Since you've been gone...

Thanks Toothpaste for Dinner!

I must offer some profuse apologies. Or maybe not. I ran into Brunch Bird last weekend at, of all places, of course, the movies. (I was there to watch The Roommate. How was it you ask? Hysterically amazing!) She asked if I had a blog when I told her that I liked hers and I said "I do, but it sort of went defunct after watching Girl with the Dragon Tattoo." (Oh, and how was that you ask? Only the best movie I saw in 2010!) She said, "Well, it's never too late to start up again. I'd know." And she is right.

And I have seen some really worthy movies. I don't think I am an extraordinary writer, or maybe even that good, but my friends seem to enjoy it. So, back to movies. Well, all of the Swedish Steig Larsson movies were high points in my movie watching year last year. But I never wrote about them. I don't know if I ever will, but hopefully. So what has been going on with me, you ask? Well, lets do a photo run down, shall we?

According to my last post I stopped writing after I went to GA in March. Well, I went back in May. It was the epic Georgia trip. It will go down in the annals of the Georgia Trips. Well, until Lori and I go on our ten year anniversary road trip though Georgia.

Epic Georgia Adventure. May 2010.

Let's see. Then the World Cup happened, right? Well, I rooted for Germany, until they lost to Spain. That German support involved many hours at Lucky Bar and included me being interviewed at 7:30am on the CBS local news! Good thing my State Department colleagues knew I was drinking beer at 8am on a work day. Here is me and a bunch of other Germany fans after they beat Australia (? Australia, right?)

German Victory. And lots of Beer. World Cup 2010.

The World Cup era was also a celebration of new housing arrangements. I moved in May and therefore was able to acquire this little piece of toilet paper shredding heaven at the end of June. She is excellent. For the most part. Except she shreds all my toilet paper. Named after a 20th century Mexican Revolutionary, her name is

Emiliano Zapata. July 2010.

She's almost ten months old now (March 6) and is currently sitting in a reusable bag with a pair of my heels. Good work Zizzle.

August was epic because not only did I audition for the Capitals Red Rocker squad (and did not make the cut) but I also went to DISNEYLAND for the first time!!! Good god, if you haven't been there book your plane ticket now. It is the most wonderful place on earth. Even better than Niagara Falls. And I bet you never thought you'd hear that come out of my mouth!

The wonderful world of Disney. August 2010.

We also spent time with our good friend Steven while there. He took us around Los Angeles. Mel and I were re-united with high school friends. We ate at Spago. Saw the Hollywood sign (though I think we actually looked to the right to see the Hollywood sign). Saw the jail where OJ was kept. Saw a Soviet submarine. Ate Jack in the Box and had an all around fantastic vacation!!

Look to the left and I see the Hollywood sign.
Everyone here is so famous.
Including Craig Kilbourne.
I told him he looked like my grad school advisor. HAH!
August 2010

But the fun didn't stop in August. Oh no, no. September brought about three momentous events.
1. First UGA game day. We lost. Sad.

Imagine us in Game Day dresses. September 2010.

2. American Idiot on Broadway with Billie Joe Armstrong. Of course, now he is in the show for a two month run, but at the time he was only doing 8 shows. And I saw one of them!St. Jimmy died today/ He blew his brains out into the bay. September 2010.

3. Another Virginia inspired beauty. This time for my left arm.

You're looking at $300 of dogwood. September 2010.

October was confusing. Zombies invaded Washington and I was there to document it. I almost got ejected from the National Mall by the Park Service because they didn't believe I was not a professional photographer. Why? It wasn't because they saw this post and were amazed at all my photos (I took all of them except the one of Billie Joe). No. It was because he took one look at my camera and thought it was too "professional." Dude, hate to break it to you, but I'm not the only person in the city with a DSLR. Durr.

The Walking Dead invade Washington. October 2010.

In November I did play professional photographer though. I took my friends' engagement photos. I loved it. Does anyone have anything they want me to photograph? My rates are reasonable! You can email photography.jdh@gmail.com if you're interested. I am available in DC but will travel. I'm not kidding. You'll be impressed when you see my work below.

The real work. November 2010.

December was pretty standard. Heartbreak. Presents. New Years Eve in Georgia. The Caps won the Winter Classic (in your face Pittsburgh!) and the year started off more miserable than I could possibly imagine. Work upheaval. Henious sinus infection. The complete opposite of Love, Valour, Compassion. So I really needed one weekend in January to go well. Luckily the weekend I spent in New York for Mel and Barry's birthday was excellent. If it hadn't been I don't think I'd be here to type this right now. I'd still be crying in a gutter.

A new era of Hope. January 2011.

This brings us, more or less, to the present day. I tried to buy a scratching post for the cat but the pet store was sold out. It was very tragic. (UPDATE: I have secured said scratching post. VICTORY!)

But, this is neither a blog about my stupid cat nor a blog about my excellent photography skillz (though, seriously, email me if you want me to shoot something for you!), it is a blog about movies. So here, very very briefly, are my reviews of the movies I have seen since we last spoke (minus movies that weren't new to me--Dawn of the Dead, Interview with the Vampire, Titanic, Before Sunset, etc, etc, etc, etc.) And in no particular order...

The movies:

• All the Swedish Steig Larsson movies. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo--the best one of the three. I am so glad I saw the movie before I read the book. The movie was so shocking because I had no idea what was going to happen. It was the best movie I saw in 2010! The Girl Who Played with Fire-- Good. I think the book and the movie were actually pretty different. Again, I saw the movie first then read the book. The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest--The book is waiting to be read on my shelf. P.S. sweet Mohawk!
• 127 hours--very different then I thought it would be. I was actually surprisingly emotional. Go see it. Seriously. It is very good. Even though Danny Boyle annoys me. Though, I did enjoy 28 Days Later. A lot.
  
• Black Swan--overrated I think. I didn't care about any of the characters and was in fact hoping bad things would happen to them. Plus, I want to punch Natalie Portman in the face. Seriously. I did like that Frenchy though. I hope it doesn't win all sort of Oscars.
  
• Casino Jack--Erik and I wanted to go see a movie and there was nothing out. So he suggested this. It was fine. I was entertained. It was interesting to "learn" about Jack Abramoff. Plus, I like Kevin Spacey and I like drinking my pomegranate Italian sodas at E Street.
• A Film Unfinished--I saw this after I got my tattoo. Another good thing about E Street is that you can order beer there. Which I did. To stop the arm throbbing. A Film Unfinished is the footage that was recorded to make a Nazi propaganda film. The film was somewhat interesting even though nothing Nazi related seems to shock me anymore. I guess that is what you get for being a history major. Nothing in it stuck with me to this day. Just watch The Pianist instead.
• Easy A--Watched this with Lori on the last GA trip. It was entertaining. I like that Emma Stone. Her parents were ridiculously amusing and Dan from Gossip Girl was in it. What's not to like??
• Jackass 3D--I will confess, the only reason I watched this was because the boy I was crushing on worked on this movie. He was the stereoscopic supervisor. Basically, his job was to make it 3D. (You can figure out who he is on imdb) Otherwise, it wasn't nearly as amusing as I remember Jackass to be. I guess maybe I am getting too old for this? There was one though where a guy got his tooth pulled out. It made me feel like I was going to puke. So, maybe, mission accomplished?
• The Roommate--This one was a pretty recent view and I will admit it, I saw it because I love horror movies and Leighton Meester. What of it? Christ Almighty this movie was bad. If we hadn't seen it at Chinatown and had the "interactive" movie experience (ever noticed the audience at Ctown can't shut the eff up? They talk to the screen. They think it is interactive) this would have been a total waste. But by the end the reaction from the audience with the action on the screen was so hilarious that we were all dying of laughter. I imagine this was not the desired effect when they made the film.
• Up--I know. I know. How is it possible I haven't seen this yet? IDK. I watched it on Christmas, perfect movie for that day, right?! I loved it. I thought the animation was so excellent and the characters were so sweet. I was chastised though because I didn't cry at the beginning. I guess I have a stone where my heart should be?
• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1--I actually saw this movie twice! Once the day after Thanksgiving and once on Christmas. Don't you just love Harry Potter at holiday time? God, I do!! This is obviously the best HP yet. Why? Obviously because they split it in two so it can be closer to the story in the book. Love love love love love it. Can't wait till the end.
• Blue Valentine--Ah yes, another E street wonder. What does it say about me, or maybe about that theatre, that anything I see there is more enjoyable than a movie anywhere else? And how do I remember that I had my pomegranate soda, resces pieces and a crab pretzel? They must pump some sort of hyper circulated air in, or something. Anyway. I liked this. It wasn't uplifting, but sometimes neither is life. Michelle Williams was way better than stupid Natalie Portman. SHE should win the Oscar. I also sort of realized I am in love with Ryan Gosling. I guess I should get in line.
  
• Catfish--OH DAMN. Seriously. This was the other best movie of 2010. I want everyone to watch it. I wont say anything about it though, because I want you to experience it with fresh eyes. After Erik and I watched this we had to immediately go to another movie to cleanse the palate of this one. It was SO GOOD!!!
• Devil--is the movie we saw after Catfish. What is with M.Night? Seriously. That guy can't make a good movie to save his life. Though. I did sort of like it. But it is really hard to tell if he is being serious or just thinks that he can make good previews and trick people into seeing his movies.
  
• Inception--Yes, yes. A worthy Oscar contender. But lets be seriously. I love Leonardo DiCaprio. I would watch him read the phone book. I love him. Love, love, love. This was good. I liked it. I should watch it again. Oh Man... speaking of Inception and Up. Watch this. It is freaking HILARiOUS!!!!! Please watch it. Please. It is so good.
  
• Let the Right One In--A Swedish vampire movie. I hear that the book is much better. Let's all just read the book, eh?
• Dead Snow--Hahahahahaha. Yes. You know this movie. It has some of my favorite elements. Norway. Zombies. Nazis. Well, Nazis aren't my favorite, but they are historical. Yes, a somewhat historical zombie movie set in Norway. It was just as bad, or as good, as you expected. I watched this on Halloween. Totally viable.
  
• Please Give--I watched this because I read something about it in Slate. The article was talking about this scene where the daughter wasn't a pair of jeans and how it was really sad and realistic. I don't know about that but I thought the movie was good. Entertaining. And the actors were quite good. And Amanda Peet was in it. Solved.
• Saw 3D--Ok. Ok. This was just like Jackass 3D. Mel and I went to see this because her friend was in it. It was awful. Just awful. But we did see her high school friend get cut in half. Classic.
• Waiting for Superman--I read something about this movie that said some of the scenes where the kids are waiting during the lotteries were actually fake. It was disappointing. I mean, I suppose what is more disappointing is that not everyone can go to school in one of the best counties in America, like I did. It is sad that people can't get quality education. I dunno that charter schools are the answer. I just wish people had more money so they could move to a good school district.
• Survival of the Dead--This movie makes me sad. This is not George Romero quality. It was just atrocious. Just so, so, so so awful.
• Rachel Getting Married--Here is the thing about this movie. It was actually pretty good. But towards the end Anne Hathaway has her hair highlighted and it was so hideous it was actually distracting. Like, I could not focus on the movie. Just ask Erik. He was there. Also, why was that family so weird? Maybe we will never know.
• Midnight in the Garden of Good And Evil--Lori and I both read this book in preparation for our Georgia Road Trip 2011. It was an excellent book. Just excellent. It teaches you so much about Georgia history and prepares you to travel to Savannah. The narration was amazing. But Christ this movie was bad. Not even Kevin Spacey and Jude Law could fix it. Message to Hollywood: Just because a book is awesome doesn't mean it will translate well to film. Please consider why the book is good (narration and the character development) and make sure you can do that in the movie. Because they couldn't do it, it made the movie not good. We both fell asleep then had to return to watch it another day. Sad.
• The Fighter--I just saw this last night. Yay for solo dates! This one was much better than Black Swan. Christian Bale should win an Oscar. Brother is scary good! I liked this one. I like that there is a character arc, and that I care what happens to them. And I am not sure, but were the sisters supposed to be funny, because hoo-boy. What was going on with them? Despite the fact it was a Thursday night and everyone in the theater was over 25 it was still interactive. Oh Chinatown.
  

The television...

• True Blood Seasons 1 and 2--Fuck I love this show. It is pretty unusual that I am interested in a show from the first episode, but I was with this one. Thanks to RaeJean to recommending it. I can't wait till I can watch Season 3.
• Peep Show Seasons 1-7--God this show is hilarious. Peep Show is a BBC production about two friends, Mark and Jeremy (though my favorite character is Super Hanz...which I thought was Super Hands for a long time). It is sort of like It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia but set in England. I discovered the show one morning when I woke up from a night out at like 5 and I needed to wash my face and brush my teeth. I turned on the telly, which was on BBC because I was watching Law and Order: UK when I fell asleep and I was absolutely hooked! It is on BBC America Saturday mornings from 4-6am... for those times when you're just getting home from the bar or are too drunk to fall asleep. Or you can watch all the episodes on Hulu. You wont regret it. It is hysterical.
• The IT Crowd Seasons 1-3--The only reason I watched this show was because it was available on Netflix view it now. The first season was really funny. The other two, not as much. It reminds me of the show within a show on Extras. What was it called? When the Whistle Blows? It has the same sort of odd BBC production values... almost like it is a fake show.
• The Walking Dead--Remember when I said the Walking Dead invaded DC? Well, these were the dead from this show. God. What didn't I like about this show? It took place in Georgia. Had Zombies. Was made by AMC. And it was one of the first scary shows I have ever watched. Other than MTV's Fear (god I miss that show) I have never actually been scared during a show. The first three or so eps of this show just made me so nervous. I loved it. The DVD comes out around my birthday. Hint. Hint.
  
• Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season 1--To say Lori was mad when I liked True Blood would be the understatement of 2010. She was like, "those aren't real vampires. Watch Buffy. Otherwise I will hate you." So over NYE weekend we watched Season 1. I will tell you, the vampires in TB are so much sexier (ugh) than the ones in BtVS. Lori would say "They're not supposed to be sexy! They're supposed to be evil!! I hate you." So Season 1 was sort of ridiculous. The production quality was very low and the episodes were hysterical. But we made a drinking game out of it and now Season 2 is much much better. Ah, the things we do for love!

Wow. That took many days to complete. That is the full disclosure. Hopefully now that I have gotten those out of the way I can go back to updating regularly. Coming soon... (or what I have been watching, or have ready to watch...)

Glee: Season 1 (two discs left)
Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Season 2 (three episodes left)
The Tudors: Season 4 (how did I not know this was out?! I will watch it once Glee is over)
The Social Network (waiting at home to be watched Sunday)
Mighty Ducks and D2 (purchased with an amazon card I won at work!)

and thats all for now! Welcome back.

See you at the movies. Or something. (E street. Not Chinatown)

Up in the Air

So what is this one about?
Netflix tells us,

Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) racks up miles flying around the country firing employees on behalf of companies. But he faces losing the job he savors to recent college grad Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) -- and losing the ability to escape emotional ties to anything. A connection he builds with Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga), however, might change his outlook on the future. Golden Globe winner Jason Reitman's smart comedy also stars Jason Bateman.

It should probably more accurately say "the ability to escape emotional ties to everything" because that is what it really seemed like he was trying to do. To be an island. (Also, I frequently mistake Jason Reitman and Jason Bateman, I know who both of them are...but their names are just too, too similar!)

And how much did I pay to watch?
For all those times my mother has treated me to movies, I treated her. So I paid $14. Interestingly enough, if we had gone to Cinema DeLux instead, that is what I probably would have paid for only one of us. Thank heavens for locally owned, independent theatres ;)

And what did I think?
When I see television ads for this movie they use a trite description that declares "Up in the Air is a movie for our time!" Except that is really, really, really is! It is an absolutely correct statement. Whether it is that I have never seen one, or that now I am much more aware of, well, everything, I have never seen a movie that so wholeheartedly encapsulates the zeitgeist of a point in time--specifically "these times".

Everyone in the film is so desperate for a connection. Isn't that sort of what popular culture is consistently selling us? All these dating reality shows--where 500 women fling themselves at one man because all of them so badly want that connection (or maybe they just want to be on tv...who knows?)--and the commercials for match.com and eharmony.com and dating.com, isn't that what they are telling us? That in today's world of go-go-go and digital communication instead of face-to-face communication, that we are really all very desperate to connect with people in a very real and authentic way? It seems like if someone wants to make a connection, they can't. And then those that are alone and like being that way, will realize that they actually don't really want to be alone.

So what does any of that actually mean? Well, as far as movie things go, the acting was excellent. Why? Because you really start out not liking the characters, or not caring about them. But at the end you are so wrapped up in them and their issues. It is funny and poignant and affecting. Everything about it was excellent. I don't know if America wasn't suffering from a recession, and the auto industry wasn't in the toilet, and people are trying to blow up airplanes on Christmas, that the movie would have been as absolutely spot on as it was. If the movie had been made in 2002 when Reitman started writing the screenplay it wouldn't have been nearly as excellent as it was when it came out in 2009.

I guess that can be the theme of today's entries. Right place, right time.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
The movie was absolutely crushing. Just the way I like them. It was exactly, exactly, exactly the sort of sad I like, because sometimes it feels like the sort of sad that my life is when I get to thinking about it. (I am actually a pretty happy person, not really emo at all, but I understand Ryan Bingham's dealy).

This will likely win Oscars--and probably whatever other stupid awards they do before the Oscars--and it will deserve them. But it isn't so stupid and simplistic that it is like the typical Oscar formula (at least, I don't think so). I'd love to read the book, because I love to see the way movies slaughter good books--but I don't think this one was really close to the book, rather more of an adaptation--and then see the movie again.

But for now, I will give it a 10. It is certainly my choice for awards this year. Not that Precious movie... I swear...*shakes head*

Invictus

So what is this one about?
Welp, the 'flix tells us

In this sports drama based on real-life events, director Clint Eastwood tells the story of what happened after the end of apartheid when newly elected president Nelson Mandela used the 1995 World Cup rugby matches to unite his people in South Africa. Based on John Carlin's book, the film stars Morgan Freeman as Mandela and Matt Damon as Francois Pienaar, the captain of the scrappy South African team that makes a run for the championship.

Additionally, the 'flix subtitles this film as "The Human Factor." Odd.

And how much did I pay to watch?
$14.25 (YIKES) in the director's hall. And that was after we had a delicious dinner and I spent like another $30. I'm spendin' it like I've got it friends!

And what did I think?
OK. So here is the thing--and if you've been here for awhile none of this will come as a surprise to you--I love two things about this movie very much: 1) Clint Eastwood (even though he didn't grace us with his on-screen presence) and 2) South African accents. Especially the South African accents.

The story itself was somewhat trite. Not really that surprising. However, I can't call it trite because it is an actual true story. But, it is pretty much exactly what you would expect. You have a country that has been suffering under apartheid-- well, you've only been suffering if you are black; with a new black president--who the white South Africans don't like--who is about to change the entire country, a shitty Rugby team that no one likes, and the 1995 World Cup of Rugby.

Hmm, in the Hollywood movie scripting of the universe lets think about how this will go...
1) the country will unite under the president--but only after some infighting among the blacks and whites
2) the team will get better and qualify for the World Cup
3) the country will unite in favor of the rugby team
4) the team will win the world cup

And I am not even giving anything away, because I am just telling you what the Hollywood formula would be.

There was a really, really good line from Nelson Mandela in the movie though, something about forgiveness (which is super important to me) but I wasn't able to remember it or find it. I didn't write it down right away. BIG mistake.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
I am disappointed in you Clint Eastwood--you and your old hotness--and how not innovative this movie was in either story or direction. I mean, it was ok and all, but it wasn't that new or innovative or creative or anything. Personally, it wasn't even that emotionally affecting, which is what I think he was going for. But those twit-boxes at the academy will love it. Instead of Mr. Eastwood winning for Gran Torino (which he should have) he might actually win for this. The academy is SOOOO predictable. *lesigh*

It does get a 6 though. Why? Because you know it gets an extra point for the South African accents ;)

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!

Precious: based on the novel 'Push' by Sapphire

So what is this one about?
The 'flix says,

Viciously abused by her mother (a riveting Mo'Nique) and pregnant by her father, Harlem high schooler Precious Jones (Gabourey Sidibe) has an unexpected chance at a different life when she enrolls in an alternative school. Teacher Blu Rain (Paula Patton) encourages her, but Precious must battle unimaginable barriers everywhere in her life. Lee Daniels directs his drama that features appearances by Mariah Carey and Lenny Kravitz.

That's a pretty accurate description.

And how much did I pay to watch?
I don't really remember, but I think I got in free for this one as well, at the Cinema Arts.

And what did I think?
What did I think? Hmmm.

Well, I see ads on the tv that call Precious "uplifting" and "inspiring" and I think to myself, um, did we see the same Precious? Would you call KIDS uplifting or inspiring? Dude, Precious was all kinds of effed up. I am sure you can tell that just from the Netflix description. This girl's life--this real girl, apparently--was beyond horrible. Two kids by her own father?? A mother who made her daughter her slave?? Oh yeah, that sounds real uplifting.

Would you like further proof? Let me provide you some more information from the description of the novel.

The novel is set in Harlem in 1987. Precious Jones lives with her mother, an invalid, and her father, a drug addict. She is obese, illiterate, and pregnant with her second child. In the beginning of the novel, she explains that she has been repeatedly raped by her father since she was seven, and is pregnant with her second child by him. She even tries to commit suicide to get away from it all but it does not work. Her father is married to someone else and living with Precious’ mother, who lives off of public assistance and social security checks she receives for Precious’ first child, "Lil' Mongo", who has Down Syndrome and lives with Precious’ grandmother. Precious cooks, cleans, and waits on her mother constantly.

Charming.

So, I was also interested to see this movie because I read somewhere that Mariah Carey is unrecognizable. That is a fallacy. I picked her out right away.

So, to return back to the novel, and it's plot which was shown in the movie,

While in the halfway house, Precious joins an incest support group where she meets other people who have suffered, finding solace in knowing that she is not alone. Attempting to transition to life on her own, Precious' mother unexpectedly appears to tell her that her father has died from AIDS. Precious discusses this with her friends at school and they convince her to get Abdul and herself tested. Abdul is negative and Precious is positive. In the end, Precious finds her freedom and security in knowing that she can care for her son and herself on her own.

Wow. How uplifting.

And look at me. I don't even feel bad to spoil this for you. It isn't like you don't see it coming.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
I guess it was good enough, but I wouldn't really recommend this to anyone. I give it a 5.

An Education

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

Jenny's (Carey Mulligan) Oxford-bound teen life is undistinguished in 1961 London until she's given a different kind of education after being immersed in the beguiling but hazardous world of cultured and much-older David (Peter Sarsgaard). Even Jenny's father, Jack (Alfred Molina), is intrigued by him, but her school's unimpressed headmistress (Emma Thompson) works to keep Jenny's entire future from crumbling under David's influence.

le sigh. ooooh David.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Nothing, because my comrade at Cinema Arts let me in for free. And not just me but my mom and my host sister.

And what did I think?
In some ways, I'm a little jealous of the main character, Jenny. A guy like Peter Sarsgaard--so hot--and he opens her young eyes to fancy places, in glamorous clothes, with cosmopolitan friends, and the possibility of big adventure and happy ever after. How could I not possibly be wildly jealous, actually? Why can't I find a fabulous man like him. Even with his secrets, and his issues. Even though it all gets ripped away. Why can't I find someone like that? It'd be fun.

Actually, now that I think about that, I think it might help me have a more favorable opinion of this movie. If I were Jenny, thin, glamorous, with Peter Sarsgaard in love with me, I would maybe make the same decisions as her. EXCEPT--and maybe my pity for her is waning-- I wouldn't act like I was too fucking cool for school, too cool for my parents, too cool for everyone around me. That is why I don't feel bad for her.

Now, if it were me, and I were dating a guy who um {SPOILER} was dating someone else--or was married--and i HAVE dated someone who was dating someone else, and I had no idea, and I was sad. I mean, it just makes you feel so shitty that you were tricked. And you had no idea. And I had no idea. Now, I would know that I could come back from it, and I did. But it might have taken a while. Or it actually didn't because I was able to think to myself "Um, wtf? I am not wasting a second more thinking of him" Then again, I didn't tell everyone else in my life to eff off because I picked a guy over every other thing in my life.

So, the question is, Why did everything get to end so well for her? I mean, sometimes when you make really really stupid decisions you have to work harder then she did in order to come back from it. Everything was solved for her so easily. And it pissed me off.

It was hard to hate her because she was so adorable. like Jenny Lewis and Zooey Deschanel, sort of weak in appearance but a real fireball underneath. But that sort of made it easier to hate her, because why did everything get to be so perfect for her?

Not fair. Then again, what is?

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Well, I liked it. The clothes were gorgeous. And the people were quite good looking. Especially my love Peter Sarsgaard. And I was surprised to find out David's secret.

But, like I said, I didn't have much sympathy for Jenny. Because she was an unapologetic bitch.

So I give it a 7.

Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired

"I think he has a dark side. A sad side. A veiled side. Given his childhood, he has a relationship to life and death he can't talk about. He has a strong vision of sadness and death inside him, but since he has such energy, such working power, such desire to do extraordinary things, he prevails."
Pierre-Andre Doutang, Polanksi's friend

So what is this one about?
Netflix tell us,

Director Roman Polanski is the focus of this documentary that explores the tumultuous events of his personal life, including the murder of his pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, and the sex scandal that prompted him to flee the United States for France. Interviews with Polanski's victim, Samantha Geimer, Chinatown screenwriter Robert Towne, actress Mia Farrow and others help to reveal the many sides of this controversial figure.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Nothing. We had DVRed this one when it premiered on HBO. I had been waiting to watch it, but events have decreed that I watch it and discuss it today.

And what did I think?
When I woke up at 9am and saw "Swiss arrest Polanski on US request in sex case" on the front page of the Washington Post website I honestly though I would throw up. I hauled my sorry, pajama clad self out of bed and marched downstairs to my Roman Polanski loving parents--the ones who instilled the same love for him in me--and glared at my mom. I said, "I just saw on the Washington Post..." and she said, "I know. We saw it." I probably let out an explicative or two and marched back upstairs to fume and feel sick.

Just. leave. him. alone!!!!!!!

He only escaped the Polish ghetto in World War II, had his mother die in Auschwitz, then had his beautiful, movie-star, pregnant wife--who he was amazingly in love with--be murdered at the hands of the Charles Manson family. So, I say again, what is the point of all of this LA County District Attorney? This happened over 30 years ago. Flipping ridiculous.

In fact, this new article on the Post website essentially say as much! Lets break it down, shall we?
"Polanski, 76, was arrested at the Zurich airport Saturday night by Swiss authorities acting at the request of the Los Angeles district attorney's office. Prosecutors there had learned of the Oscar-winning director's plans to attend a film festival in his honor, and passed a request through the U.S. Justice Department." Are you really telling me that the Justice Department has nothing better to do with their time?

"The arrest outraged the government of France, which has declined to extradite Polanski since he fled to his native land in 1978" understandable. Good for France for looking out for one of it's talented citizens! "Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand issued a statement saying he "profoundly regrets that a new ordeal is being inflicted on someone who has already known so many during his life."" Merci, Monsieur Mitterand! C'est vrai!

"Polanski also received support from Poland, where he moved as a toddler and avoided capture by the Nazis, who put his mother to death in a concentration camp. "I am considering approaching the American authorities over the possibility of the U.S. president proclaiming an act of clemency, which would settle the matter once and for all," said Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski, according to the PAP news agency." I hope that does happen. If his justice department can do something so retarded, surely Obama can take the ten seconds to tell them to back down and apologize.

"The arrest baffled some in Hollywood. "I think it's absolutely ridiculous," said Bill Flicker, a film editor who once worked with Polanski in France. "It's stupid and a waste of resources. I don't understand why they are doing it."" Yes, it is ridiculous. Why are they doing it?

Even the girl he had sex with has said to let it go, "I don't carry any feelings of anger towards Polanski," she told People magazine in 1997. "I even have some sympathy for him, what with his mother dying in a concentration camp and then his wife Sharon Tate being murdered by Charles Manson's people and spending the last 20 years as a fugitive. Life was hard for him, just like it was for me. He did something really gross to me, but it was the media that ruined my life." jerks.

As I am sure you can tell, I am just simply horrified that this has even come up. He is clearly not a sex offender who poses a threat to anyone else. Just. Let. It. Go!
_______________
Moving back onto topic, the film was incredibly interesting. It painted a detailed and nuanced portrait of the media attention hungry judge who presided over the case and the county of Los Angeles who was not really interested in putting Polanski in prison for the rest of his life--most of the people in the film thought that he had truly already suffered enough and that considering the facts of the case that all the recommendations the judge received were fair and reasonable. And it did this while not really passing judgement on any of the characters involved in the story.

I would say if you don't know anything about Roman Polanski and haven't seen any of his films--shame on you--this would be a good introduction to him. Through the archival reels you can see why he was so appealing. In the clips of his films you can see the contained elegance of his filmmaking style. And in the news reels from 30 -40 years ago you can see the hard life he had. And you'll understand, like I do, that we should just leave him be.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
I give it a 10. I'm sad I waited so long to watch it, but I'm glad I did, because if I hadn't watched it today it wouldn't have had the immediate, emotional effect it had.

And if you haven't seen Knife in the Water (Nóz w Wodzie), just go rent it. If only for the beautiful Polish language. Then rent the Pianist...because, be serious.

Milk

So what is this one about?
If you have been under a rock, Netflix will tell us what this one is about.

Sean Penn (in an Oscar-winning role) stars in this fact-based drama about Harvey Milk, the openly gay activist and San Francisco politician who was murdered along with mayor George Moscone (Victor Garber) by disgruntled city employee Dan White (Josh Brolin, in an Oscar-nominated role) in 1978. Director Gus Van Sant's compelling biopic (nominated for a Best Picture Academy Award) co-stars Emile Hirsch, James Franco and Diego Luna.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Nothing, because Devin bought my ticket.

And what did I think?
There were basically two over-riding things I thought of while watching this one. 1) Sean Penn is such an incredibly talented actor. He is just fabulous. 2) Good god this movie was better than stupid, stupid Slumdog Millionaire. You may be able to tell that I saw this before the stupid Oscars, because those were my two immediate thoughts.

Other than those, though, I suppose I did have some other thoughts. I liked that Josh Brolin played the guy who killed Harvey Milk. I liked this because the last role I saw Brolin in was playing George W. Bush in W. Haha, George W. Bush hates gay people and kills them. Oh wait, that is just Josh Brolin. I also liked that the whole story was new to me. I suppose I knew that Harvey Milk was killed, but I didn't know how, or when, or why, or by who. So I liked that. I also liked that it was filmed in San Fransicso...cause hey, I've been there!

I thought the acting was very good. In fact, I thought all the actors were great!!

It was also whispered in my ear that the woman at the begining of the film who says that Milk and Moscone are dead was Dianne Feinstein, and that this basically catapulted her carrer. Or, well, thats what Devin said. I thought that was interesting, and the wikipedia article even refers to it. So, again, it must be true.

On the other hand, though, besides the awesome acting and the fact that it was much better than Slumdog, I think I might have to admit that I am getting a little sick of gay movies. I love gay people. I think they are great. I think they should have all the same rights as straight couples, and all of that goodness (and be serious, how adorable are Ellen and Portia? they are amazing!) but really, I am getting kind of bored of these movies. I guess they just don't tug at my heart like they used to. Maybe I am becoming horribly cold. But maybe I'm just getting bored.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Milk was good. Milk was great. Penn deserved his Oscar, because dude let's face it... he is so talented.

Overall, it was very good. 8.

Frost/Nixon

So what is this one about?
"I'm saying, when the President does it, it's not illegal!" (and then I shake my face around while I'm saying it, like a horse...) it is a pretty accurate impression.

But, what it is actually about will be told to us by the 'flix.

Ron Howard directs this adaptation of Peter Morgan's popular Broadway play centered on a series of revelatory TV interviews former President Richard Nixon granted British talk show host David Frost in 1977. Nominated for five Oscars, including Best Picture, the film stars Frank Langella, reprising his Tony Award-winning stage role, along with a stellar cast that includes Michael Sheen, Sam Rockwell, Toby Jones, Kevin Bacon and Oliver Platt.

And if you want more information about the play, or the film, OR the interviews!, the 'pedia (nice one, right?) has good information.

And how much did I pay to watch?
My mom paid for our trip to the movies, and she paid $14 total. So it cost $7. But, I didn't pay. As I've said, as per usual... besides, when we go to that theatre she normally expects that my friend will let us in for free.

And what did I think?
I think what was so different and awesome and refreshing about this movie as compared to Oliver Stone's W was that Ron Howard (or maybe the playwright, since this is another film based on a play) didn't try and smash his value judgments into the storyline.

Instead, an actual character was used to demonstrate the different opinions that people may have had about Mr. Nixon. One of the characters--an academic who judgementally wrote negative things about Nixon-- an American, was so pissed at David Frost, a Brit, because he felt that Frost was trying to build sympathy for Nixon. Now, what actually happened in the movie/play/real life was that Frost absolutely skewered Nixon in his interview. And then the public/audience felt bad for Nixon. Even though Frost got Nixon to admit that he was a jerk, and a liar, and a bad guy it was in admitting this that the public felt bad for him. Awesome. Howard/ Morgan (the playwright, Peter Morgan) didn't need to inject their value judgement, because they probably thought the audience would be smart enough to figure it out. Whereas Oliver Stone thought that he somehow needed to force some sort of judgment about George Bush down his audience's throat (now, as I said when I reviewed it, I could figure out if he was serious, or mocking the whole administration...bad job suckah!)

Now, otherwise the movie was rather slow. Just like during Doubt, I may have drifted off for a few minutes during this one (Keep in mind though, that I do wake up at 3:35am...so, it might just be that I am tired). I think what is tough about watching a movie that you know is a play (at least for me, since I did theatre in highschool) is that I think about what the play would be like. And I have come up with the idea that this play would be bor.ing.

As a movie it was passable, but, it isn't going to win the Oscar for Best Picture either. *mumbles*stupidslumdogmillionaire*mumble*

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Not too bad. A little better than average because it didn't force a value judgment on the audience. So, I'll give it a 6.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

So what is this one about?
Netflix tells us,

David Fincher directs this adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's classic tale set in the early 20th century that follows Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt), a man who was born in his 80s and continually grows younger. The story throws linear conventions upside down to explore love, loss and memories from the perspective of a character living under incredibly unique -- and unexpectedly difficult -- circumstances. Cate Blanchett co-stars in this Oscar nominee for Best Picture.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Well, as like all the other theatre films I have watched recently, my mother paid. So it cost me nothing, but it cost her $8.50x2.

And what did I think?
Halfway through watching this film I thought to myself, "this is absolutely perfect." Without having read the short story I was certain that the screenplay adhered to his story perfectly because it so accurately captured the feel of Fitzgerald's writing style. He is beautifully flowery, and dreamlike, and wonderful. So, I was absolutely shocked when I consulted wikipedia after I got back from the movie to learn that other than the backwards ageing there are pretty much no commonalities between the film and the short story.

Well, here I proclaim for everyone to see, KUDOS. Kudos to Eric Roth and Robin Swicord, the writers and screenwriters. Kudos to cinematographer Claudio Miranda. Kudos to art directors Kelly Curley and Tom Reta. It had the absolute feel of F. Scott Fitzgerald. I was shocked to learn it was supposed to take place in Baltimore, MD. The second I head the southern accents I was sure that Fitzgerald had picked a southern city. The little cut aways to show black and white flashbacks in the style of the Smashing Pumpkin's "Tonight, Tonight" video--that sort of spacey 1920's feel--I was positive that Fitzgerald wrote those in. It was an inspired choice to add those. Everything that the art director, and cinematographer, and writers chose was like they were channeling Fitzgerald. I simply cannot comprehend that the film deviated so much from the book!! I cannot fathom it.

And I think that is what I found so stunning and perfect about the movie. Because, when I think about it, I suppose it is a little trite. Perhaps I would feel this excited if I had seen Forrest Gump in the theatre when it was released. I think, one of the reviews I found in wikipedia sums up my concern. They say,

Ashley Scrace from the Sheffield Star noted that: "It is a good film, but one of contradictions, some of which are far beyond the story of young versus old. It is surprising yet clichéd; sad yet hollow; visually impressive yet ordinary." He goes on to add "I just hope this year’s Oscars do not follow a tired formula: biggest budget, plus biggest stars, equals biggest awards."

And I agree. I mean, its sweeping in scope, and time, and place. And that seems to be something that people accept as a successful formula. And, yes, the visual effects were amazing. Astounding. I have no idea how they put Brad Pitt's face on a puppet-like oldman body. It looked like a puppet. I bet it was...

For me, it wasn't what the film was saying as much as the way they said it. The story with the clock going backwards was so perfect that I just knew it was Fitzgerald's (which it wasn't). Setting the story in New Orleans, with the backdrop of Hurrican Katrina, was perfect. The flooding from the storm enabled the story to end up wrapped in a neat package. Man, it was just perfect.

I think Benjamin Button was better than Slumdog Millionaire. But, I see that it is typical. However, Slumdog Millionaire's happy ending was more typical than Benjamin Button.

Maybe I am still just grumpy that Gran Torino wasn't gd nominated.

P.S. Brad Pitt is retardedly attractive. Really, he is so good looking it is stupid. Jesus god up in heaven. I swear.
So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Ok, now as I have been writing this I realize what I think was perfect about this film. Maybe it wasn't the whole film itself, though I enjoyed it a lot. What was perfect about this film was that it so accurately encapsulated F. Scott Fitzgerald--who I think is one of the most beautiful writers of the 20th century.

But, as I have shown on this little movie blog, I don't give 10s to just extraordinary movies. I give 10s to movies that are 10s to me.

So, 10.

Gran Torino

So what is this one about?
I am gonna let the preview speak for itself, so watch it...

Now, I will tell you that the preview made me expect the movie to be very different than it was. It was so endlessly more enjoyable than I expected. The real description on Netflix says,

Crusty, inflexible Korean War veteran Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood) must confront his Hmong immigrant neighbors – and his own long-held prejudices – when the family's teen son, Thao, tries to steal Walt's beloved 1972 Gran Torino. Walt soon assumes the unlikely role of guardian angel to young Tao and his sister, who are vulnerable to disturbing gang influences in this intimate drama from 78-year-old director Eastwood.

And AFI describes the film as one of the 10 best of 2008. They say,

GRAN TORINO is a cultural landmark in the grand and glorious career of an American master—Clint Eastwood. As director and leading man, Eastwood examines his own iconography to tell a timely tale of crossing cultural boundaries, the enduring legacy of racism and the cost of poverty in our country's neglected industrial cities. Though born from "Harry Callahan," Eastwood's "Walt Kowalski" reflects a more complicated definition of what it is to be a hero in today's world. Watching a screen legend embody the times and triumph with such comic, tragic and cinematic flair is a thrill audiences will long remember as witness to film history.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Hmm, lets think. I saw it at Cinema DeLux with Erik and we saw it in the director's hall. I think those tickets cost like $13?

Whatever it cost, it was totally worth it. Totally.

And what did I think?
Well, like I have already said, not only was it not what I expected, but it was utterly amazing. But, what else did I think about it?

I thought Clint Eastwood was amazing. I haven't seen many movies that he has been in, but he was just fantastic. His character, I am sure, wasn't supposed to be that funny, but he was! The movie was so unexpectedly hilarious.

Honestly, the descriptions above (you know, the three of them) give you an idea of what the movie is about, but because this one is so good and so unexpectedly good, I feel like I don't want to give anything away.

Well, I take that back. The song in the closing credits was sung by Clint Eastwood, and it is a little bizarre.

Seriously, just go see it. You wont regret it.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Gran Torino is the absolute best movie I have seen in years. Probably since Downfall. Honestly, it wasn't what I expected, but I was so engaged as a viewer--amused, crushed, empathetic. It was fantastic.

10, 10, 10, 10, 10.

Slumdog Millionaire

So what is this one about?
Wikipedia tells us,

Set and filmed in India, Slumdog Millionaire tells the story of a young, uneducated man from the Dharavi slums of Mumbai who appears on Kaun Banega Crorepati (the Indian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?) and exceeds people's expectations, arousing the suspicions of the game show host and of law enforcement officials.

And how much did I pay to watch?
$4! I saw it at the Bijou Theatre in Eugene, OR. If you find yourself in Eugene, I would heartily recommend that theatre.

And what did I think?
So, whats the big gd deal?! So far this movie has won the Golden Globe for best film. It was nominated for ten Oscars including best film, best director, and best adapted screenplay (I swear to jesus up in heaven, if this wins--even though I haven't read the book--I will be pissed because there are so many solid adapted screenplays). But, I don't really get what the big deal is...

Now, the film was good enough. Clever and fresh and all that, but it didn't pack the emotional wallop that I demand of my oscar winning films. Danny Boyle and his flashy directoral/cinematographic choices were a bit frenetic for my liking. A little too much like 28 Days Later. And perhaps I am a subtitles purist, but I didn't enjoy the subtitles being all over the screen in colored boxes.

I did, however, LOVE the music. M.I.A. (who I know like nothing about) had some songs in the film, and they were fantastic!! I even had to download them...

I did like the structure of the story with the flashbacks to illustrate how Jamal knew all the answers. Mostly, I liked that the idea for the film was so new. It is actually a little dissappointing that it is based off of a book, because if it were an original idea I would be very impressed by how creative and new it all is.

Also, when did Bombay become Mumbai?

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
It was good, no Gran Torino obviously, but I don't think it was the best film of the year, at all.

So, I give it a 7.5. If only for the innovation and the ending dance number.

Revolutionary Road

So what is this one about?
Well, I took the movie poster from wikipedia (since again, I couldn't find a poster on google) so I may as well take their summary.

Set in 1955, the plot focuses on the hopes and aspirations of self-assured Frank and April Wheeler, who have forsaken life in the city in order to raise their children in the Connecticut suburbs, where they see themselves as very different from their neighbors in the Revolutionary Hill Estates.

April is an aspiring actress who has grown dissatisfied with her life as a suburban housewife and proposes a move to Paris to her husband as a means to reinvigorate their fading marriage. Frank, who despises his job, initially likes the idea, and it is as though a whole new life has been breathed into their relationship. But when the healthy salary increase connected to a promotion at Knox Business Machines makes his position there easier to bear, he becomes less enamored with his wife's proposal. He begins drinking too heavily and engages in an affair with a young secretary from the office in celebration of his 30th birthday, while April has a tryst of her own with neighbor Shep Campbell.

As the Wheelers try to free themselves from their dull existence, their marriage slowly dissolves into an endless cycle of bitter arguments and jealous recriminations while they struggle to maintain a facade of domestic bliss. Only John Givings, the institutionalized son of local realtor Helen and her husband Howard, is able to see what's simmering beneath their surface.

And I would say that is pretty accurate of a description for the film, focusing on what Sam Mendes focused on in his adaptation of Richard Yates' book.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Nothing, because my mom and I trucked it to Bethesda in order to see it (because it wasn't showing anywhere in Virginia) and she paid. Per usual.

And what did I think?
Well, as everyone who reads this little bloggy here likely already knows, I have been dying to see this movie since I saw a preview for it during an episode of Mad Men Season 2....so that was easily three months ago. Then I read the book over Halloween and that just solidified my desire to see it. Dang dang dang. So, its about dang time. My expectations for this film were high, probably unmatchably high--unless I had directed it, of course--and it didn't meet them. It was quite good though, and the longer it went on the more I warmed up to it. So, without futher ado...here we go!! Revolutionary Road...

While I was reading the book I could just imagine Leonardo DiCaprio as Frank and Kate Winslet as April...they were perfectly cast in my mind. However, due to some changes in the plot from the novel to the film, we as the audience missed out on some serious character exposition of April. However, Kate Winslet made up for it a little bit towards the middle/end by showing her character development. Though, maybe I just thought that because of the narration that I was missing. Leonardo DiCaprio was also good...so terrified at the end for his wife, but at the very end he didn't seem as dead inside as I would have liked. Again, because there was no narration (Frank is the narrator in the book) the audience didn't understand how carefully calculated some of his actions and words were, so he came off as a bit of a clod.

At the begining I was disappointed that the actors didn't portray their characters the way I imagined them, but towards the middle and end they really snapped into their roles. Kate was on fire as angry April and Frank was scared and yet, not scared for the right reason. And good lord, the actor who played Helen Givings' son John was amazing. He stepped into his role and became the narrator, explaining to the audience what the hell was going on. He was amazing. AMAZING. [EDIT: He did get nominated (Michael Shannon, who played John Givings), but he is also up against everyone's fave, Heath Ledger. But, He should win, he was amazing in this movie!!]

Some of the cinematography choices really hit home one of the themes of the film (the surburban cookie cutter depressing repetition) and did it in a very subtle but hard hitting way. Kudos. Also, the fact that they made Leonardo DiCaprio a little fat was an awesome choice.

I suppose it is hard to cut a book into a movie (though I'd like to try someday) and there are parts that need to be edited. However, I was very pleased with the cutting of this book into a script, it was able to keep most of the plot integrity and yet make it shorter. Oddly enough, the movie seemed much shorter than I expected. And, as far as awards talk goes, I don't think Winslet will win for this film. I think she has a better chance for her acting the The Reader. And DiCaprio may get nominated, but he probably wont win either (because there are lots of bigtime male actors this season). But, the guy who played John, holy crap, he should get nominated and win for best supporting actor. He was top notch. Flipping top notch.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Who am I kidding? My expectations were way too high for this film. I thought, and hoped against hope, that it might be able to, but it couldn't. It was no American Beauty, afterall.

I give it an 8.

Let this be a lesson to everyone, never get your hopes up too high for an excellent book that is being made into a film. Even if Leonardo DiCaprio is attatched to it [see World War Z]

Doubt

So what is this one about?
Netflix tells us,

In a Catholic elementary school in the Bronx, Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep) begins to have doubts about one of the priests, Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman), who seems to have become overly involved in the life of a young African American pupil. But Flynn isn't the only one she has doubts about. Is she overreacting to the situation or is there a truth that needs to be discovered? John Patrick Shanley's drama was nominated for five Golden Globes.

I think they do a better job of describing this movie than even the movie described itself in the previews!

And how much did I pay to watch?
Even though my mom and I had to truck it into DC to see this bad boy at the good ol' E Street Cinema, she paid. But, I do seem to remember that I was surprised by the fact that the movie was cheaper than I thought. I think it only cost like $7. WOAH! But, like I said, I didn't pay.

And what did I think?
Heavens. Well, first things first, I love Phillip Seymour Hoffman. (Lets just call him PSH)I think he is just faaaaaantastic! But, I Doubt that even Phillip Seymour Hoffman could keep me awake during this one. I also doubt he will win an Oscar...god, more talk of flipping awards? But, that doesn't mean I love him anyless.

I didn't really love Doubt, really at all. In fact, I fell asleep. I'm pretty sure I didn't miss much, and you've got to give me a break...I wake up at 3:30am! I suppose the other actors were good. I mean, he was good, don't get me wrong. I do find Amy Adams endearing even though she seems to play the same role a lot! She was 'the hot girl' in the Office though, so she holds a special place in my heart. Meryl Streep was great as the evil nun. Man, her accent just made her evvvvvvvvvil.

But, I thought the movie was too much like a play. I mean, you can make a play into a movie and it works, but to me, it just seemed like this one didn't. It had that typical "ambiguously moral" ending like plays have that force the audience to think about how they *feel* about the show. And, while I do appreciate the audience critically thinking about what they have seen, I felt that the end of Doubt was not ambigious enough at all to merit any sort of actual thought. It seemed very obvious how the audience was supposed to feel.

They were supposed to hate Meryl Streep because she ruined PSH (ooops, sorry, I just gave it away, except it wasn't much of a spoiler at all...) and she wasn't even sure. What I hated about it was that her "punishment" was feeling bad and doubting herself when she thought she wouldn't. So what does this tell us about society? What are we supposed to take from the film? (and by "we" I mean "I") It tells me that bad people don't always/ever get what they deserve and if you ruin someone's life there is no consequence except maybe you feel "bad", and to me, that was a very depressing realization.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Doubt wasn't horrible, the acting was really good, but other than that I didn't like it that much. I give Doubt a 6.

The Reader

You cannot imagine how impossible it is to find a movie poster for this film...
thanks wikipedia, you have the only one on the whole internet!

So what is this one about?
Netflix describes this film as

Michael Berg (Ralph Fiennes) reflects on the formative sexual relationship he had with older woman Hanna Schmitz (Kate Winslet) as a young teenager in this poignant drama (nominated for a Best Picture Golden Globe) set in post-World War II Germany. The passionate affair ended when Hanna disappeared. But years later, Michael learns she's on trial for horrific Nazi war crimes. David Kross plays the teenage Michael in this film based on Bernhard Schlink's best-seller.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Nothing. Because I am a baller who has friends who work at movie theatres and let me and my mom (who is so pumped for these events) in fo free!

And what did I think?
You know, I am always torn. I see a preview for a movie that looks excellent: The Reader, Revolutionary Road (*angels sing*), The Constant Gardener, etc. Then I don't know if I should read the book before I see the movie, or see the movie before I read the book. You pretty much always know that the book will be better. Books are better forms that films. A film maker can put so much less in a film than is in the book...I mean, just look at the Harry Potter films for proof! But, if you see the movie first, it is all new, and can therefore have the punch you in the stomach goodness that you rarely get when you read the book (except, of course, when Dumbledore died in HP6...sorry if you haven't read it!)

Well, I read The Reader before I saw the movie, and I think this one is a good example of the book ruining the movie. Now, don't get me wrong, the movie was good and the book was great... but, when I saw my mom reacting to the plot with absolute shock, I couldn't, because I already knew what was going to happen. Not only that, but I kept thinking in my head that Steve Daldry didn't take advantage of the amazing narration that Bernhard Schlink wrote. It was beautiful.

And there are things in the book that cannot translate to film without seeming contrived. Michael Berg, as the narrator in the book, communicated things to the readers that would have been impossible to show--his memories of Hanna, his confusion about his role in the guilt of the Holocaust (as a German). However, there were things that the film showed that the book couldn't, like how Berg felt once he heard what Hanna had done in the camps. In the book one can only imagine his reaction, but on film he reacted in a way I hadn't imagined. And seeing it in person I realized that his acting of the situation really couldn't have been any other way. It was spot on.

But, film is a different medium than the written word. And, I love film (big surprise), and I love these actors. Man oh man.

I thought it was really funny that the young actors were all Germans but when they were adults they were all British. And David Kross was amazing--as he is in everything--as was Kate Winslet. But, Kate Winslet is amazing in everything too. She is a goddess. She is perfect in everything she is in. But, this isn't supposed to be an entry that is a love letter to Kate Winslet...when I finally see Revolutionary Road, I am sure that entry will be. (God, I cannot wait to see that one!) And, the funny thing is, Kate Winslet was originally asked to play Hanna, but she had to decline because of RR. Then Nicole Kidman was cast, but she had to drop out because she got preggers. Then Kate Winslet could be in The Reader because she was done with RR. God, can you imagine if Nicole Kidman had played the role of Hanna Schmitz? It would have been a fucking disaster! Comparing Nicole Kidman to Kate Winslet is acting like Britney Spears will win an Oscar. (god, more talk of Oscars....ugh) I mean, she isn't that bad, she's been downright delightful in things, but Kate Winslet is amazing.

Anyway, like I said, I think the problem with this movie was that I read the book first. The emotional impact of this film comes from it being a total, knock you off your feet suprise. Don't read the book first. Go see the movie first. Then read the book.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Even though it didn't have a big impact on me, I can tell this movie was good. I am going to give it an 8. I was gonna say a 7, but I will give it an 8, because my sadness of already knowing what was going to happen doesn't say the film wasn't good.

It was. It is going to be a big deal this awards season. Kate Winslet is going to win an Oscar, it will be exciting!!