Day 34 -- I'm Reed Fish

Released: June 1st, 2007

Starring: Jay Baruchel, Alexis Bledel, Schuyler Fisk, DJ Qualls, A.J. Cook, Sherri Appleby , Katie Sagal

Writer/Director: Reed Fish/Zackary Adler

Description: Reed Fish's life turns into chaos when a high school crush returns to Mud Meadows on the eve of his marriage to the small town's sweetheart.

[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.]

***

Happy Valentine's Day, everyone! This is usually a holiday I try to forget since I don't have anyone to share it with, but as the day grew closer, I realized that I needed to find a romantic movie to watch for this project. As I scrolled through my queue, I realized that there were plenty of choices but only one that both intrigued me and I hadn't seen before. The coming-of-age story, "I'm Reed Fish".

The movie first stood out because Alexis Bledel was one of my high school fantasy women, so I stopped on the movie as soon as I saw the cover. But I was pleased to find quite a few actors and actress that I enjoyed in the film. This only heighten my excitement prior to viewing, but that all dissipated somewhere between the quarter-mark and the half-way point of the movie.

This is the moment where they reveled that it was a film within a film, and also where it lost me. It was an interesting way to tell the story, but also left feeling completely uninterested the story of the "film". As I sat through the rest of what we already knew was not the actual story, I kept hoping that it would pay off in the end. But, alas, it didn't.

The ending of the "film" didn't help my opinion of the film. It actually an awful movie that the character Reed Fish (Baruchel) made. If only because it didn't really end, and it felt like the middle. After the "credits" roll, we are lead to believe that Reed ends up with Jill even though there is no explanation of how they reconciled or that they are even together. You don't know about them until the final few frames of the movie. It appeared that the writer Reed Fish was too interested in delivering the twist ending, right down to "real" Jill (Appleby) looking like "fake" Kate (Bledel). 

Despite the problem with the storytelling and ending(s?), the movie was well acted. Baruchel showed a knack of playing a leading man in a romantic comedy, and made Fish's wave of emotions over the last half of the film believable. Fisk is hit or miss as the wedge that comes between the town's fairytale relationship, but she does light up the screen in her two singing showcases. The movie would have been lost without the supporting performances by Katie Sagal and DJ Qualls to help create the environment of a quirky small town.

"I'm Reed Fish" has some major plot holes in it that get absolutely no explanation at all. In the "fake" movie, we are to believe that Fish has completely severed ties with both Kate and Jill, but after the movie premieres everyone seems cool. I don't know if the part of the film that explains this change of attitude was left on the cutting room floor, or if it was completely omitted in the script. Whether it was the writer, producer, or editor who made this mistake, all that matters is there a huge gap in the story that was never fulfilled for me. If Fish making a movie healed everything, then that's really narcissistic and I don't buy it.

Rating: 4.5/10 -- The half-point is because despite it problems, this film is better than "Killers". There is nothing that makes me dislike a movie more than incomplete writing. Hell, I'd take a throwaway line that explains a plot hole, but to have a couple look like there's no hope and then have them lay on a roof holding hands with no explanation of how they reconciled, is inexcusable. Maybe I missed it, but I don't think so.

Day 33 -- Happythankyoumoreplease

Released: March 4th, 2011

Starring: Josh Radnor, Malin Akerman, Kate Mara, Zoe Kazan, Pablo Schreiber


Writer/Director: Josh Radnor

Description: Captures a generational moment - young people on the cusp of truly growing up, tiring of their reflexive cynicism, each in their own ways struggling to connect and define what it means to love and be loved.

[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's always a wonder to me how some movies slip through the cracks and never really get the push they deserve. After watching "Killers", I am even more saddened. I understand that marketing is a big part of the reason why these independent movies never get more popular than word of mouth, and that's a shame, especially when most of the films that get attention are crap.

"Happythankyoumoreplease" (yes, it's all one word) is not an earth-shattering indie film, but it's one that deserved a lot more attention than it received. Writer/director/star Josh Radnor's coming of age story in New York is one of the more honest that I've seen in a while. 

A film doesn't need to be raw and "edgy" to be a realistic interpretation of life. There are plenty of people out there who don't become addicted to drugs, or run in shady circles, or are trying to find themselves after a troubled past; these people are usually called boring. But boring doesn't have to equal uninteresting. I believe that the majority of movie goers would relate to the issues and people in this film than would from something "grittier".

Each character has their own way of trying to find happiness in that weird stage of mid-to-late 20s, where you're too old to act like a college student, yet you don't feel old enough to be a full-time adult. Maybe it's because I'm currently navigating this time period that I enjoyed this film more than most. It's like those teen dramas when your in high school or college, which you understand more than most because you in the same place. 

Each story is compelling, especially Annie's (Akerman). She currently dealing with Alopecia, and has attempted to fight the disorder by using humor. Despite her happiness on the outside, she is a much more wounded person than her friends know. Until she finds out that her co-worker finds her beautiful the way she is, and he looks past what she perceives as a disability. 

Akerman turns in a terrific performance, and honestly, it was quite unexpected. She's a lot better actress than I gave her credit for before the film. Maybe subconsciously I critiqued her differently because she didn't look like she normally does, but I hope for my sake that it's more like she finally found a good role to play.

Radnor basically played Ted from "How I Met Your Mother", and he plays it so well that it's not a huge negative. The only change in the persona is that he has slightly more confidence than his TV alter ego. But I was more impressed with his writing and directing. In my experience, it's rare that an actor usually does all three facets well in the same movie. There's usually a weakness, but I really couldn't find one. Not to say he was outstanding or Oscar worthy, but it was a very well done film.

The casting in this move was fantastic, too. Kate Mara is one of the most beautiful and talented young actresses out there, but it hasn't added up to any mainstream leading roles. Whether this is by choice, or a lack of breaks, I hope it happens one day. She could be on the Amy Adams path, where she doesn't get her big break until her early-30s. I'd be remissed if I didn't point out the wonderful dynamic between Zoe Kazan and Pablo Schreiber as a couple at the tipping point in their relationship (to marry or not to marry).

"Happythankyoumoreplease" is a fun movie that will draw every emotion out of you. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you may even scream at the TV when Rasheen get taken away even though you know what Sam did was wrong, but you won't be able to turn it off. The writing is clever, New York looks great, and the characters are well portrayed. It was one of the pleasant surprises that I thank my friend, Anthony, for recommending.

Rating: 7/10 -- Good writing always entertains me, probably more than good direction. Kate Mara melts my heart in every scene, and Malin Akerman makes me want to reach out and hug her character. The theme of the movie really got me, so it may rank lower on your list, but it's one you must watch. This is exactly the type of movie I was hoping to find in this project.

Day 32 -- Killers

Released: June 4th, 2010

Starring: Katherine Heigl, Aston Kutcher, Tom Selleck

Writer/Director: Bob DeRosa and Ted Griffin/Robert Luketic

Description: A vacationing woman meets her ideal man, leading to a swift marriage. Back at home, however, their idyllic life is upset when they discover their neighbors could be assassins who have been contracted to kill the couple.

[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 main premise of an action, romantic-comedy is that there must be chemistry between the leads. Without that chemistry, everything just falls flat. Jokes aren't funny, the drama isn't all that dramatic, and the films story really isn't all that interesting. It one of the few genres where everything depends on something so unpredictable.

Unfortunately, for "Killers" the producers chose Aston Kutcher and Katerine Heigl. For two actors, who from the outside look like they should play well off each other, there is zero chemistry on the screen. There was not one point in the movie where I even believed their relationship, especially when she started freaking out about his hidden past. The fact that the writer had to throw in a pregnancy storyline, showed how desperate they were to make the audience care about something.

To be honest, I don't how Heigl keeps getting rom-com roles. There's not one stand out performance in the genre where a producer can say, 'well, she did well in [insert movie] that one time.' Even Julia Roberts, who made a solid living of the genre, has "My Best Friends Wedding" on her resume. The next time Heigl makes a good movie, it will be her first. Her closest is "Knocked Up", and she had absolutely nothing to do with that film's success.

Kutcher, on the other hand, usually excels in this kind of role. But for some reason, he falls short. He handles the action parts, but it's obvious that it's not his strong suit. He was strong with his delivery on the comedy, but he really had nothing to work with through out the film. Even Selleck was flat.

"Killers" tried so hard to be "Mr. and Mrs. Smith", but forgot that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are two of the best actors working today. It's not easy to insert any two good looking actors into a movie and expect the movie to do well. Sure, it may make money because of name recognition, but it's been a long time since box office revenues automatically equals great movie. "Killers" was basically a money-grab, and anyone that says otherwise, doesn't know how the industry works.

Rating: 4/10 -- Really poorly executed movie. The concept was cool, but everything else was crap. Kutcher must have needed to get out of the house because this is below even his mediocre standards. 

Day 31 -- It's a Boy Girl Thing

Released: June 17th, 2008

Starring: Samaire Armstrong, Kevin Zegers, Sharon Osbourne

Writer/Director: Geoff Deane/Nick Hurran

Description: Sworn enemies find themselves in each others bodies, and use this to ruin each others lives.

[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.]

***

Oh, body-switching movies. How thee are so hit-or-miss. For such a one trick concept, you sure have inspired a lot of iterations. Whether it's mothers turning into daughters, or sworn enemies switching bodies, you sure know how to tell the same exact story. Your quality depends of the freshness of the writing. All it takes is a change of scenery or change in age difference.

"It's a Boy Girl Thing" is about as close to the template as possible. Smart, nice girl Nell (really?) hates her next door neighbor, Woody (again, really?), so much because he's a popular jock. Woody (Zegers) begins the movie by blasting Mystikal's "classic", "Shake Yo Ass" to 11. This annoys Nell (Armstrong) to no end, so she tell him to turn it, but he refuses too unless she flashes him. After her denial and his unusual confession that he's a creep (he's seen them before), Nell's shirt gets caught in the window and rips off, exposing her breasts. From this point forward, "hilarity" ensues.

The main issue I have with this movie is that the first half of the movie after the switch of bodies feels like it was written from a checklist. Boy cries, check. Smart girl uses slang, check. Boy starts dressing like a "nerd", check. Girl dresses like a slut, check. And so on and so forth.

I honestly, wrote down each event I thought was going to take place and they hit on 90% of them. The notable exception being that they accidentally used the wrong bathrooms. Note to writers, you do not need to hit prerequisites in order to make your audience appreciate it. This movie would have been better served getting to the emotional second half faster than trying to show the slapstick side of it. It's a romantic comedy, that's too much comedy.

When the movie turned emotional, Armstrong shined. The O.C. alum, and personal under the radar favorite of mine, showed every little bit of internal turmoil that a boy in a girl's body would go through. Her performance was much more natural than Zegers'. To his credit he did put in a valiant effort, but looked as though he didn't want to fully commit to the feminine side his character needed to show. His crying scenes were tough to watch.

The story itself was generic, which is probably what makes it watchable. It feels comfortable and you relax because you know where it is going, but you really don't have an urge to watch it again. The writing appeared to rip off many of it's predecessors in the teen rom-com genre. The next door neighbors falling in love and the prom scene at the end reminded me of "Drive Me Crazy", and the way it falls apart right near the end is reminiscent of John Hughes 80s movies and their re-skinned versions in the late-90s.

It is definitely a safe film that probably would need to be an R-rated comedy to get any traction in the States, and that's the whole problem with the movies; it doesn't draw attention. The aforementioned Hughes movies were notable because they were a completely different way to show high school characters, while "It's a Boy Girl Thing" blended into the background without a single quality to separate it from the rest. Since this film was made in 2006, I hope it was the last in a long line of boring copy cats, and future teen films follow the lead of the brilliant "Easy A" and make the genre smart again. Just like Hughes in 80s.

Rating: 6/10 -- Mediocre is probably the best way to describe it. It's a 6 because there's nothing inherently wrong with the film. It's well made, well acted, and well written, but we've seen this movie a dozen times before over the last two decades. Also, Armstrong looks gorgeous with short brown hair.

Day 30 -- The Fly

Released: August 15th, 1986

Starring: Jeff Goldblum, Geena Davis, John Getz

Writer/Director: Charles Edward Pogue and David Cronenberg/ David Cronenberg

Description: A brilliant but eccentric scientist begins to transform into a giant man/fly hybrid after one of his experiments goes horribly wrong.

[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.]

***

Jeff Goldblum is really a national treasure, and along with Nick Cage, they are two actors that I will watch the movie just because they're in it. You will always be entertained no matter how awful the movie is written. But lucky for their careers, they've also been in some good films. "The Fly" is one of those film.

Probably one of the more underrated sci-fi films ever made. The film follows scientist Seth Brundle, who has create a way to teleport inanimate objects, but has yet figured out a way to do it with organic things. After his first experiment fails -- a chimp is turned inside-out -- he decides to do the valiant (stupid) thing and go in the pod himself.

Let's talk about these pods. Why do they look like a cross between a DeLorean and a Dalek from Dr. Who? It's like they merged two things that were supposedly "futuristic", and said 'these thing are cool because they look odd and have ridges!' Hindsight is always 20-20, but I find this part the movie's most unintentionally funny moment. 

Back to the movie. As the pod closes, a fly sneaks in with Brundle. After he is successfully transported, he begins to slowly turn into a fly. The slow transformation is the best feature of this film. If only, for the hour-long brilliant performance by Goldblum, who while turning into a fly, manages to play Jeff Goldblum, and it seems natural. 

No other actors, besides Goldblum and Sean Connery, consistently play themselves in a movie. It doesn't matter if one keeps his Scottish accent even though he's playing an Irish-American cop (Connery), or is still neurotic as a physics teacher (Goldblum), both of these actors still find a way to give great performance despite seemingly having no range.

The restraint the filmmakers showed in revealing Brundle's new fly body is something that would never happen today. Budgets are so large that someone in the art department, or in the graphics department, would have created "the fly" and the producers would have forced the director to show it off for a half-hour. I can't imagine what Michael Bay would have done with it.

Goldblum's storytelling as Brundle is spot on, especially as he explains his recent discoveries. He slowly shows a brilliant man, who mind is crumbling quickly, coming to the realization of his situation. Then, his moment of clarity in the final scene, as he is fully delusional and almost all fly, is heartbreaking. Even though that it is not Goldblum at the end, his work leading up to that is what makes the ending sad. This is probably one of his best performances in his career.

"The Fly" is one of those rare remakes of a classic film from the studio era to actually be better than the original. It is fun to see that after almost 30 years, the idea of a transportation pod was still relevant, and probably would still be today. Despite the fact that they are two completely different version of the original short story, the 1958 and 1986 version were both still critically well received, a rare feat in movies.

Rating: 7.5/10 -- One of my top five sci-fi movies, and shame on you if you haven't seen it. Probably the best performance of Goldblum's career. Spectacular special effects for the time, and still passable today.

Here's Brundle's transformation into Brundle-Fly in picture form:

Day 29 -- The Evil Dead

Released: April 15th, 1983

Starring: Bruce Campbell, Ellen Sandweiss, Richard DeManincor

Writer/Director: Sam Raimi

Description: Five friends travel to a cabin in the woods, where they unknowingly release flesh-possessing demons.

[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.]

***

They don't make them like they used to, huh? After watching a guilty pleasure, it was nice to see a cult classic come up next, as the two are sometimes interlocked. But not in this case, as this is one of those rare movies that is both, and for the genre, is legitimately good.

"The Evil Dead" follows the same template that a lot of horror movies of today attempt to use. Teens are abandoned in a cabin, and they unknowingly unleash a demon, or are attacked by an evil for in the woods. "Evil Dead" showcases the former, and because of the time period of its release, it is much more believable than, say, "Cabin Fever". As technology has advanced so has the inherent scariness of isolation. Every film has the eye-rolling moment where the cast's cell phones all get no service, or their battery dies. 

This is why the horror boom of the 70s and 80s provide a much better selection of films, and to be even more specific, slasher films. Horror isn't my favorite genre, but I appreciate it when the movie is generally scary. I'm not talking jump-scares, which is the easy way out, I mean the proper use of a steady cam or a tracking shot. The fright should come from the chain of events, not because of a noise or visual cue. The scene where the woods attack in the beginning is the perfect example because the scene's primary scare is the fear and confusion of the unknown.

One of the reasons "Evil Dead" and others of it's ilk have stayed relevant is that despite the low production quality (mostly due to funding), the films are very well made. Sam Raimi, probably best know as the director of "Spiderman 1 and 2" (we don't talk about 3), wrote and directed the film, and you can see the talent just in the way he creates a classic film with a budget just under $400,000; compared to the $1.5 million "Cabin Fever" wasted.

"Evil Dead" is a low-budget horror film for the horror fan. While I have enjoyed it each time I've watched it, I never go out of my way to watch it. Like I said, horror is not my genre, but I know a well made film when I see it. Sure, the make-up is ridiculous and the acting isn't top notch , but the film does what its supposed to do: make people scream and cause a nightmare or two.  That is all you can ask, and something many of the remakes of today forget.

Rating: 6/10 -- The genre isn't my cup of tea, per se, but I enjoy a campy horror film that draws a scare from within. A must have for a horror fans.

Day 28 -- Hackers

Released: September 15th, 1995

Starring: Jonny Lee Miller, Angelina Jolie, Matthew Lillard, Fisher Stevens, Jessie Bradford

Writer/Director: Rafael Moreu/Iain Softley

Description: A young boy is arrested by the US Secret Service for writing a computer virus and is banned from using a computer until his 18th birthday. Years later, he and his new-found friends discover a plot to unleash a dangerous computer virus, but they must use their computer skills to find the evidence while being pursued by the Secret Service and the evil computer genius behind the virus.

[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.]

***

Guilty pleasure movies are generally those that are watched multiple times despite the fact that they aren't very good films. A good movie can never be a guilty pleasure because the prerequisite is: so bad it's good.

"Hackers" is on the top of my list. From its campy take on hacking to the terrible acting of Jonny Lee Miller, this movie has all of the ingredients for a good time, and a possible drinking game. The plot of the film is ridiculous, but the short version is Fisher Stevens is trying to runaway with the shrink from the "Sopranos" and 25 million dollars in his pocket. He has infected the computer system of a corporation with a virus that tips over oil tankers and a worm that steals the money, and he will blame the former on hackers. That's where our heroes come in.

Zero Cool (Miller) and Acid Burn (Jolie) are the leaders of the crew who successfully thwart the plan and save the day. They do it by crashing a server in the most inaccurate battle of the hackers that I've ever seen. Almost everything that goes on during the climax of this movie is what we believe hacking to be like in our heads. A good comparison to this is porn. How we imagine the business is the complete opposite of the reality of the industry.

Jolie, as usual, in her early film choices, is strong and sexy, but not in the conventional way. But from the first moment she's on screen you can sense something special about her. I remember loving her performance before I knew who she was, and before she became an A-list actress. "Hackers" was her first film that got any notoriety, and probably not until "Girl, Interrupted" in 1999 was she known for anything else in the mainstream. Sure, she's probably not going to be a consistent Oscar nominee, but she never gives a bad performance. If I had to say one movie propelled her career, it would be "Gia", and if you haven't seen it, please rent it tomorrow.

The ensemble cast of hackers -- which includes infamous scene-stealer, Lillard, future chick-flick rebel (Bring it On), Bradford, and character actor, Laurence Mason -- give the movie a solid base and good comic relief. If it wasn't for Miller's terrible line delivery and stilted acting, this movie wouldn't feel so campy.

"Hackers" is a great movie if you have two hours to kill, and really don't want to think much. It's a fun ride, and perfect for those lazy Sunday afternoon. You shouldn't expect too much going in except for a sexy 20-year-old Jolie and crazy over the top dialogue. If you are a hacker, you will either hate this movie, or laugh at it like gamers do at "Gamer".

Rating: 5.5/10 -- One of the better guilty pleasure movies, and worth the time spent watching it. If you don't expect much, you will be entertained. Hack the planet.