Look, mom. No condom!

KIDS


We saw this movie because after making me watch a handful of Larry Clarke movies throughout our movie-watching career, the Larry Clarke debut (I am pretty sure Kids was his debut) KIDS was the one I saw that Jp had not. I warned him he's not missing much but the usual Larry Clarke disturbia. We put it in the queue anyway and ...(sigh) watched it.

This movie was like the cinematic equivalent of watching a bunch of monkeys take a crap in their hand and slinging it at other monkeys and frolicing about in a big monkey crap party. What a waste of time. Some people would argue that Larry Clarke was doing something brilliant by giving you a window into the raw side of inner-city teens, delivering "harsh reality" of how idiotic and amoral modern youth can be and the dangers and consequences of thier ceaseless quest for sex, drugs and trouble. I say - its CRAP!

What was it that this movie was trying to say? All I got was an unpleasant 2-hour public service commercial about how parents are the Anti-drug. The kids were ugly, terrible actors (besides Sevigny), nothing but shitty, boring, ignorant dialogue, and what I would call border-line child porn. Of course, thats all typical of Larry Clarke. The only difference between this movie and the rest that followed is the quality of actors and plot. Bully had more plot along with that Paradise one with James Woods. In this movie, the only name you can recognize is Chloe Sevigny and a young Rosario Dawson. Its uncomfortable to watch in the worst way and unentertaining to watch in the most annoying way.

The movie mostly follows a main character named "Telly". A slack-jawed chudd of a kid who's idea of safe sex is having sex with virgins. He talks like he was dropped on his head and on several occasions, we are forced to see him naked and "on the job" with these tween girls,laying on the worst "seductive" lines I've ever heard. I wanted to throw up. In a way you feel sorry for these girls but then you don't because you would have to be a desperate moron to fall for it and sleep with him and who's desperate at 13-14 years old anyway? So sad. Even sadder is Chloe Sevigny's character, Jenny. She was one who once was dumb and desperate enough to give up her virginity to Telly, the one and only time she has sex, only to find out she is HIV-positive. There are other kids too that don't really do a whole lot else but drugs, drinking, sex and parties.
This movie sucked on so many levels. It sucked so bad, it sucks writing about it.

When I saw that it was actually executive produced by Gus Van Sant, I was like "Oh, no wonder it sucks monkeyballs."

Yeah, this is my own personal shit.

Holiday

When we rented this movie the idea was that, best case scenario, it would be good like Trust the Man. I guess I should have realized that it was much more likely to be forgettable like Under the Tuscan Sun. This movie was seriously flawed. Even without the preview-spoilers and the knowledge that of course the two main girls in the credits would end up with the two main guys in the credits it was just so... obvious. So painfully forced. So lacking any shred of spontaneous or natural human emotion. All it really had to rely on was cute lines, but they were few and far between. It was the kind of movie that makes a good preview (ironic, given the Diaz charcter).

The ladies were the problem. The ladies and the writer. Normally I like both Cameron and Kate, but these characters sucked (Camron D. especially). The guys weren't much better, but they had the ability to float in and deliver a good line without having to carry the dead weight of poor writing that the girls did. Jack Black in particular, although his character was more serious and grown-up then any Jack Black character we've ever seen, which made this, too, seem forced.

There was cuteness abound, and I must admit it did grow on you eventually. But every time you got into a scene they would over do it just a bit. Every plot point they made they had to hit you over the head with. Old Jewish Hollywood guy? Funny, until we get water aerobics and a comeback special. Cute proper English kids? Funny until we get Young & Restless level dialog from them. Winter romances that might blossom into something? You start to get into them and then they get ridiculously predictable (either that, or Elisa saw this movie without me in secret, because she was like a fuckin' psychic over here).

In the end, I'm glad we got it, and glad we didn't switch it off for Hollywoodland after 15 minutes. I just wish that it sucked a little less.

Drink More Ovaltine

ZODIAC


Well, This movie definitely didn't suck. I can tell you that much. For what it was, it was pretty damn good. Robert Downey, Jr was awesome in this movie. I was a little bummed I didnt get to see more of him but I was still digging it, nonetheless. Everyone who has seen this movie always goes on about how Mark Ruffalo made this role his bitch. I agree, he was outstanding but I dont think Jake Gyllenhaal got enough credit and praise for his role as ..y'know, the cartoonist guy who wrote those books on the Zodiac killer. He was fantastic. I really think he needs more praise for his amazing acting but I think the other two incredible actors steal a bit of the show from him. Thats my view anyway.

David Fincher is still the man. The cinematography and lighting was all typical Fincher with the almost grainy, greenish tones and darkened feel to everything. The movie was good but I was a little disappointed at the fact that it just isn't as rewatchable as Se7en or Fight Club. The characters, story, everything was great but I felt the screenplay could have used a little bit more Fincher-y goodness that his other movies had. That was my only real problem with it.

What I liked about this movie is that it did a great job at illustrating the creepy feel of having a serial killer, (or is it mass murderer?) running loose shooting people in your town. The murders as they happened were quite scary and even shocking to some degree. Watching how creeped out the victims were in their sucks-to-be-them situation and how they didn't even have much time to react to their creepy situation or process what was going on as the killer just practically shoots them in the head mid-sentence. Those scenes were quite effective in scaring the figgly boogles out of me. I kept thinking "Geez, man, I hope that doesn't happen to me, ever."

And with the bigger picture, Fincher also did a wonderful job of illuminating the creep factor with the fact that this particular killer was such a big mystery, the police department would get exhausted and damn near throw up their arms and say "I give up." which is a scary thing. The mystery of this killer was almost as scary as the killer himself. That is why this movie was such a good idea. It was real. Real fear, real events. You dont have to make up some elaborate story about how sick a killer is or why he kills people, or create an excuse to watch pyschos chase teenagers with chainsaws. You didn't have to see anyone drenched in fake blood to be scared in this movie. Fincher just had to capture the terror and frustration in the event of a killer on the loose, taunting the police and press with coded letters and not being able to find him or catch him. Any evidence they find leads to dead ends and it just goes in circles. The fact that it really did happen, there really was a creep killer, and even scarier- the fact that he was never caught. You still dont know who or why. That is some scary scary stuff. You can feel the pain of the cartoonest/writer throughout this film and while you are feeling a bit sorry for his family, you can totally empathize with his consuming desire to find the Zodiac and get him arrested. Fincher captured that and it was brilliant. Gyllenhaal was brilliant. It is what Spike Lee's Son of Sam wished it could be. It took everything Son of Sam sucked at and should have done and made it all brilliant. AND even scarier because unlike David Burkowitz who was caught and even confessed, the Zodiac was never figured out. It was all done right.

I dont think I will buy this one on DVD but it was definitely worth seeing it in the theatre and I liked it very much.

I am your neighbor and a liar. By the way, do you have Zoe's number?

The Science of Sleep

Michel Gondry is well known for his crazy music videos (like the White Stripes "Lego" video). He has a crazy love for creating stunning visuals with stop-motion animation and eschews the more modern computer animation techniques like CGI. His last movie, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, did justice to the brilliant Charlie Kauffman script and gave us visual representations of memory and neurosis through tricks of scale and set design (like adult Jim Carry hiding under a giant kitchen table or swimming in the kitchen sink - man that movie was really great, wasn't it? I have to go back and see it again now.) He also created that Jim Carry "Peacan Pie" video with the crazy bed-car.

Here takes on writing as well as directing a feature-length film. The special effects are charmingly cute (the 1 second time machine, a cardboard city rising from the ground, the TV studio that is his subconscious) and the characters are charming and cute as well. The movie takes place in France, but Stephane does not speak French well so most of the time he relies on English, occasionally drifting into Spanish as well. He has trouble differentiating between dream and reality, occasionally getting himself into trouble by acting things out in the real world that he thinks are only a dream. He also has trouble opening up and showing his true feelings to Stephanie, the girl next door who shares some of his quirky sensibilities (it's Parallel Synchronized Randomness he believes, that two people share the same dreams at the same time).

This movie was a lot like Rushmore, it exists on the borderline between fantasy and reality and we identify with the characters, not because they resemble the way we are, but because they resemble the way we see ourselves in our imaginations. Their crazy actions resonate with our crazy emotions. The end result is a beautiful, wonderful film that dares to be different and pulls it off. It is hilarious and heartbreaking and amazing. Definitely worth seeing and maybe worth buying. Gael Garcia Bernal is probably our favorite Mexican actor right now.

I'll have the Casino Royale with cheese, a small fry and chocolate milk- shaken not stirred.

CASINO ROYALE


There was a lot of buzz about whether or not Daniel Craig would make a good Bond or not. I actually thought he made a pretty good wee Bond man. He was cool, sexy and looked good in a tux. The movie overall was alright. I guess the best thing to compare it to would be pancakes. You are all excited about 'em in the beginning but towards the end, you're fucking sick of 'em. This movie did seem a bit too long. After you see a few action-packed chase scenes, some slow poker games, some mediocre love scenes, and Daniel Craig being wet a few dozen times, you are just like okay, come on already.

And I have to talk about this some more because it was one of the only things in this film that I got a kick out of... I am convinced that there was only one point this movie wanted to make and that is ...Daniel Craig looks damn good wet. Point taken. It seemed like Daniel Craig had more wet scenes in this movie than Ashton Kutcher in the Guardian. I'm not complaining cause I totally get their point that Daniel Craig is very sexy when wet but it was funny to see how many ways they could find to soak him in this movie. Even in a tux where you think "wow, this guy cleans up nice when he's dry." , he just happens to come back to the room where the British chick is sitting and moping under a running shower and for no reason, he sits down with her under the running water, still in his tux and gets soaked for no reason. There really was no point to that scene that I can think of, other than to see Bond wet again at least one more time. Ok, movie, you do that. I'm not getting sick of it but is it really necessary? Did they throw that in there for the ladies who were getting dragged to another Bond movie by their boyfriends? Cool. Ok.

Moving on, there were also some things I could have done without in this movie. Like the longness and the repetition and Eva Green. She was crap. Boring, ugly, NO CHEMISTRY with Craig whatsoever(which bugged me the most), horrible acting, and had nothing to offer the role. I think she actually brought the role down a few notches and really got on my nerves towards the end. I mena, how hard is it to have chemistry with Daniel Craig? -He's adorable. She could have been replaced by a fembot and you wouldn't notice because she was so blank, I could puke. She had about as much flavor as a boiled poptart. To hell with that. I fell asleep towards the end. Did she die in the end? If she did, good. I'm glad. She was awful. I never want to see her again. She will NEVER be half the star Cillian is and we all know who the real rising star this year is and why he didn't win. We're aware of the whole conspiracy and its okay. Winning the rising star award is probably a career curse anyway. Like a sitcom. James McAvoy won it last year and he's not doing shit now. Nobody is talking about him. Just like nobody will talk about Eva Green unless the word "sucks" or "who?" is by her name. Cillian was robbed.

ANYway, she sucked in this movie and almost ruined it for me but they managed to make it up to me in Daniel Craig wet scenes so this movie was still okay. However, the evil villain had next to no personality either. I wouldn't even be able to separate him from the extras if it wasn't for that lame-ass scar on his eyeball (oh, okay, he's the bad guy that bleeds from his eye occasionally) and a forgettable accent. He's semi-evil. He's quasi-evil. He's the margarine of evil. He's the Diet Coke of evil. Just one calorie- not evil enough. How boring. I had no doubt in my mind that Daniel Craig could take this guy. Piece o' cake. Sure, he's short but he can kick some ass - which pretty much sums up why Daniel Craig played a good Bond in this movie.

Don't nobody undersand the words that are commin' out of your mouth!

Babel

Babel. Best Picture nominee, staring Brad Pit but featuring several loosely intertwined stories dealing with communication and its discontents. Directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, who made Amores Perros and 21 Grams. A tragic accidental shooting of a woman on vacation in the middle east by two boys using their fathers new rifle, a nanny who is forced to bring the children she watches to her Son's wedding in Mexico and the nightmare that ensues trying to get them back, and a lonely deaf Japanese teen girl who longs for a physical relationship and feels like an outcast.

There was a lot to absorb in this movie. I think we could get even more out of watching it a second time, but it is not really a re-watchable movie. It was dark, but hopeful at times. It had strong themes of communication and miscommunication, understanding and misunderstanding, desperation and loss of innocence. It also dealt with family, love, selfishness, mistakes, and loneliness. It was a well made film and I think we both enjoyed it.

Death and taxes? What an odd pairing.

Stranger than Fiction

I've been looking forward to this movie for a while. It has the potential and ambition to be another Eternal Sunshine or Adaptation, but it could also be a horrible art house dud or frustrated comedian vanity project. Most likely it will fall somewhere in between, and probably closer to failure then success.

Well, I am happy to report that it was pretty good. Will Farrell's performance was not over-acted and he never took you out of the moment (which is the biggest risk in casting a scene-stealing big name star comedian to your quirky dramedy.) He was... subtle. Careful and reflective. The people around him got to do most of the acting (Maggie and Dusty were much bigger personalities) and his character was mostly conveyed by the voice over narration and the special effect inserts that were meant to convey his neurosis and OCD. I think movies need to be praised sometimes for the missteps they avoided, for resisting the urge to fall into cliche or milk tired stereotypes, and this movie avoided several. I'm happy to say Will Farrell did not ruin this movie at all.

That is not to say that it was without flaws. The crazy plot started to unravel a bit in the end when, even after everyone figured out (but never explained) the god-like power that the author had over this guys life, they still insisted that it was better off to continue along and let him die because it was such a good story (?!?) Yeah. The take notice of your life and do the things you always wanted to themes were presented quit nicely but this movie completely chickened out at addressing any of the free will v.s. destiny issues it raised with the crazy premise. The result is a weaker story and an ending that feels tacked on. It may have just as easily worked as a mid-life crisis and a boy-meets-girl generic romantic comedy since they never really did anything with the character in a work of fiction plot other then jolt him out of his comfort zone and threaten to kill him. Seems like they could have achieved that by borrowing the plot of a different Queen Litafah movie and having a doctor tell him he had 3 weeks to live. It didn't aspire to anything more then quirky romantic comedy.


In the end I have to say I enjoyed it. It worked as a quirky romantic comedy (where the characters fall in love just because they are supposed to, and not due to chemistry or anything really besides proximity and a few nice gestures). Maggie Gyllenhaal was good, Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thomspson are ok, the movie had a good pace and a few twists and turns. It didn't live up to its potential, but it didn't crash and burn either.