the rankings and/or post from guests to defend or disagree with my opinions.

As a little tease, I will reveal the (not so) honorable mentions because I paid money to see 22 films this year and I think I should mention them all.

Ben and Kate: Surprise Hit

Creator(s): Dana Fox

Network/Writer(s): FOX/Dana Fox

Director: Jake Kasdan

Actors: Dakota Johnson, Nat Faxon, Lucy Punch, Maggie Elizabeth Jones, Echo Kellum 

Tagline/Summary: His sister. Her daughter. Who's raising who?

***

[NOTE: This review may contain spoilers, so please watch the show before reading, or don't.]

Sitcoms always work better when there is a set unit. "Seinfeld" had Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer; "Friends" had the six leads; and "How I Met Your Mother" has had the same group since the pilot. Usually the smaller the group the better because it's easier to develop characters if each is given significant screen time. "Friends" used the trick of always writing scenes that involved at least three of the character. The more focused the sitcom the better.

"Ben and Kate's" number is three: siblings Ben (Faxon) and Kate (Johnson) along with her daughter, Maddie (Jones). This trio already has the relateablity needed for a prolonged sitcom. To be fair, the laughs aren't completely there yet, but the pilot laid a lot of ground work required to have a successful show. They have likeable characters, a plausible plot and instant chemistry between the actors.

The pilot is very focused and tight. It centers around showing how completely opposite Ben and Kate are, but instead of telling the audience through dialogue, they show it with each character's story.

Ben has returned to convince a former love to take him back. He hasn't spoken to her in a year, but he's willing to take a risk and crash her wedding. Kate, on the other hand, is very conservative in her decision making, which is why she's waited until the 10th date to have sex with her boyfriend (Ben Foster). It was a well thought out and executed idea to use relationships as the way to show the differences in the siblings.

Even though both fail in their efforts, they grow closer together and we instantly feel the love they have for each other. The writing in this episode was the ultimate example of show vs. tell. Sure, you have to tell some things because you need background, but I was able to learn more about the characters from their actions than the exposition that was spoken. Unfortunately, this isn't always true on television, especially 30-minute shows.

Strong writing is always a good sign for a series. The most encouraging thing is that they haven't fleshed out the supporting characters: Kate's friend BJ (Punch) and Ben's friend Tommy (Kellum). It also bodes well that they didn't exploit Maddie in the first episode. They included just enough cute moment and interesting interaction with Ben to let us understand her and her place in the show. She's going to be a scene-stealer. If there was a negative, it was that show wasn't laugh-a-minute. But, honestly, what series is nowadays.

"Ben and Kate" has the potential to be a subtle, but surprise hit for Fox in the same way "Raising Hope" was a few years ago. The best compliment that can be given at this moment is that the audience cares what happens next. Like I've mentioned in past reviews, the pilot is meant to get the public hooked, but episodes 2 and 3 are what reels them in permanently. And if what was showcased in the series opener continues, there's nothing that should stop "Ben and Kate" from becoming a staple on television.

Rating: 7.5/10

Rewatchability: High

Partners: Will and Grace lite

Creator(s): David Kohan and Max Mutchnick

Network/Writer(s): CBS/David Kohan and Max Mutchnick

Director: James Burrow

Actors: Sophia Bush, David Krumholtz, Brandon Routh, Michael Urie

Tagline/Summary: Two lifelong friends, who are both architects, form a business partnership.

***

[NOTE: This review may contain spoilers, so please watch the show before reading, or don't.]

Once they've had success, writers tend to stay within their comfort zones. There's no incentive to do something new because good money can be made writing the same story over and over again. If you are very good at it, you can make a good living by coming up with a fresh twist on your specialty. But if you basically write the same show again, with only a cosmetic change, you will find that the audience will not be there.

This is the issue for "Partners". The new CBS sitcom was created by the minds behind the ground breaking "Will and Grace", David Kohan and Max Mutchnick. And it very much resembles their last hit. The story revolves around four people living in New York City, including best friends Louis (Urie) and Joe (Krumholtz) who work and live together. Louis is gay, and Joe is straight, so nothing like "Will and Grace". Nope, not at all.

 In the opening act, we are introduced to the friends through a series of scenes where we are supposed to understand their friendship, but we are left wondering how they are still friends. The pilot mostly focuses on Louis and Joe, and Kohan and Mutchnick try to create the type chemistry between the two male leads that was between Will and Jack. But it fails mainly because Louis feels like a watered-down Jack so the jokes don't work as well.

The heart of the show lies with the other two leads: Ali (Bush) and Wyatt (Routh). Ali is Joe's girlfriend and part of the main conflict of the pilot. Joe can't decide if he wants to propose or not. He tell Louis one thing and does another; hilarity ensues. Wyatt, on the other hand, is the lovable, dim-witted boyfriend of Louis. He's the complete opposite of Louis in every way. I guess they were going for an odd couple thing here.

Bush and Routh show how important casting the actors to play opposite the focus of the show. If the pilot is any indication, 3/4 of the show will be Joe and Louis centered, but without strong performances by Bush and Routh, the series will fail. Luckily, Kohan and Mutchnick have a track record of doing this well. By the end of "Will and Grace", Jack and Karen were as popular or even more popular than the title characters, which I believe will be the case with "Partners".

The worry and big issue with the premise is with the comparison that will surely be made, can it survive as "Will and Grace"-lite? Krumholtz and Bush can easily anchor the show and keep it watchable, but will Urie's Louis bring it down because his character isn't as strong as Jack, or that he's not as good of an actor as Sean Hayes?

With so much going against it, "Partners" needs to find something that separates it from its spiritual predecessor, and Routh's Wyatt could be it. He's a little bit of an air-head now, but give him few strong episodes and people may forget their comparisons.

Rating: 5.5/10

Rewatchability: Moderate

Revolution: Loads of Potential

Creator(s): Eric Kripke


Network/Writer(s): NBC/Eric Kripke

 Director: Jon Favreau

Actors: Billy Burke, Tracy Spiridakos, Zak Orth, David Lyons, Anna Lise Phillips

Tagline: 15 years after the blackout…they will light the way.

***

[NOTE: This review may contain spoilers, so please watch the show before reading, or don't.]

Post-apocalyptic stories are always fascinating to humans because it is natural to wonder how our world will look if we lost all of the technological advantages we take for granted. But there is a fine line between an interesting story and insulting your audience, and "Revolution" walks it as well as a Wallenda.

"Revolution" takes place 15 years after the world has gone dark, and the world has gone back to the dark ages. Our story takes place somewhere outside of Chicago, where villages have formed and the ruling power is a local militia. The population is still struggling with what happened when the world lost all of it's technology  in one quick moment, like a switch was flipped. The only clue we get is that it may have been military induced, and two brother hold the key to the blackout.

Our heroine is Charlotte "Charlie" Matheson (Spiridakos), the daughter one of the aforementioned brothers, and her adventure begins after her father is murdered and brother is kidnapped. In his dying words, her father tell her to find his brother in Chicago. Thus, begins the epic part of the story.

The sets look like they are straight out of the History Channel's "Life After People". Where they did use CG you couldn't tell, and the real exteriors were gorgeous and set the tone. There was just enough left over from the pre-blackout world to make the areas feel familiar and recognizable. This allows the audience to get emotionally invested and buy into the shows premise.

The most natural comparison is CBS' cult classic "Jericho", but this show does post-apocalyptia in a grander, more epic way. This will definitely help it find a wider audience. It also has a less complex story (so far at least), which allows it to not go off the rails like "Jericho". "Revolution" will probably fall some where between ABC's short lived "FlashForward" and NBC's flop from last season, "The Event". But it definitely has the potential to get close the the cult following level of "Lost".

If a show can have an Achilles heel, Tracy Spiridakos could be "Revolution's". As the lead in this series, she needs to be strong and vulnerable at the same time because she is still a teenager, but Spiridakos falls just short of her character's requirements. For now, the blame will be placed on lack of experience, but if she doesn't grow into the role, her and the show could be a one-and-done. The good thing is that they both are bursting with potential and will need to fulfill it quickly if they want to get the proper end to the fiction.

Rating: 7.5/10

Rewatchability: Moderately High

The Mob Doctor: Familiar, but different

Creator(s): Josh Berman and Rob Wright

Network/Writer(s): FOX/Josh Berman and Rob Wright

Director: Michael Dinner

Actors: Jordana Spiro, William Forsythe, Zach Gilford, Zeljiko Ivanek, Michael Rapaport

Tagline/Summary: A young thoracic surgeon becomes indebted to the South Chicago mafia and is forced to moonlight as a mob doctor, while also working full time at Chicago's most prominent hospital.

***

[NOTE: This review may contain spoilers, so please watch the show before reading, or don't.]

When creating a show from a genre that is usually restrictive and easy to fall into stereotypes, it is difficult for a writer to create a strong character without it feeling recycled. And when this show is centered around organized crime, comparisons are always unfairly made to the "Godfather", and more recently the "Sopranos", but "The Mob Doctor" finds a way to introduce a tough character -- female, no less -- while not forgetting her human element.

Jordana Spiro plays Dr. Grace Devlin, a highly-skilled young surgeon who was raised in the gritty Southside in Chicago. Her character's twist, which is also the hook of the show, is that she's currently working off her brother's debt to Chicago mob boss Paul Moretti (Rapaport) by preforming medical procedures on his goons. Grace appears to have everything under control until the FBI's star witness against former boss, Constantine Alexander (Forsythe), shows up at her hospital in need of heart surgery. And in the one predictiable element of the pilot (it was mentioned in the trailer), Moretti tells her to kill him.

From this point forward, Grace's nuances are almost perfectly laid out, and terrifically performed by Spiro. In the 44 minute pilot, Grace is shown to have a deep attachment to her patients, influence over certain co-workers, and the confidence in risk taking. The last point is emphasized by the way she cares for her first patient and why she's picked to perform the surgery on the Government witness. And will most likely lead to some tough situations later on.

The episode's writing provides most of this information through natural conversations, and show not tell moments. The only element not shown, or at the least blurted out in a line of dialogue is: Why's she given the latitude to do what she wants even though she's apparently only a resident? This is probably explained more in the book which the show is based on ("Il Dottore: The Double Life of a Mafia Doctor" by Rob Felber), but it was the one thing I kept thinking about.

After removing that one flaw, everything else is pretty solid. Spiro, who I fell in love with on "My Boys", looks like a good choice for the conflicted doctor, and it was nice to see Zach Gilford again -- he plays Grace's boyfriend Dr. Brett Robinson. I'm sort of partial to ex-"Friday Night Lights" cast members, and was disappointed by his role in "Off the Map" so its good that Saracen is still getting work. Every show needs a good villain, and Forsythe fills this role to perfection.

The Mob Doctor passes the biggest test I have with pilots: Do I understand the concept of the show by the end of the episode? This is critical because you can have the best actors in the world and the greatest directed episode, but if your audience doesn't understand the conflicts and how they may come up in the future, then most people -- myself included -- will lose interest quickly. Obviously, I'm not saying you need to spell out every single plot point for season 1 in the first 60 minutes, but give me enough to get hooked.

If you do this, does it mean your show will be great? No. My two favorite examples are "The Black Donnellys" and "Life Unexpected". Both pilots passed with flying colors and rank in my top-10 of all-time, but they quickly fell off a cliff. As always, Episodes 2 and 3 are the most important, you need to completely hook your audience or your ratings will drop, which is why most early cancellation happen within the first 4-to-5 episodes; expand the world, develop the characters and stay consistent in your storytelling.

After going in skeptical, "The Mob Doctor" showed the elequence needed to maintained the balance between the craziness of organized crime plots and character development, which is essential for a series to be successful. For inspiration, the show's creative team only needs to look at another Fox show, "Fringe", to see what this balance look like.

Rating: 7/10

Rewatchability: Moderately High

My night with Jesse, Piers and Eddie

Sometimes you get invited to something that you have only a fleeting interest in doing. Most of the time, you say, 'yes,' just for the story, and the story turns out to be boring. You've felt like you wasted a night, and regret every single moment. Well, I was offered one of these situations Sunday night.

My brother-in-law, Eddie, texted me to invited me to go with him to a rare live Piers Morgan Tonight. I was intriguied, but not sold. His next message assured I would go: Jesse Ventura is his guest. You mean, WHITE LIGHTNING!

I was hooked.

For those of you that are unaware, Jesse "The Body" Ventura is a former professional wrestler and Governor of Minnesota, and the widely known voice of conspiracy theorists. He has written seven books, including DemoCRIPS and ReBLOOODlicans, which he was on the show to promote. He's pretty much Eddie's favorite person in the world (sorry Mel, Ava and Ashley), and I was curious to see what he was like on live TV. Fortunately, unlike the situation above, the show and our trek to the studio was one of the most enjoyable experiences of my life.

Here's the recap:

Our adventure starts at 3:20 on a beautiful Monday afternoon, and we have an hour to get to Trenton for a 4:26 p.m. NJ Transit train to New York, but we were also running into the start of rush hour traffic. After going a bit out of our way, we arrived at the Trenton Transit Center just in time...to hear our train leave. Luckily, there was a local train leaving a few minutes later, but it would get us there a little later than Eddie was hoping.

Once we arrived at Penn Station, the craziness began. For those of you that have rode the New York Subway system before, feel free to laugh at this next part. We rush across the train station to try and catch the 2 train before it leaves at  6:08 p.m. when we get there...you guessed it, we watched it leave. This was not good, because neither of us had rode the NYC subway before and Eddie was a nervous wreck as it was. He figures out that C train leaves in four minutes and he wants to catch that (pauses for laughter). Eventually, we hop on an express to Times Square, get off and look for a local to get to 59th St. This is where we meet our first character of this story.

We'll call him, "Vinny" (not his real name), an MTA work, who is a complete stereotype -- loads of product in his hair, tough guy accent. Eddie approaches "Vinny" and asked if the 1 train will take us to 59th St. "Vinny", who was too busy to help us because he flirting with a woman waiting for the train, says, 'Whuddya think, pal.' The woman he's talking to, who obviously wanted an excuse to stop talking to him, is more helpful and we continue our trek to the Time Warner Center.

We exit the subway at 59th and Columbus Circle. Unfortunately, this is the only time we see New York during our entire trip. After finding the right entrance, we take a few escalators up to waiting area for Piers Morgan Tonight. We are one of the first few people in line. Oh, did I forget to mention that it's currently 6:35 p.m., and the show doesn't start until 9 p.m. Yeah, so that happened.

Since it appeared as if I had plenty of time to eat, I ventured down to the Whole Foods in the basement of the building. Yes, there's a supermarket in the basement. While waiting in line (or on line since I'm in NYC) to pay, I receive a semi-frantic phone call from Eddie. They are taking people to the back. I reluctantly return my delicious looking chicken and fresh mozzarella sandwich, and hurry back upstairs, and find that they're only taking small groups at a time. At this point, the ship has sailed in regards to getting food, so I wait in line with Eddie.

We eventually get checked-in, signed our waivers, picked up our raffle tickets (yep, there was a raffle), and enter the CNN studios. They guides us to the studio in groups of seven. Eddie kept saying it felt like we were going to an interrogation room, and the static gray walls didn't help. We were seated two at a time, and strategically placed in the studio by height and gender. This was my view of the stage:

Pretty good, eh? Well, Eddie was worried about how much air time we'd get because we weren't behind either Ventura or Morgan. Little did he know, we were in the perfect spot. Exhibit A:

At about 8:45 p.m. we got the pre-show instructions, which included shutting off our cell phone. Thus, the reason for the lack of photos during the show. The show itself was pretty interesting. Whether or not you agree with Ventura, the interview is definitely worth the watch. And you'll get to see plenty of shots of my beautiful face. Go to Piers Morgan's Blog, or watch it On Demand.

After the show, we exited on 8th Ave. and to our surprise, Ventura was standing outside surrounded by fans and his friend, Richard Belzer. Of course, you know what happened next...

I'm pretty sure this is now Eddie's cell phone wallpaper. Anyway, we began our trip home, which went a little smoother than our arrival. Well, this time we did have help from fellow audience members, who were headed in the same direction. We stopped for food (FINALLY!), and boarded our final train of the night. And Eddie's last nervous moment, which passed when the employee on the train reassured him that we were indeed on the right train.

What started out as last minute idea, turned into one of the most fun and educational nights I've had in a while. I learned a little about the NYC subway system and Eddie met one of his heroes. All in all, our trip to Gotham was a success.

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.