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

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 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.

Day 82 -- Mega Shark vs. Crocosaurus

Released: December 21st, 2010

Starring: Jaleel White, Gary Stretch, Sarah Lieving, Robert Picardo, Dylan Vox
  
Writer/Director: Nicole L. Selfman/Christopher Ray

Description: Whoever wins... we lose!

[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.]

***

The Sci-Fi original films are an event unto themselves and really shouldn't be compared to real movies, but they are produced and put on film so they deserve a review. I seriously think these films are conceived as a way to see how much ridiculous stuff can be put into a movie, and not for really advancing the art form.

I was surprised to see that there was even a writer for "Mega Shark vs. Crocosaurus". If you would have told me that all of the lines were ad-libbed, I would have believed you. The dialogue is terrible, the characters were poorly designed, and the plot was an ADD kids' dream, but I loved every minute of it.

Even the most stuffy critic has to admit that there's a place in the movie world for terrible, terrible films that put a smile on your face. Some of my examples being: "Mansquito", "Captain Ron" and "Killer Clowns From Outer Space". These film will never be taught at USC or NYU Film School, but will always stop me from channel surfing. It really takes effort to make movies this awful.

The second installment of the "Mega Shark" series (Yes, it's a series) features Urkel...er, I mean, Jaleel White as Dr. Terry McCormick, a shark "expert". He is currently attempting to invent a way to repel the mega shark using soundwaves, and isn't having much success. Meanwhile, Nigel (Stretch) has stumbled upon a giant crocodile in an African Swamp and captures it. After bring it to sea, he finds that the mega shark is feasting on the giant crocs eggs, and thus, the battle begins.

McCormick and Nigel are recruited by the U.S. Government to stop the two beast, which apparently includes blowing up Panama (yes, the real country of Panama is destroyed). They are lead by Agent Hutchinton (Lieving), who is a tough as nails agent that doesn't smile. The trio romp though Miami, Orlando (the mega shark eats all of the whales in Sea World) and finally ending up in Hawaii. This is where they eventual stop the creatures by blowing up a volcano (swear to God). Like I said, fun times.

Critiquing the performance would be like writing a review on a four-grade production of "Les Miserables". None of the actor are ever going to be nominated for an award or star in anything other than B-movies. The fact that I was missing both Debbie Gibson and Tiffany says something about the level of acting in the movie. But to be honest, we aren't watching these movie for the acting.

"Mega Shark vs. Crocosaurus" is another one of those movies that are enhanced by the introduction of friends and alcohol. It's not even close to being a respectable movie in terms of quality, but it's high on the entertainment. These movies are the reason "Mystery Science Theater 3000" is such a quality show, there's just so much to comment on.

Rating: 1.5/10 -- As a movie it's bad, but I will always watch it. Also, they are making a third movie where the mega shark battle a mecha shark. I know I can't wait either.

Day 81 -- St. Elmo's Fire

Released: June 28th, 1985

Starring: Rob Lowe, Demi Moore, Emilio Estevez, Andrew McCarthy, Ally Sheedy, Judd Nelson, Mare Winningham
  
Writer/Director: Joel Schumacher and Carl Kurlander/Joel Schmacher

Description: A Group of friends, just out of college, struggle with adulthood. Their main problem is that they're all self-centered and obnoxious.

[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.]

***

Every generation has an obsession with a decade before it, and reintroduce clothes and music into current styles. Whether it be the leather jackets of the 50s, or tie-dye shirts from the 60s, there's a certain curiosity of how things were before they were born. My obsession is the 80s, and how bat-shit crazy that decade appears from afar.

Which brings us to "St. Elmo's Fire" and one of the decades forgotten gems. Released during the Brat-Pack era of "Breakfast Club" and "Sixteen Candles", it features every member except for Molly Ringwald, and a more adult story than those previous mentioned movies. It follows a group of friends who have graduated college, and are now navigating the real world. They each represent a "type" of early-20s Yuppies in the 80s.

Demi Moore is the one who is living above her means, Emilio Estevez is the one who doesn't know exactly what he wants to do, Andrew McCarthy is a lonely, struggling journalist, Rob Lowe is the one who desperately misses college and can't adjust, Mare Winningham is the one who is the most put together but also is the most naive, Judd Nelson is the overachieving one who works in politics and likes to run around behind his girlfriend back, and Ally Sheedy is the blissfully in love young professional who doesn't know her boyfriend is running around on her. And despite the cookie cutter characters, the actors and the writer do as good job making them as 3D as possible, especially with an ensemble cast.

Despite this movie being made almost 30 years ago, there is a part of these character that we all relate to today. I find myself connecting to parts of Kevin (McCarthy), Billy (Lowe) and Jules (Moore) stories, and that is something special for a movie to do that to someone so far removed from the time period. This does not mean that the entire movie was great and close to the quality of a John Hughes movie. While I saw more parts of myself in this film than in, say, "Breakfast Club", I don't have the fond memories of this movie.

There are multiple plot holes and impossible storylines that have really uneven conclusions. Most glaring being Kirby's (Estevez) stalking of Dale (McDowell). He somehow figures out her schedule and at one point, follows her around in the rain. And at no point does she call the cops, even after he tracks her down to her mountain cabin -- which he discovered by threatening to kill her roommate. Despite his behavior, we are meant to see him as the sane, likeable male of the group, which I don't think it was thought out well.

The performances in the movie range from pretty good to dreadful. Not surprisingly, Lowe and Moore give the most dynamic performances, and Sheedy and Estevez are completely miscast. Outside of looking pretty, I don't know much about Sheedy's character; in both personality and story. She's drooled over by two best friends, in one of the most poorly executed triangles, but I don't understand why they want her. This arc would work best in a television series because over time the audience would get to know why each guy loves her, and choose a side. The idea of the story was good, but they put the three worst actors in the film in it, so it was painful to watch.

If you saw this movie when it was released, it was obvious who was going to have the best career. The most memorable characters in this film were Jules and Billy, and it was not even close. Lowe and Moore did the best job of making their characters feel real. The scene in her jeep when they are drunk and she was going to confide in him but he doesn't listen was powerful, and the payoff at the end when he stops her from killing herself during the movie's climax is great plotting.

"St. Elmo's Fire" is a good movie to compare with the dominate John Hughes films of the decade. It is the best non-Hughes movie of the Brat-Pack era. The plot is not offensive, but it's not anything special either. It tries to say something, but it's voice falls flat. It is a mess of convoluted, intersecting storylines that usual involve randomly interjecting a line to reminds us that they are all friends. It's a movie that could be much better as a TV show.

Rating: 5.5/10 -- Fun movie, which does a great job of using its score to enhance the scenes. Would have benefited from better casting in the supporting roles, but the standout performances by Lowe and Moore are the heart of the movie.

Day 80 -- From Paris with Love

Released: February 5th, 2010

Starring: John Travolta, Johnathan Rhys-Meyers, Kasia Smutniak
  
Writer/Director: Luc Besson and Adi Hasak/Pierre Morel

Description: In Paris, a young employee in the office of the US Ambassador hooks up with an American spy looking to stop a terrorist attack in the city.

[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.]

***

Spy-action movies are a genre that I don't think will ever go away. As long as people are fascinated by things that may or may not be going on behind the curtain. There's always a need for people to find entertainment in a group or field that is shroud in secrecy, with the government -- most notably, the CIA -- and the mob at the top of the list. But with this fascination comes the inevitable over-saturation of the genre, and the eventual fatigue by the audience until something truly great comes along.

"From Paris with Love" is the beginning of that fatigue. John Travolta stars as, Charlie Wax (really?!), an American Spy looking to stop a terrorist attack in France. He is teamed up with an employee of the U.S Ambassador to France named James Reece (Rhys- Meyers). After meeting each other, all your standard action movie quotas are met: The pair learn to trust each other, James kills his first person and doesn't know how to react, and Charlie has an affinity for big guns. The story movies along at a pretty quick pace as they try to figure out who is behind the drug ring that may have indirectly caused the death of the Secretary of Defense's daughter. But the pair stumble on to a plot to bomb a diplomatic summit meeting.

The big twist in the movie occurs when it is revealed that James' girlfriend had been spying on him the whole time they were dating, and that she is the bomber. It all concludes in a big action scene where James does things that would have gotten him shot on sight in real life. The scenes are pretty out there even for this genre, and they include Charlie destroying a vehicle with a rocket launcher, and James trying to dissuade Caroline (Smutniak) from finishing her mission by professing his love to her, which fails.

Travolta tries to incorporate two of his more famous characters that relate to this genre into Charlie Wax: Chilli Palmer and Vincent Vega. He wants Wax to be as smooth as Chilli and as lethal as Vega, but he just comes off as a parody of spies in the genre. He's nuts and a loose cannon, but also the best spy in the world. It's like the writers went to the spy character handbook and picked out a template. There is nothing original about his character, and Travolta does nothing to make it stand out. It's really a shame that he's fallen so far as a top notch actor, but I guess starring in "Wild Hogs" can do that.

Throughout the whole movie, I kept thinking that Rhys-Meyers would kick ass as Charlie. That's not good casting when your green, naive partner in the buddy spy movie looks just as bad ass as the "bad ass". There were even times when he out-acted Travolta, and it was hard to watch. But that does not mean that the character of James was well performed or well written, it just mean that he was able to rise above the material at times. The character itself has no real starting point in the story, and no real place in it, until the twist scene near the end.

The writing and direction was as paint-by-number as you could get in a genre that is full of copycat stories. If you couldn't predict what would happen next, then you obviously have not watched enough spy movies or you're in the 4th grade. Besides the predictable-ness of the script, it was very bland and didn't use Paris well enough -- it was the opposite of a Bond movie.

"From Paris with Love" is a run of the mill, popcorn action film with a very thin plot: bad guys bad, must stop bad guys. Even though the film has fun action sequences, I had a hard time not checking my phone or going on the internet. For all of its bluster and star power, it just isn't a very good movie, and possibly the end of this kind movie.

Rating: 5/10 -- Boring, but it's still an okay action film. Travolta needs desperately to jump start his career again, and when he does, he should call Tom Hanks.

Day 79 -- One Week

Released: March 29th, 2011

Starring: Joshua Jackson, Liane Balaban, Emm Gryner, Jane Spidell 
  
Writer/Director: Michael McGowan

Description: Chronicles the motorcycle trip of Ben Tyler as he rides from Toronto to Tofino, British Columbia. Ben stops at landmarks that are both iconic and idiosyncratic on his quest to find meaning in his life.

[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.]

***

Why does any director believe that a narrator adds any thing to a story. It goes against everything you are taught as a writer; it's telling instead of showing. Also, it really takes you out of the movie. If I wasn't watching this for the project, I would have turned it off like I did "Vicky Christina Barcelona".

"One Week" is the story of a man diagnosed with stage four cancer that has a very low survival rate. He decides that instead of starting treatment for the cancer, he's going to ride cross country (Canada) on his motorcycle. Thus begins a modern road movie.

Along the way he runs into several characters that all find a way to change his life, and make him understand what living is about before he passes. He smokes a joint with a cancer survivor who makes him realize that he may not be in love with his fiance, he has his bike repaired by a ranch owner who teaches him that he always should keep trying new things, and he runs into a hiker, who after a night of passion, helps him solidify that he want more in his life. These moments would all be boring segments if it wasn't for the charisma of lead actor, Joshua Jackson.

Jackson, like his "Dawson's Creek" cast-mate, James van der Beek,  has gotten much better at his craft with age. If it wasn't for Jackson's charm, the character of Ben would be completely unlikeable. But we deal with the selfishness and indecision because we inherently like Jackson. He has the rare ability to make you feel what his character is feeling without saying a word, and by the end, I wanted Ben to survive despite the odds.

Unfortunately, this movie was not a one-man show -- it was probably as close as you'll ever get, though -- and the supporting actors did nothing. Especially Liane Balaban, who played the fiance, Samantha. She was about as wooden and bland as you can get. Despite all of the emotion that should have been flowing through her, she was in complete monotone in every scene. She was way too calm and understanding for the situation. I would have taken one screaming argument, but alas, she took everything and gave up without a fight. Disastrous casting choice. And in terms of the road trip characters, none of them truly stood out and most of their scenes are forgettable.

The writing of the interactions Ben had and the conversations with his wife were spot on, but the side stories and especially the narrator, were very subpar. Outside of unneeded narration, making a character's small choices all of sudden help everyone he encounters is one of my major pet peeves. 

In two instances in the film, Ben indirectly saves a women from a train wreck by missing a doctor's appointment, and helps another fall in love by convincing her that she needs to visit her son. Both of these moments were completely unnecessary and after the revel that he wrote a book about his experiences, make Ben seem very narcissistic. These were the two reason -- side stories and narration -- why this film didn't get enough support to receive a limited release in the U.S., despite Jackson leading the cast.

The film gains a lot of points because of the story. While some of the telling aspects were bad, the idea that a man would put off cancer treatment to go live instead of start to die, is very compelling. The question of the movie is, 'what would you do if you had only one day, week or month to live?' And I think we would all want to have the experiences and the clarity gained by Ben during his journey. I really wish the script itself was better.

"One Week" is a film with so much potential that it's sad that the execution was so poor. The narrator added nothing, the side stories added nothing and the actress playing his fiance added nothing. All three of these could have easily be fixed: the narrator talks less, eliminate the side stories, and do a better job with casting. But sometimes indie films don't have much opportunity to see if something works before putting it in the movie, and I imagine it was especially difficult for this project because of the constant moving of filming locations across Canada. But that still doesn't excuse the terrible narration and the fact that a good director would have cut it from the script. It screams, 'look at me, I'm a clever writer,' but this is what happens with a mediocre writer/director.

Rating: 5.5/10 -- Could have been a powerful film if they left out the awful narration. Jackson is superb and is clearly carrying the rest of the cast. A very intriguing concept that is butchered by the writer/director. Did I mention that I didn't like the narration?

Day 78 -- Itty Bitty Titty Committee

Released: September 28th, 2007

Starring: Melonie Diaz, Nicole Vicius, Carly Pope, Deak Evgenikos, Lauren Mollica
  
Writer/Director: Tina Mabry and Abigail Shafran/Jamie Babbit

Description: High School grad and all American gal, Anna finds her purpose and herself after she hooks up with the radical feminists in The Itty Bitty Titty Committee.

[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 always interesting to watch a movie from a perspective that you are not all that familiar with in your life. Whether it's a movie like "The Help" that is told from the position of a black maid in the south in the 60s, or the Japanese in WWII. Many movie goers don't venture too far outside of what they know and what they can relate, too. But I feel that a movie's overarching story should not be a reason to avoid a movie.

"Itty Bitty Titty Committee" is told from a world that is the complete opposite of mine. The movie centers around a small feminist organization known as Clits in Action, or C(i)A, which for me is not a group that I've been around too much. As much as the movie talked about the ideals and beliefs of the group, it also told a good story.

A lot of movies that I have watched that involve homosexuals -- male or female -- tend to be more of the stereotypical variety, but the women in this movie are not. While some do look the part, they do not act it. Meat (Evgenikos), for example, looks like how most men see lesbians: short hair and wearing more masculine clothing, but she doesn't portray the mainstream "butch" lesbian. This especially comes through when she talks to Anna (Diaz) about not falling for Sadie (Vicius). The situation is treated just like a heterosexual relationship, and not some crazy story to make it seem more exotic. It help to show some close minded people that we are all alike.

All I kept thinking through out this film is how relatable all of character were. They weren't treated like alien beings that do and react to thing in a completely different way than everyone else. The actual conflict in this movie was the relationship between the women, and not the conflicts they faced because of their views of the world. Sure, some things were thought provoking, but the storytelling was spot on and it didn't feel like I was watching a propaganda film. It was much closer to a coming of age film.

Most of the credit for the likeable characters belongs to the actors. Diaz especially was brilliant as she transformed Anna from a naive teenage lesbian into a strong, independent woman who ends up leading the group in their most public demonstration: putting a penis on top of the Washington Monument and blowing it up on live TV (Spoiler: it was fake). 

The only actress I found myself constantly rolling my eyes at was Carly Pope. There were multiple times in the movie where I felt she was trying to hard to be a tough girl. The character of Shulamith was supposed strong willed and opinionated, not like a girl looking for a bar fight. She nailed this at times, especially the protest scene in Sacramento, but failed in most of her early scenes with Diaz. I realize she didn't trust her, but I felt her character would have had a more condescending tone than the confrontational one she had with Anna.

One of the big flaws with the film is that they had the most generic love triangle. The problem with most love triangles is that there's always one choice that's better than the other, and the film gives no consequences to the person that has been stringing along two people. They always end up happy. I would just once like to see the person at the top of the triangle end up unhappy, and the other two move on and find happiness. There was not one point in the movie from the moment they met that I didn't think Sadie and Anna would end up together.

"Itty Bitty Titty Committee" is an engaging movie that can be related to from any perspective. I went into the movie expecting bad acting and lazy writing, but I quickly became interested in the story and the characters. While it's not perfect, the movie is surprisingly watchable. It is definitely an example of not judging a book by it's cover.

Rating: 5.5/10 -- Solid characters and a story that doesn't get convoluted when it easily could have been. Even though it was less than 90 minutes, the was still some fat to trim, especially the scenes involving Anna's job -- there's no way she would have kept that job as long as she did in real life. Could have spent that time telling deeper backstories on the women.

Day 77 -- Brothers

Released: December 4th, 2009

Starring: Natalie Portman, Tobey Maguire, Jake Gyllenhaal
  
Writer/Director: David Benioff/Jim Sheridan

Description: A young man comforts his older brother's wife and children after he goes missing in Afghanistan.

[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.]

***

Sometimes filling your cast with powerful A-list actors can be a hindrance to your film because they don't really mesh together, and therefore, there's no connection to the audience. Egos come into play a lot, and some actors worry too much about number of lines rather than creating a great piece of art. Some people don't work well with perceived equals and need to feel superior to their peers.

"Brothers" fortunately suffers from none of these issues. Natalie Portman, Tobey Maguire and Jake Gyllenhaal all bring top-notch performances and the trio help raise each other's individual performances. Maguire, especially because this film came out in the shadow of the terrible final chapter of  his "Spiderman" movies, reminded us of how good of an actor he can be with the right script. He, along with Gyllenhaal, brings an intensity to this movie that I rarely see anymore.

Sam (Maguire) and Tommy (Gyllenhaal) are polar opposites as brothers; the former is Marine Captain and the latter is a ex-convict. After Sam is deployed for the fourth time overseas, he is captured and presumed dead. This leaves his grieving widow, Grace (Portman), all alone to raise the couple's daughters. Tommy, who has straightened himself out after Sam's death, offer to help and becomes a surrogate father, but he and Grace never really go past a kiss in the intimacy department. Just when everything goes back to normal, Sam is rescued, returns home but is not himself.

He becomes obsessed with the idea of Tommy and Grace sleeping with each other behind his back. This is where the emotion and the performances get turned up a notch, as Sam slowly becomes more and more disturbed -- eventually leading to a stay in a mental hospital -- Maguire begins to shine. The confrontation scenes between the trio are gut wrenching and tear-jerking, but fall just short of transcendence. This flaw usually occurs when one of the three goes a little too over the top with the emotion and makes the scene more soap opera-y than realistic.

Those moments are what keep the film from becoming a truly great film. Great acting, as mentioned before, is all about nuance, with the trick being the ability to make it look like your not acting. When the audience can tell you thought about a reaction, or can tell that you primed yourself before your line, they immediately get pulled out of the world and are reminded that it's a movie. Great films keep you engaged, while good films have lulls in them.

The direction was pretty good. The tone was perfect, and the camera work was almost spot on, but again, it fell just short of greatness. That seems to be the common thread of this movie: the parts are really good, but they just fail to make that final connection to ascend the film into the greatness level.

"Brothers" is a good movie that doesn't purposely shoot itself in the foot. There are just small mistakes that hold it back from it's true potential. These mistakes are not limited to one area as there are acting slip-up, directing miscues and editing oversights. It's one of those solid second tier films that needed one or two things to go differently for it to reach top tier status, which shows you how difficult reaching that level can be for a film.

Rating: 7/10 -- Very well done film that should be viewed by everyone. Reminds us all that Tobey Maguire can act, especially when he's paired with Jake Gyllenhaal instead of Topher Grace. Definitely, a topic most American can relate to today.

Day 76 -- Knockout

Released: April 26th, 2011

Starring: Steve Austin, Daniel Magder, Janet Kidder, Emily Grabinsky
  
Writer/Director: Evan Jacobs, Jack Nasser and Joseph Nasser/Anne Wheeler

Description: A retired boxer tries to help a new student, Matthew Miller (Daniel Magder), who is being targeted by bullies. While learning to box and stand up to his tormentors the young boxer must learn to overcome his tumultuous past.

[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.]

***

Fairly or unfairly, all boxing movies will always be compared to "Rocky" or "Raging Bull". And ultimately they fall short. The sweet science already has a built-in drama to it that is only lessen by a lazy or convoluted story. The audience needs to have followed a boxer or trainer through a real conflict in order to root for them during the big fight.

"Knockout" tries to tackle bullying and special treatment in high school by using boxing as it's main source of drama. Ex-boxer turned janitor, Dan Barnes (Austin), tries to help a new student who has become the punching bag for the school's star boxer. After Dan save him a few times, Matthew (Magder), asks him to train him, and the reluctant custodian agrees. Almost immediately, Dan sees heart and natural talent in his pupil, who apparent has inherited his grandfather's feel for the ring.

The very dumb Matt is tricked into a beat down by Hector, and the rest of the sadistic boxing club. Dan saves him again and eventually convinces the club coach to allow Matt to fight in the box-off against...wait for it...go ahead, take a guess...yep, his tormentor, Hector. Holy foreshadowing the act three climax, Batman!

Thankfully, Matt loses the match, but not after he knocks down Hector and gains his respect. Unlike "Legendary", this loss has no build up or emotion behind it like brother bonding moment in the former. There also a terribly written section where everything falls apart, but really doesn't for Matt at the end of act two. Despite, forging his step-father's signature, his parents still allow him to fight, but Dan loses his job. Matt's reaction to this is way too over the top. Mostly because the script gives us no reason to care if Dan has a job or not; now if he was supporting a family...

The writers are either terrible, or the producers got too involved in the creative process. I tend to lean toward the former because it's rare that a script handled by three people is interesting. There are just too many different ideas going into it that help it become a convoluted mess. The scripts tries for inspiration but quickly becomes very boring.

"Knockout" is a forgettable movie that was the perfect comparison for a film like "Legendary". Both movies try to accomplish the same thing but one gives it an earnest effort, while the other feels like a paint-by-numbers story. Once again, inspiration comes from well-written characters, not a well-conceived plot. If the audience can't care about the protagonist, then they will care less about the film's plot points.

Rating: 4/10 -- The boxing feels like a gimmick more than an actual part of the film's plot. Austin is good when he has to be menacing or mentor-y, but he lacks any real talent to deliver lines in a normal conversation. He should stick to action films; if Vin Diesel can do it...

Day 75 -- Legendary

Released: September 10th, 2010

Starring: John Cena, Patricia Clarkson, Danny Glover, Devon Graye

Writer/Director: John Posey/Mel Damski

Description: A book-smart teenager joins his school's wrestling team as a way to reunite his surviving family members, who split apart after the death of his father, a college wrestling legend, 10 years ago.

[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.]

***

Inspirational films are usually hit or miss in terms of quality and story. "Rocky" and "Miracle" are universally praised, but few talk about the sheer amount of bland and boring imitators that are filmed each year. The inspiration usually comes from the story itself, and requires no nudge from the script.

"Legendary's" main flaw is that there's a disconnect between the story and plot of the movie. Calvin Chetley (Graye) begins wrestling in order to reconnect with his older brother, Mike (Cena), who was a state champion. Mike has been absent since their father died 10 years ago. He is also estranged from his mother, who blames wrestling for everything.

Cal eventually convinces Mike to train him in wrestling. This is where the writer, or director, or editor missed a big opportunity to make this film more inspirational. They only showed Cal fail twice, and all of a sudden he starts winning. There was no build up of him getting close to victory, but falling short. It was too rushed and lack any real emotion in it. But the one thing I'll give them credit for is having Cal lose the title match even though he used the special "reverse cradle". I would have had to suspend belief too much if he had beaten a district champ.

The performances were pretty mediocre. When she was used properly, Patricia Clarkson was great, but she was vastly underused. John Cena's only poor scene was the bonding moment before the big match when he teased Cal about listening to opera. He delivered that line so unnatural that it made me cringe, but that was rare during the bulk of  his scenes. The standout was Madeleine Martin of "Californication" fame, who played love struck, Luli, and made me believe her love for Cal was real and not tacked on to the film.

"Legendary" falls just short of being a solid film. All that was need was a better training montage and more showing than telling in the story's main conflict which revolved around the Chetley family. The dad's death was dealt with in exposition near the end of the film. A flashback scene or even an old newspaper article would have been better than telling it through dialogue. Exposition never works, never.

Rating: 5/10 -- Solid story that was just missing something. The amateur wrestling was pretty realistic. Also, there was a WWE style entrace for Cal before the last match, which dropped the rating by a half-point.

Day 74 -- The Chaperone

Released: February 18th, 2011

Starring: Paul Levesque, Ariel Winter, Kevin Corrigan, Yeardley Smith, Annabeth Gish
  
Writer/Director: S.J. Roth/Stephen Herek

Description: An ex-con on the run from his criminal past, hides out from those he ratted on by chaperoning a field trip to New Orleans.

[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.]

***

After watching "the movie that shall not be named", anything would look like "Gone with the Wind". It's hard to critique a kids movie because they realistically make no effort to be a classic movie. They just want to be entertaining, and interest a kid enough that they force their parents to buy the DVD. This is how the producers make back their money.

"The Chaperone" falls just short of being a solid kid's adventure movies. The story of a father who's trying to reconnect with his kid after being away for a while is good enough to get any kid to watch it. Add in a goofy field trip, adolescent jokes, and well done action set pieces and this movie should have been a hit among the middle school sect. But its ending was anti-climatic and was too rushed to be memorable. 

The performances weren't all that bad. Levesque as Ray-Ray was actually good in the emotional scenes, and great in the action scenes. And Ariel Winter of Modern Family, who played Ray's estranged daughter, was a bit over matched at times, but knew how to play the sassy moments and she made them believable. The work of these two together needed to be the heart of the film, but their chemistry wasn't strong enough to believe the change of heart that Ray's daughter had toward him. It was too convenient and happened over the span of one scene.

This failure in story telling shouldn't have been much of a surprise since the writing was generic at best. The punchlines were way too telegraphed to be funny, and the final scene erased any consequences that should have occurred. But I guess the need to have a happily ever after in kid's movies kept this from having a strong and true ending. 

"The Chaperone" is an okay kid's film that I wouldn't stop my kid from watching. There's enough legitimate acting in this movie for it to be a passable film, but the plot and story had so much potential. Winter is going to be a good comedic actress, but she needs to learn nuance. Something her peer, Chloe Moretz, has already mastered. She has time, but has to make sure she doesn't fall into the bad habits that make the Disney channel actresses hard to watch. One of the more encouraging things was that, Levesque has the potential to follow in Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's footsteps as a solid action and kid's movie actor, but lacks Johnson's charisma to be in a comedy.

Rating: 4.5/10 -- Probably would of loved this as a 10-year-old who was really into wrestling. Good supporting cast allows this film to be adequate.