Away We Go

So what is this one about?
The 'flix tells us

Buoyed by the news that they are expecting their first baby, Burt (John Krasinski) and Verona (Maya Rudolph) embark on a journey to locate the perfect place on the planet to raise their child. But their quest inevitably yields many unexpected surprises. Sam Mendes directs this quirky comedy while Allison Janney, Catherine O'Hara, Josh Hamilton, Jim Gaffigan, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Jeff Daniels co-star.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Honestly, with how few netflix movies I've turned around I wouldn't be surprised if it would have been cheaper to purchase it.

And what did I think?
I guess the thing I cannot comprehend at this point in my life is the idea that being married, or even being with another person, will become your life. Like, waking up with the person, doing whatever during the day, and coming back to that person becomes your life. That having a kid and spending all your time with the other person is your life. That whole two of us against the world thing. I just am not at a point in my life where I comprehend that.

I think about other people I know who have lives with a very significant other and I truly have a hard time understanding it. And I don't know if that says I am destined for a life of loneliness or what, but it is sort of depressing.

BUT, this movie was amazing! God, Jim Krazinski is just so flipping cute. And sweet. And adorable!

What was so amazing about it? Well, for one thing, it was hilarious. Allison Janey was out of control. When they go to Arizona we--I mean Mel and I--almost lost our shit. She is hilarious. Jim Gaffigan was funny too. But not nearly as funny as Allison Janey. Then Maggie Gyllenhall was hilarious too, again, not nearly as funny as Allison Janey, in the really uncomfortable Ricky Gervais way.

It was also poignant and heartfelt. The story in Montreal was so excellent and real and sad. And so necessary in the plot. I think this is probably the doing of Dave Eggers--you know, Mr. Depressing real life author of A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. He wrote this movie with his wife, apparently.

The only thing I didn't especially care for was the ending. And maybe it was because I didn't really want the movie to end or maybe it was because the final seemed sort of obvious. But, either way as a whole it was very enjoyable.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
This is definitely one that I will purchase. Keep your eye out at Target... my birthday is in March.

I give it a high 9. Like I said, I didn't care for the ending too much but it was otherwise entirely enjoyable!

Very Young Girls

So what is this one about?
Netflix has a much better description of this movie than wikipedia does. In fact, it was Netflix's excellent description and recommendation of this movie that made me rent it. It says,

David Schisgall's startling documentary captures the heartbreaking stories of underage girls -- many as young as 13 -- who've been forced into prostitution in New York, exposing how pimps use isolation, violence and drugs to keep girls dependent. Many of the girls interviewed take part in GEMS, a shelter and mentoring program founded by activist Rachel Lloyd -- once a prostitute herself -- that helps them transition out of "the life."

And how much did I pay to watch?
I got it on the 'flix. I think my movie watching has been doing better... lets calculate the per disc amount. I have returned 10 movies in a month (and I watched on on the interweb on the 'flix site) So, 11 movies divided by the monthly rate of $16.99 is $1.54/movie. HUZZAH! Back down to a reasonable price!

And what did I think?
Ok, this one was sad. But uplifting as well. In my review for Orphan I referenced the saddest and best documentary ever--Children Underground. Very Young Girls was sad, but the girls---or a lot of them, were really trying to do better. I suppose that is thanks to Rachel Lloyd. Dude, RL's accent was SO mental! It reminded me of the chick from The Streets, she sounded like she was British. But she had a trashy accent like she was from New York. So the next day at work, you know, that is where I do a lot of movie researching, I looked her up on the internets. I found this article which told me

"Lloyd was just 13 when she dropped out of school to support an alcoholic mother. She slipped into a life of drugs and sexual abuse. She tried three times to kill herself. But even in the United Kingdom, with its network of social workers, lawyers and psychiatrists, Lloyd “continued to slip through the cracks of a system that would eventually give up.” Prostitution in Germany was what awaited her at age 17."

Yikes. So that explains the accent.

I think one of the awesome things she says in the movie was so true. She said, to paraphrase, "In America, people worry about child prostitution in Thailand or Ukraine, but when it happens in their own backyard they turn a blind eye." I feel like that is probably true. How often do you hear about child exploitation or human trafficking all over the world, but never in the US? I am sure it happens, and it happened to these girls in this documentary.

The thing that is even better about this documentary, is that it shows women who are really trying to make a difference in the lives of these girls and bring light to a situation that doesn't get enough coverage in the US. Rachel Lloyd and GEMS seems like they are slowly but surely building awareness about child prostitution in the US.

I don't want to see preachy, because this sort of social or crime issue isn't really the type I learn about...but you should really see this movie.

It really is very illuminating.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Solid, solid, solid, solid documentary. 9.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist

So what is this one about?
I'm gonna tell you the truth. The netflix description of this one is pretty awful. I watched NaNIP and I loved it, but reading the description makes me wish I hadn't. It is just that awful! See,

Norah (Kat Dennings) wants to prove to her friend Tris (Alexis Dziena) that she's capable of having a boyfriend. So at a concert, she grabs the first guy she sees, Nick (Michael Cera), and asks him to pretend they're dating -- but it turns out that Nick is Tris's ex. Despite the fact that they started off as a fauxmance, Nick and Norah's relationship turns real as they traipse through Manhattan, sharing their love of music and all things weird.

vomit! (and, um, "fauxmance"?!?!? yikes!)

And how much did I pay to watch?
Some amount. I've been doing much much better with watching more movies. Actually, upon consulting my rental history I see that I have watched approximately 4 movies in a month. Woah. emmmmmbarassing!

And what did I think?
I think that Michael Cera is the sweetest, most earnest, most adorable guy in Hollywood. Good lord, if I were like maybe 4-8 years younger I would have the sickest crush on him! I mean, at my advanced age I do not have a crush on him, but if he wanted to date me I would have to agree. He is just too. damn. cute!!

I thought this movie was the classic teen girl flick. I mean, what was there not to like? God, does the fact that I liked this so much mean I am more like Norah than Triss?? Does this mean I am the nerdy girl with big boobs (factually inaccurate) who talks about music too much?!! AHHHHH. Nah, I wasn't that girl in high school and I am not that girl now. (I did recognize the voices of a lot of the artists who were on the soundtrack...Band of Horses, whaaaat?!)

I loved that the movie really used New York as another character in the film.(Oh, and did I mention I was on a bus to NYC as I was watching this? That might make my love for it a little unfair) Anyway, it was just like Law and Order or Sex and the City or Flight of the Conchords or any of those New York movies/shows. In fact, wikipedia tells us "this movie was one of the first to be shot in New York City after the State and City of New York enacted a 35 percent tax credit under the "Made in NY" incentive program." See? They wanted NYC to be a main character!

I just thought it was great. I loved that Norah's drunk friend was like a hybrid of Lori and I, and I was genuinely curious to find out what happened as the movie progressed. It had great pacing, and Nick and Norah were SO cute together. Nice, young, honest kids in love (or learning to love).

And lets face it, the fact that Nick drove a Yugo was hilarious, and the cab scene (from the commercials) was hilarious. As were Nick's gay friends.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Seriously, what was there not to like?

It was awesome, awesome, awesome. This is a dvd that I will be looking for a cheap Target copy of. If anyone sees that Target is doing a $10 copy, let me know and I will snatch it up!

I think it is probably a 10, but just for saftey's sake and because I've only seen it once I will give it a 9. Just go see Nick and Norah... it is so sweet!!!!!

Changeling

So what is this one about?
Well, Netflix tells us

Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie, in an Oscar-nominated role) is overjoyed when her young kidnapped son Walter is brought back home. But when Christine suspects that the Walter who was returned to her isn't her actual child, the police captain (Jeffrey Donovan) has her committed to an asylum. John Malkovich co-stars as the crusading reverend who comes to Christine's rescue in this gripping, 1920s-set drama helmed by ace director Clint Eastwood.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Probably around $4. I guess it is still less than the $4.99 that I would have paid if I had watched it "on demand"...but still it is much more than it should be with my netflix love.

And what did I think?
Well, my love for Clint Eastwood has grown out of control (just like kudzu...). This movie looked exactly like something he would direct. It had this beautiful clear, yet smoky grey quality. It was slow and deliberate. He is an AMAZING filmmaker. In fact, I have added so many Eastwood directed films to my queue, so if there are a lot of his movies in the coming soon section, that is why.

So, what did I think? Well, when I saw the preview for this movie I thought it looked really interesting, because did her boy actually change, or was it not her son at all? I wont really give it away, I suppose, but it was rather unexpected. This movie even brought in my interest in both true crime stories and Canada! Joy! Oh yeah, and citizen activism...take that Los Angeles County!!

The costumes were amazing. I read on wikipedia (maybe) that Eastwood wanted to cast Jolie because he thought her looks fit the time period. Let me tell you, as someone interested in both decorative arts and costume/historical fashion the casting of Jolie as a woman of the late 1920s was absolutely spot on. She is the CLASSIC 1920s-1930s model type. She was a bit more glamourous than the normal woman in that time period, but I suppose Angelina Jolie has a hard time not being glam.

Eastwood even composed the music! What can that guy not do?! I will tell you what he can't do, he cant seem to get an oscar nomination for the amazing recent movies he is made. That is a flipping tragic injustice! Also, across the board, the acting was amazing. Jolie, Malcovich, Harner, and even Amy Ryan. They were all so nuanced and perfect. So subtle and powerful without being at all cartoonish. Fantastic!!

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Changeling is pretty amazing. It is just perfectly spot on and I assign most of that to Eastwood and his incredible attention to detail and perfect astehtic eye. I give it a 9.

The Staircase

So what is this one about?
Netflix tells us,

From award-winning documentary filmmaker Jean-Xavier de Lestrade comes this real-life, gripping courtroom drama that chronicles the case of author Michael Peterson, who stood trial in 2003 for the murder of his wife, Kathleen. With unprecedented access to Peterson's lawyers, his family and others involved in the proceedings, de Lestrade offers viewers an intimate look at the judiciary process and the mystery surrounding this high-profile case.

Also, Lestrade is totally French Canadian. It doesn't add anything to this story or movie or anything, but you know how I feel about French Canadians.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Well, as you can probably tell I haven't been watching as many movies lately. I used to blame it on my former job when I had to be at work at 4:30am. But, now I have a normal, fabulous job where I have to be at work at a normal time, which thus means I can go to bed at a normal time, and I could watch movies before I went to bed if I wanted.

Now, maybe I haven't been watching them because I know I need to do the write up, and I already have too many to write up...Or, maybe I've been distracted by the Stanley Cup playoffs which require a great amount of emotional energy from me. Or maybe it is because I haven't been able to get movies that I am really excited to see. Whatever it is, I have no idea how much I am paying per movie a month now, I am scared to think I might be paying $8 a movie.

But, as far as the Staircase goes, I actually first got this rental when I had just started grad school--over two and a half years ago. But, I just couldn't get into it. So I sent it back. And then when I rented it in February, the same thing started happening!! The Staircase is broken into 8 episodes, and until about the 4th episode I thought I was going to send it back to Netflix without watching the whole thing. But I did, and I am glad.

And to answer the question, I have absolutely no idea how much I paid. Probably a lot.

And what did I think?
Well, like I said, I thought it was a little boring. I just could. not. get. into. it. But, I am glad I slogged through the slow and tedious beginning of the series, cause man oh man! It sure picked up speed!!!

I guess I understand why LeStrade had to make those boring first four episodes...to lay the foundation so the audience understands everything else that happens. Well, I don't understand why he had to make it so boring, but, I suppose it doesn't matter.

Ok, so what did I think? Well, I think without giving away the verdict...because you maybe should watch this (especially you, Lori)...that the thing that was best about this film was how LeStrade really tried to not insert his value judgements into the documentary. He showed what was happening, and then we as an audience were able to make our own judgements about wether we think Michael Peterson killed his wife. I think, especially after looking at the internet, that we tend to always assume people who are accused of murder are pretty much always guilty. And violent crimes are always henious--so someone is guilty. But, watching LeStrade's film it gives you some sort of feeling about what the American justice system might really be like.

It was also very interesting, because as an audience we saw Michael Peterson, and frankly, that guy was a dick. BUT, just because he was an asshole doesn't mean he is guilty. So as an audience we had to sort out our personal feelings about the accused to decide if the evidence that the prosecution presented was enough to make their case that Peterson was guilty beyond a REASONABLE doubt.

Anyway, it was interesting. And after I watched the movie I found some crazy websites talking about the murder and the case and theories and all that. So, if you're not gonna watch the movie I guess you can go to them. Or not. Whatevs.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Well, because it was so so boring at the beginning I cannot give it a 10. But, it was very interesting, and well done, so it gets a 9.

He's Just Not That Into You

**really? two months after I saw this I am finally getting around to the summary?? I am embarrassed.**

So what is this one about?
He's Just Not That Into You is a book that revolutionized the lives of women all over America, probably all over the world. I am not ashamed (well, maybe I am a little ashamed) to admit that I read and loved the book! The point it makes is simple, but it is one that seems to elude most women. If he isn't calling you, if he isn't sleeping with you, if he is sleeping with someone else, if he doesn't want to be in a relationship with you...he just isn't that into you. Once someone accepts this fact then it becomes much easier to put things into perspective. "He didn't want to try our relationship again. If he was that into he would have, so he isn't the right guy for me." Silly Greg Behrendt yammers on and on about how "you" (the woman reading the book) deserve a guy who is insanely into you, and if he can't be, then you should move on, because someone will be. (eventually. hopefully)

So, the movie is basically the book in movie form (now, I had no idea how this was going to be done when I learned a year ago that this was going to be made into a movie...but, I'll go into that later). Netflix tells us,

Jennifer Aniston, Drew Barrymore and Scarlett Johansson lead an all-star cast in this adaptation of the bestseller that follows an ensemble of characters dealing with the pitfalls of love and human interaction. Set in Baltimore, director Ken Kwapis's film moves swiftly between a host of storylines and characters brought to life by a stellar lineup that includes Jennifer Connelly, Ben Affleck, Ginnifer Goodwin and Justin Long.

Ken Kwapis!! Of The Office Season 2 "Casino Night" (aka: the most perfect episode ever) fame?! Hot DAMN!!

And how much did I pay to watch?
Again, my mother paid for the ticket. I don't know how much, but I didn't pay anything. But she did buy me movie nachos...which was awesome!

And what did I think?
Well, I am embarrassed to say that this is the best book to film adaptation I have seen this year. I suppose, though, that the film industry should be embarassed by this, not me, because there have been amazing books that have been turned into films (Atonement, Revolutionary Road, The Reader, etc). Even though these books were better, and were written SO beautifully, they didn't translate well because there was no narrator to communicate what the author told us as readers. Now, what made HJNTIY work well as a movie was that the role of the author/narrator was made into an actual character in the film (played by Justin Long). This was what made the different questions/vingettes from the book translate to film. Frankly, I was amazed that this device was employed, and I was floored that it worked. Poor idiots who failed making better books into movies because they didn't have a narrator. Losers.

Now, the thing that was irritating and odd was that the characters and the narrator and the book's author kept emphasizing that you (the everywoman) are not special. Sure, you heard the story about the girl who liked the guy and he never called and treated you like crap, but somehow they ended up happily ever after anyway. But you are not that woman. And her story is the exception to the rule. You are the rule, not the exception. EXCEPT...every. single. character. in the movie ended up being the exception. So, what does that tell all the ridiculous, silly women in the world? You aren't the exception to the rule, but, for your specific love and relationship you probably are.

This seemed so ludicrous for a movie that was trying to communicate what it was. Ri.dic.u.lous.

But, other than that little flaw it was really quite good. Entertaining with characters that the audience cared about--good looking characters, at that--it was funny, and heartfelt, and honestly, everything I would expect from Ken Kwapis.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
I give it a 9. No, maybe an 8.5. No, I guess a 9. Because it was a great book adaptation, smartly done and well acted for what it was. The message was quite trite, but, well, I suppose a lot of messages are these days.

W.

So what is this one about?
At first I thought this movie didn't actually exist. But, apparently it does. I have seen it. And Netflix describes it as

Academy Award winner Oliver Stone directs an all-star cast in this satiric retrospective of the life and political career of George W. Bush (Josh Brolin), from his troubles as a young adult through his governorship of Texas and all the way to the Oval Office. Among the key supporting players are Richard Dreyfuss as veep Dick Cheney, Elizabeth Banks as first lady Laura Bush and Thandie Newton as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Well, I went and saw it with Mike at Cinema De Lux. I think the tickets there cost like $11. We also ate a lot of food. They have a starbucks there and I got some tea. And a pretzel. It was nice, but I think he paid for that because I am wildly underemployed.

And what did I think?
Honestly, I thought it was undignified. So, so, so undignified. I mean, be serious, I don't love GWB. I don't hate him like my mother does (man, she gets INSANE over him!) but it is still the president after all! To paint a portrait of him as an idiot, stunted, developmentally retarded man-child is mental. I mean, be serious!!! Why couldn't Oliver Stone have waited another six months before releasing this movie? It makes O.S. seem like an asshole.

The movie was ridiculous. It was incredibly hard to tell if the movie was supposed to be serious or if it was supposed to be mocking Bush, his entire life, and his entire administration. I thought it might have been a dumbing down of the Bush Administration so idiot Americans who don't read newspapers could understand what has been happening for the last 8 years. It was impossible to tell.

But, the casting was awesome! Again, it was hard to tell if the castings were somehow supposed to have been jabs at these actual people. For example, Mike and I actually laughed out loud when "Karl Rove" first appeared. He was such a troll it was impossible not to laugh. That casting, I am going to assume, was a total joke. See...Richard Dryefuss played Dick Cheeney like an evil gremlin, James Cromwell played GHWB...but with absolutely no accent or change to his voice or mannerisms, Ellen Burstyn played Barbara Bush as a HUGE grumpy-ass, grandma beyatch, ROB CORDDRY played Ari Fleischer (another casting that I laughed out loud at) and beautiful Elizabeth Banks was the most realistic portrayer of her person--Laura Bush. Well, I take that back. Thandie Newtown portrayed Condi Rice. And holy shit!
She completely physically transformed herself. Her mannerisms, the way she walked, the way she helf her mouth, all of it! It was extraordinary!! Now, of course, there were times I chuckled to myself because all in all, it was just so entirely ridiculous. I mean, Condi is a professional woman, and to have her portrayed by a glamazon Brit actress picking apart all of her mannerisms was just undignified.

And like I said, that is how I would describe the entire film. Just unnecessary and entirely undignified.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Well, if this movie were a mockmentary, or mockufilm I would give it a 9. But I don't know that it was supposed to be. It was interesting to watch, especially with a big politico like Mike, but it was absurd. If I were rating it as a regular movie I would give it no more than a 5.

Candy

(*note* I started writing this review immediately after I watched this film. Weirdly, this was over two months ago, on September 9. I keep thinking I will be able to say something profound about this one, but I just keep turning over the same things in my mind. And if the point of writing this blog was so I could remember what I thought of movies I watched, I guess I should write my opinions after I watch them. So, if some of the stuff in this entry is oddly tensed, or has an odd timeline, well, thats why. Here it goes...)

So what is this one about?
My beloved tells us about one of Heath Ledger's last films. They say,

Two young bohemians hooked on each other -- and on smack -- head down the path to perdition in this potent drama directed by Neil Armfield. Giddily in love, Dan (Heath Ledger) and Candy (Abbie Cornish) soon find themselves swept up in a vortex of addiction that inexorably unravels their relationship and their lives. Geoffrey Rush is outstanding as the indulgent chemistry professor (and functional junkie) who supplies the couple with heroin.

And how much did I pay to watch?
I paid $1.30 with my monthly Netflix. I was shocked to calculate this because it hasn't seemed like I've watched much. Between four discs of The Tudors, two lost/damaged discs, and one movie I got for my mom to watch while I was in New York, it doesn't seem like I've seen much. I guess I have though and I've just been terribly lazy at updating this guy.

And what did I think?
Well, I still can't figure out Abbie Cornish...you know, fat face/skinny body (see Stop-Loss) but she was really quite surprisingly amazing as Candy. She played tortured, conflicted, weak, crazy, and sad so well. it was quite amazing.

In fact, Heath Ledger and Abbie Cornish together were amazing. They had this energy between them. I guess they had good chemistry. But not sexual chemistry, they had this sparking intensity between them. It really was like they were the characters. It was like they had all these levels between them, like the audience would really think they were watching real people with a history. I guess as an actor you can fake that intimacy, but I can't imagine that it is easy. Yet, watching them it seemed like they were so effortless. It was also quite amazing.

It was a little odd to watch Heath Ledger. I guess I probably yapped about that when I did The Dark Knight, but I will repeat a bit here. It is truly bizarre, because I wasn't a huge fan of his. I mean, he is a good actor. Was, I mean. But watching him more closely now because he is dead I see that he is an effortless actor. Everything was so natural, and he was so layered. It was also amazing. I kept thinking to myself, yes, I really was, "wow, it is like watching a fallen angel". And if you know me in real life you'll know I wouldn't say things like that. But that is what I kept thinking.

This movie is based on a book, of the same name, written by Luke Davies. I am going to read it, because the movie was so good, I imagine the book will be just as excellent.
I guess that is how the book was written, really.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Rating this film is hard, because I can't think of much I would change about it. That leads me to believe that it was a perfect film, which I am sure it wasn't. But the acting was so extraordinary. I mean, it was some of the best acting I've seen in forever. And overall it was just so beautiful.

But hot damn, the acting. The acting deserves a 100. It was fantastic.

I will give the movie a 9, because I don't think it was a 10, but it was sure good.

DC Shorts: Showcase 3

So what is this one about?
Well, this is impossible to explain, because it was actually 13 short films. The list of the films can be found here. DC Shorts, in general, is a film festival of 102 short films made by filmmakers from all over the world. The films were split into 8 different showcases. After each showcase the audience would have an opportunity to vote on their favorite film. My friend Steven was part of the production of the film that won the audience award for the showcase. The film is called Speed Dating, and was hilarious...and it isn't just because he is my friend.

And how much did I pay to watch?
It was $13 for the showcase. And was totally worth it!

And what did I think?
I guess this is the hard part. With 13 entirely different films I can't really speak to all of them. There were amazingly amazing films, and there were films I didn't like. Each audience member had three votes for audience favorite and I voted for Speed Dating (twice) and D. Mark: Hip Hop Artist, which was a hysterically awesome German film. Man, those Germans! (seriously, go to that link, it is hilarious). There were two french films, Diva and La Tangente, both of which were so beautiful and sort of heartbreaking. There was an Aussie film, Selling Hopkins, which was mildly creepy but awesome because of the excellent accents.

There were two DC films, one of which was made during the 48 hour film festival, and one that was a documentary about bar darts. That just showed that you really can make a documentary about anything. That gives me hope for my future.

The British films were all sort of eh. I had very strong negative feelings about English Language (with English Subtitles) but it seemed like the audience was really yucking it up. I thought it was one of these films that was trying too hard to be "arty". Grandma's Funeral was the opening film for our showcase, and it was good enough. Very touching and I thought the actresses were very real.

Hollywood Jerome was a US film and it was weird weird weird. Not in a good way. I did not care for it at all. The US film, besides Speed Dating, that I thought was excellent was Shop and Save. It was flipping hilarious. How did the film maker think of that?? And then, Check Please, that was another one. How did the film maker thing of THAT?! My friend Mel, who I went with, who never goes to movies, actually thought it was really funny. So how do you like that?

And thats pretty much all of them. I left one out. I didn't care much for it either, but I did like that it was only three minutes long. You gotta give a film maker credit for being so concise.

Overall the entire experience was awesome. The final showcases, that have the winning films are going to be shown on Thursday at E Street. If you are in DC, I would suggest you go see them.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
I give the whole showcase a 9. I give the film festival in general, a 10.

Despite my living in Toronto, you know, the city that has one of the biggest film festivals in North America, I haven't been to many/any festivals. DC Shorts shows me that I will go to the same festival if I am still here next year.

A shorts festival is almost better than TIFF (Toronto International Film Festival) because with shorts if you don't like the one you're watching, the good news is there will be another one in a few minutes!

Cure for Love

So what is this one about?
Well, I saw this film at the Toronto Cinematheque on John St. However, when I tried to go back to the website of the theatre the description was already down. SO, I went to the CTV (you know, Canadian Television website) and I found this description...

There's the bride, dramatic in white -- and the groom, beaming in his Sunday best -- and the customary happy gang of friends and relatives.

But this is no ordinary wedding.

Ana and Brian are both self-declared ex-gays — adherents to a controversial evangelical movement that purports to convert gays and lesbians into heterosexuals.

Cure for Love goes inside this unusual Christian subculture — fashioning a nuanced critique of 21st century fundamentalism through the moving testimony of young people whose homosexuality is at odds with their religious beliefs.

ta dah!

And how much did I pay to watch?
Well, because I still have my U of T id (which has no expiration date AND an AMAZING photo of me...you'll have to take my word for it), and because I was in Canaduh this cost $4 CAD. I dunno how much that is in Americuh. I guess like $4. (Oh the failing US dollar, woe is me!)

And what did I think?
Well, it was very interesting, for sure. The film actually followed three gay men (or ex-gay men), only one of which who got married to a woman and the other two stayed in the gay lifestyle. The guy who got married to a woman, Brian was his name I guess, I did believe that he was trying to adhere to his religious beliefs. I felt so genuinely happy and sorry for him at the same time. He admitted that he was still attracted to men, but that his commitment to his female wife trumped everything else.

In a lot of ways I respect that immensely. I mean, and maybe this is widly unromantic and disgustingly pragmatic, isn't that what a marriage is about basically? Making a commitment to someone and holding it above everything else? My friend who accompanied me to the movie was horrified that I suggested that.

Now, Brian's wife Ana, good lord I felt sorry for her. It was so clear that she was miserable. That she thought because she was married to a man she would somehow become a heterosexual. And it was like she was waiting for the straightness to kick in, and it never did. Or at least it never did during the coverage of the film. She was not in love with Brian. I thought Brian seemed happy, but Ana was the opposite. God, it was so depressing.

Now, the two men who tried the ex-gay lifestyle and returned, or became ex-ex-gays (as they said), they were much happier. And how could you not be happy for them too? I mean, as an audience you love to see people in documentaries that are happy or fulfilled or at least content. These men who left the ex-gay lifestyle were happier than Ana, but maybe not happier than Brian.

So how was the film itself? I'd say (despite the audience of nearly all gay people...I would assume) it was pretty though provoking. I mean, it forced the audience to look at their beliefs for what is important or necessary for a person's happiness. Additionally, since it was filmed a lot in Toronto, I think I, an most of the people in the theatre, felt some sort of a connection to the film.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Make no mistake, this was absolutely a film that was sponsored by the film board of...wait...what was it? Quebec? I remember it wasn't Ontario which was surprising because it seems like every film and tv show is sponsored by the film board of Ontario. Anyway, it was a film that was sponsored in someway by the Canadian film industry. The industry in Canada is not the industry in the US. It isn't massive and unrestrained with oodles of money to produce documentaries about anything and everything. So, they didn't have the resources that documentarian film makers have here. The film production values were a little bit less than in the US.

But, the film was interesting and the characters was sympathetic and endearing. I give it a 9.

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia: Seasons 1 & 2

So what is this one about?
Netflix tells us,

Irreverence is the cocktail of the day for three slacker friends who own an Irish pub in the city of brotherly love. Despite the changing sociopolitical landscape, egocentric trio Mac, Dennis and Charlie cling to their blue-collar, macho attitudes in this sharp-edged comedy series that sends up racism, gun control and other taboo topics. The show's creators, Rob McElhenney, Glenn Howerton and Charlie Day, star as the self-involved pals.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Well, I got it on Netflix, and it was three discs. So whatever that cost ;)

And what did I think?
Well, I've heard about this show forever. I even had someone from highschool say "I was watching "It's always sunny in Philadelphia" and thought that Sweet Dee reminds me of you SO bad." to which another one of my friends from high school responded "you know, actually, billy is right... you are a lot like sweet dee... or at least she reminds me of you back in high school... well, she's a little bitchier." So, even though IASIP had been in my queue forever, those comments made me want to see it even more. Now, granted those comments were made on November 8 and 9, 2007 but I guess I've been busy...or something.

When I looked up It's Always Sunny on wikipedia they told me

Kaitlin Olson as Deandra^[5] "Sweet Dee" Reynolds: Dee is Dennis's twin sister and a bartender at Paddy's. She dropped out of Penn (where she had majored in psychology but failed her classes) to become an actress, but has put little effort into realizing her ambition. Although she identifies herself as a compassionate liberal, she will always put herself first and often has the same prejudices as her friends and brother. She is highly sensitive about her appearance and her professional failings. She was unpopular in high school due to her severe scoliosis, which forced her to wear a back brace and earned her the nickname "The Aluminum Monster". Since high school, she has had a long string of failed relationships. Like the other members of the gang, she drinks heavily, especially to calm herself after meeting an attractive man. Deandra also harbors a phobia regarding the elderly. Despite her many insecurities, Dee is aggressively outspoken and prone to violence when angered. Dee was the only major character in the show to be conceived without an actor in mind. Although Deandra was originally written as a female voice of sanity to contrast with her ill-intentioned co-stars, the character became an equal participant in the gang's illicit and morally questionable activities after Olson was cast.^[6]

Which made me really wonder...god, am I like this girl?

No. I mean, if I were as hot as her that would be great. But the thing you have to understand about the four main characters is that they are HORRIBLE PEOPLE. But it still ends up being funny as all get out!

I would not recommend this show to you if you're easily offended or if you don't like dark humor. But if you do, man...this one is top notch. The characters are so mean, especially the boys, but you still end up liking them anyway.

I would say that the seven episodes in season 1 were much funnier than the ones in season 2 when Danny Devito joined the cast. But, it was all really entertaining, and HILARIOUS, and I can't wait to see Season 3 on dvd when it comes out next week, and then I can't wait to start watching season 4 when it premiers on FX on September 14.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
This show was so funny. And the characterization created by the actors was amazing. I can't wait to see more.

I give it a 9.

Flight of the Conchords: Season 1

So what is this one about?
HBO describes its wildly popular new show as,

Flight of the Conchords follows the trials and tribulations of a two man, digi-folk band from New Zealand as they try to make a name for themselves in their adopted home of New York City. The band is made up of Bret McKenzie on guitar and vocals, and Jemaine Clement on guitar and vocals.

Bret and Jemaine have moved to New York in the hope of forging a successful music career. So far they've managed to find a manager (whose "other" job is at the New Zealand Consulate), one fan (a married obsessive) and one friend (who owns the local pawn shop) -- but not much else.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Well, I got the first disc on Netflix. But I liked it so much that I considered buying the dvd set. On amazon it was only $17.99. How could I resist that? So I bought it.

And what did I think?
It took me awhile to wrap my mind around this one. I didn't really get it. I watched the whole season and then I had to do a lot of internets research to figure out what the hell was going on. Turns out, and I'm sure people already knew this, that Flight of the Conchords are actually New Zealand's totally popular folk-parody duo. So they are really New Zealanders, they are really singers, and they do really do the ridiculous music that is in the show in real life.

Awesomely catchy ones like

and amusingly bizarre ones like this

And you can't forget funny smart ones like I mean, "my eyes are just a little sweaty today" CLASSIC.

Of course, you've all probably seen these. Maybe once again I am woefully late in getting tuned into a wildly popular show.

The show is quite infectious. The first time I watched the whole thing I found that the music got in the way of the plot, which is what I was more interested in. Now that I have gone back and watched it all again I am begining to appreciate the music. I think it does take more than one time to get all the quick and small humor. Or, maybe thats just me.

Jermaine is one creepy looking guy, but I think that adds to it. (Because once I bought "If You're Into It" on itunes it wasn't nearly as funny to listen to because you can't see Jermaine dancing and acting like a maniac. Its sort of cringe-com tastic.) Other than that the guys are so earnest and innocent. How could you not find that endearing?

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
One thing that is amazing about this show is the accents. I mean, the accents add at least a point or two to my rating. Man, the accents are AMAZING! I find myself imitating Murray and laughing maniacally. "Well, couldn't Bret be your rapping name?" hahahahahhahahahahahhahahaah!!!

I'd probably give the show about a 7 or an 8. It doesn't have that solid emotional core like The Office which when paired with humor makes it a classic. But it is funny, and smart. Plus, the added point or two from the accents tops this show with a rating of 9. Its high, yes, but the accents really are amazing.

Thirteen

So what is this one about?
Netflix says, "Thirteen-year-old Tracy (Evan Rachel Wood) is a good girl. She's smart, gets along with her mother (Holly Hunter) and is never any trouble. But then she befriends Evie (played by Nikki Reed, who co-wrote the movie), a gorgeous and popular classmate who teaches Tracy to let loose and introduces her to the beguiling world of sex, alcohol, drugs and self-mutilation -- much to the horror of Tracy's friends, relatives and, most of all, her mother."
I suppose really its about growing up, and what kids do to fit in.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Nothing. Not only am I a Netflix member, but my brother also works at Blockbuster (go visit him in Vienna...he'll hate it). He gets 5 movies free per week, so he got this one for me.

And what did I think?
I saw this one when it came out in the theater in 2003. I guess I wasn't really smart enough to process it, or maybe it just didn't really make that much of an impact. But Lifetime was advertising it, and I wanted to watch it again. I listened to the directors commentary and she points out something that you don't really notice as the audience, but it impacts you anyway. So, Tracy is a normal kid, I mean, as normal as an awkward 13 year old can be. And when the movie starts the color saturation is normal. Sunny outside, natural lighting inside, etc. But as Tracy becomes more and more destructive the color saturation begins to get sort of wonky, for lack of a better word. So the scene where she is on the street, looking for Evie (who by the way if off giving a bj to Tracy's boy) with the street kid who is dirty and drinking some sort of super strong alcohol (which tracy is drinking too) the color saturation is really green and sickly. Tracy is stumbling around because of the booze she took from the kid, and when the kid says, "wanna suck my cock baby" and she stumbles around sickly, the color saturation matches the downward spiral Tracy is in. Towards the end of the movie Tracy--who up to this point has really been beautiful with her makeup nicely done and such--goes into the bathroom and looks in the mirror. The color now is entirely desaturated and tracy looks sort of undead. She reapplys her makeup but its hard to add any color to her washed out self. Its really quite an amazing technique.

Its pretty shocking, the movie, but you really have to keep reminding yourself that these girls are only supposed to be 13. One part in the movie Tracy's counselor tells her that she will be held back in the seventh grade, and its shocking for the audience, because what we've all see doesn't match up with what we think a thirteen year old would be like.

Additionally, Evan Rachel Wood....man oh man. She is not only gorgeous but a super talented actress in this one. I try not to like her too much, but its hard, because she's totally awesome. Too bad she's like a total freak now...oh yeah, she's also dating Marilyn Manson. I am not saying they are causal, but it does seem like she is trying to be Dita vonTeese.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
8.5-9. Its a good movie, I will not debate that. I had originally written the 8.5 score, but as I was typing and thinking through the color saturation/plot maturation coinciding I decided it needed to be higher. The commentary is quite interesting, obviously I got a lot out of it.