Chick Flick 006 - Away We Go:
It’s the beginning of the week, and I really needed a pick-me-up. I’ve had no energy all day and I just got a “let’s be friends because I need to focus on my own 5 year plan” from my recently defunked lady friend. This is summer, everyone. Mono attacks and breakups are meant for the fall, when I can ill afford to slip up. The summer is meant to be fun. Let’s save the suffering for the fall semester. Anyway, I sat around all day and thought a good romantic comedy could lift my spirits. This is an old remedy, and a good romantic comedy has never failed to cheer me up. Oh, please Comcast onDemand, deliver me through this and I will forever worship you as my savior. Please god of all digital television, show mercy on me. All this search and questions of god, and I swear to you, you can find the presence of a higher being in things such as a good nature walk, or if you weren’t feeling it, like me, television. I flipped through the HBO movies and saw on the first page, “Away We Go.” Thank you Comcast onDemand. Thine will be done. You are the true god in my life.
Away We Go is a feel good romantic comedy starring John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph, as two people traveling to find a better life for their unborn child. Sam Wessel directs this movie, who also directed American Beauty, which is one of my favorite movies. Their journey takes them towards old friends and family members who are portrayed as either terrible parents or good parents. This is all of the plot I will reveal, because I truly enjoyed this movie and I would rather not spoil it for you, but rather encourage you to watch it.
The thing that makes this movie good is the small casting. I realize that it isn’t small casting compared to other independent movies; however, Jim from the Office and the girl who was on Saturday Night Live aren’t exactly selling points for movies. Whereas the majority of romantic comedies produce lavish casts instead of lavish scripts, this movie does the opposite. The chemistry between Krasinski and Rudolph is unmistakable and impossible not to notice. I feel the love within their characters. I could believe they were in love, which is completely necessary to make a great romantic comedy.
The humor tends to stick towards the absurd and the completely awkward, which I love. Watching this movie at a late hour was definitely a mistake, as I was laughing increasingly louder, waking up everyone in my house. The writing was very fresh, and there was not a time where I thought about the time of the movie. It’s a crisp 90 minutes, but does not feel short nor long. It’s simply satisfying. I am rarely satisfied by anything nowadays, so this was a great feeling.
My favorite part of this movie is the underlying story of finding a home. Through attempting to find a better life for their child, John and Maya’s characters, Burt Farlander and Verona De Tessant, are attempting to find a home for themselves. In the setting during the beginning of the movie, they feel like self proclaimed “fuck ups,” and throughout every stop, they learn more and more about the difference between a house and a home. The difference lies, of course, within the love held in the household.
No tears for this movie, but only because it truly made me felt very satisfied. You don’t even need to be a romantic to enjoy this movie. It’s truly original and will find a way to entertain you, no matter how you swing your hammer. Check it out. This movie gets a solid A.
Chick Flick 005 - Valentine’s Day:
I’ve been meaning to check this movie out for a while. Unfortunately, my schedule had been quite busy. After it cleared up, I found myself with the free time to watch it; however, I heard mixed things about this movie, and felt reluctant to watch it. I finally found the time and the motivation to watch it, and you know what? I wasn’t disappointed.
Valentine’s Day is a romantic comedy that focuses on several people’s lives that seem to intertwine ala Love, Actually. It was directed by Garry Marshall who, if you’re not familiar with his work, directed Pretty Woman. The movie includes a big lavish cast, with which I guessed the production spent most of the money securing. It includes Ashton Kutcher, Jamie Foxx, Jessica Biel, Jennifer Garner, and a whole lot more.
The cast is used to be the movie’s biggest selling point; however, it is also the biggest flaw. There are too many characters for just a two hour movie. There are some characters that hold little to no relevance. For example, the Taylors (Taylor Swift and Taylor Wolfman Twilight); although provide some funny moments, are completely irrelevant to the plot, and really did not need to be included. The funniest and my personal favorite character has to go to Anne Hathaway’s, who plays a woman who is secretly a phone sex girl. Her different accents frequently had my laughing.
I was left kind of unimpressed with this movie until the end - the end completely sold it. Sure, it had some predictable endings with the characters, but those were some of my favorites. The best ending, which almost left me in tears, was the one involving Hector Elizondo and Shirley MacLaine’s characters reuniting and forgiving each other. What can I say, I’m a softy.
In conclusion, no this movie is not the best romantic comedy; in fact, far from it. The high grade I’m going to give it relates more to my own love of this type of formula movie. Hell, if you can’t be nice and romantic with your movies, how can you expect to be nice and romantic to another person? B.
Chick Flick 004 - Dear John:
It has been a good long while since I’ve updated this blog. Much of this had to do with my schedule for finals, but it also had to do with my less than zellar attitude towards anything romantic as of late. When I’m fighting tooth and nail to make grades, for some reason, I could care less about any romantic scene that has been played out a billion times, yet I still love watching. Also, some real world romantic issues made me overly jaded, and simply made me unable to stomach these movies. That time, thankfully, has passed, and here we are: summer has begun and I’m feeling rather romantic again. It’s as good of time as ever to start again with this blog.
I was in a bit of a rush to pick a movie. I had a dinner engagement and did not have as much time as I would of wanted to digest a movie. I was planning on watching “Valentine’s Day;” however, I had to reschedule watching that since it is over two hours long. I flipped through all the available movies and came to “Dear John,” which clocked in at the affordable hour and a half mark. I did not hear particularly good things about this movie, and I don’t particularly like Nicholas Sparks’ movie remakes; however, I just have a soft spot for young people in love, and could not pass it up.
“Dear John” is an adaptation of Nicholas Sparks’ novel that shows the epic and endearing love story of two people with literally worlds and war between them. It follows their story for seven years, depicting the ever challenging struggle that is love. I was not familiar with the director, who’s first name is Lasse, by the way. I asked him what his credentials were, and after we saved Old Man Witherly from the well, he told me that they were mostly Swedish films. Since I had no idea who the director was, I looked up Jamie Linden who wrote the screenplay. Jamie wrote “We Are Marshall” which actually may be the only football drama I did not like. So far, I was not very ecstatic for this movie.
Let me just get this out of the way now: the acting in this movie is terrible. I know I should not have expected much, as movies such as these tend to serve actors who are more pleasing to the eye than to the ear and brain. Channing Tatum, although a very nice looking man, has the acting versatility of a bed post in this movie. Kudos to him for trying a different role; however, he came up very short in this movie; although, I will give him credit, the particular scene when he was reading a note he wrote to his father while visiting him in the hospital had me very choked up.
I would like to point out the movie’s bright spots, but honestly, they are few and far between. I honestly loved the story of Tatum’s character, John Tyree, and his relationship with his father more than the actual love story. Maybe it is because I relate more to the disconnect between father and son. Maybe it’s because it just seemed more interesting. Who knows? The story between Tyree and his love interest, Savannah Curtis played by Amanda Seyfried, is not developed extensively enough. I know it’s hypocritical of me to say this since I passed on a movie that was two hours long, but Dear John would of benefited from a little more detail. The sense of time is completely lost in this movie, and even through the reading of letters, I could not grasp that a long period of time has passed. Only when they plainly tell me was I able to decipher what year it was.
The worst thing about this movie is that it is missing the one thing thing that all Nicholas Sparks’ movies are well known for. Although I may not be a fan of all the movies, they all seem to show some sort of genuine moment of love. I don’t want to say they define love in the movies; however, they do a good job of developing a love story between the characters. In Dear John, it seems so rush that the love between the characters seems shallow. I could not relate to the characters, could not relate to the love story, and was checking the time to see how much of the movie was left. The love story only seems deemable if you are a fifteen year old girl, and if you are dating a fifteen year old girl, what the hell are you doing reading my blog? This movie get’s a C-
Chick Flick 003 - Paper Heart:
This is what I tend to do when I try to complete my papers ahead of time; I lose focus and start watching movies instead of doing work. Today was no exception. Even though I promised myself I would at least START my paper for Greek Art and Architecture, I found myself scrolling through the On Demand movies while hanging out with Brooke. She couldn’t partake in the viewing of Paper Heart, as she is a good student and can do work ahead of time.
Paper Heart is a self described “hybrid documentary,” meaning that it is a mix of fictional and nonfictional elements. This may not appeal to many of you; however, the English Literature major that I am found his heart skipping at the very thought of this movie. I can imagine all the post modern meta-fiction nerds I’m forced to associate myself with (students, teachers - you know… the usual) having long discussions about untrustworthy narrators and the author placing himself in his own story. The movie follows Charlyne Yi in her personal quest to find a definition for love, as well as discovering if she is capable of feeling sentimental towards another person. It is in her belief that true love does no exist, and the movie escalates to show her dropping her guard and testing her own beliefs with her romantic interest, Michael Cera.
Now, you may be asking yourself, who the hell is Charlyne Yi, and why does she get her own movie? She had a very minimal role in Knocked Up (bearded guy’s girlfriend), but other than that, I wasn’t very familiar with her work. What this movie shows is a completely adorable girl who I’m sure every shallow guy who has grand thoughts of his taste being “deep” will have a crush on her. Yes gentlemen, soon you will be envisioning going on a date with Charlyne, probably some sort of picnic. Let me guess, she’s wearing a dress, you a button up, you’re listening to 80s British pop or 90s emo - really original. Taste aside, yes, she is adorable. The same reason why women find Michael Cera attractive, that charming awkwardness, is present with Charlyne, and it is difficult to hold a grudge against her.
The term “cute” does not only apply to the main character, for it is almost in overcapacity in this movie. From the paper cut out re-enactments to the people interviewed, this movie is just adorable. It is the true definition of a feel good movie. There is no way you will sit through the ending without a smile on your face. It has all the charm in the world. It is a short movie, just under 90 minutes; however, the short length seems appropriate for it. Nothing is worse than a movie that is extended in order to fit some sort of Hollywood criteria of normalcy. This movie strays away from the sheep, and has a noticeable uneasy going, meaning it does not follow the usual ebb and flow of a romantic comedy.
Now, the ever important question: will the boyfriend who takes his girlfriend enjoy this movie? If you’re a typical guy, probably not. If you enjoy general romanticism and adorable things, check it out. I enjoyed this movie. B+
Chick Flick 002 - Up in the Air:
Sometimes, I find myself praying to George Clooney’s charm. In these times of economic instability, high unemployment rates, maniacs, drug dealers creeping closer and closer towards my neighborhood, it stands as the lone consistency in a world that seems to be going to hell. Just think about it… has George Clooney’s charm ever let you down? It’s not obnoxious. The man is older, and shows it in his salt and pepper hair and laugh lines; however, his charm has not aged. It’s almost infallible. And unlike SOME infallible beings, it doesn’t judge you, it doesn’t condemn you, it won’t send you to a fiery eternity filled with Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay movies. It just is. Always was. Always will be.
Getting back on point, I watched “Up in the Air” after several friends with moderately good taste suggested it. This movie was written and directed by a personal favorite of mine, Jason Reitman. He wrote and directed “Thank You for Smoking” and directed “Juno” as well. My expectations were set pretty high for this. It stars the aforementioned George Clooney as super nihilist “Ryan Bingham” in his quest for a relation-less existence. He is a mercenary of sorts - hired by other companies to give the news to laid off workers that they have been fired and to help council them through this rough time. He keeps his bag light of worldly possessions and human relationships, and loves to live his this way. He enjoys his self involved world until newly hired Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) threatens to ground him through her innovation of the internet. He then takes her on call with him so she can grasp how difficult his job is to do in person, let alone online. During this journey, Bingham discovers the true value of people and discovers the need for someone romantically (Vera Farmiga).
This movie did not have many downsides. It’s a crisp one hour and forty five minutes long. It’s hard to say if the acting was well played or not because Clooney doesn’t really step out of his element in this character. For some reason, I have no trouble believing George Clooney as a self-absorbed nihilist uncaring of his family, friends, or relationships. If I’m wrong, then he truly is just a gifted actor. Anna Kendrick, whom I’ve never heard of or seen prior to this, was well suited for this role and did an OK job. Something just didn’t sell her as much as the other characters for me. But other than that, no complaints.
The movie is packed with wit. It’s so jammed pack with intellectually humorous nuggets, that you might not be able to catch all of them until you watch it a second time, as the residue of the first experience will still be fresh on your skin, and will give you the chance to chuckle at some other nonsensical jab Clooney makes. This movie is very deep and will keep your mind off the clock and focused on the screen. The movie is almost two different acts and both of them are equally entertaining as they are depressing. That’s right everybody, this movie is not for the light of heart. I will admit, the idea of Clooney’s revelation of love left me holding some tears in. Gentlemen: if you are like me and find yourself getting a heavy lump from movies like this, you may want to scope it out before you take a date on it. Crying on a date is just plain awkward.
In conclusion, Up in the Air delivered on all the hype and expectations I had for it. The ending, I would say, is neither happy nor terrible depressing, almost a numbing apathetic feeling - which I feel is completely necessary and fitting for Ryan Bingham. I’ll give this movie an A.
Chick Flick 001: Julie and Julia -
Before I get to the bread and butter (you see the food pun I just made) for this movie, I feel the need to say that I did have immense expectations for “Julie and Julia.” Nora Ephron wrote and directed this movie. She wrote one of my favorite romantic comedies in “When Harry Met Sally” and worked on the screenplay for “Sleepless in Seattle” which is my mom’s favorite movie (don’t ask why I know this). I saw the trailer for Julie and Julia and knew that I had to find an excuse to see this movie. Unfortunately, I did not have an opportunity to until tonight.
Comcast On Demand proves to be my greatest friend on these lonely lonely days. I was spending some time with my friend and notorious ex girlfriend Brooke. The relationship is a bit weird to explain, so quite simply, she is helping me exercise to get into better shape. I guess when I’m in better shape she can have a better answer for when her friends ask her “why did you date him?” We went on a short bike ride, and then went back to her house to chill. I brought a change of clothes to change into, so I decided to take a shower. When I got out, she asked if I wanted to watch a movie. I have a bunch of work to do this week for school; however, some higher power (whether it’s god or those things above her nose… what’s that called? Her beautiful eyes?) made me stay. We looked through the list of movies and saw “Julie and Julia” and I stood up in excitement and asked her to put it on.
Personal background aside, this movie was pretty satisfactory. If you don’t know what the movie is about, a New York wife (Julie) attempts to find meaning in the day to day by cooking through Julia Child’s cookbook in a year and bloooooooooooooog about it. Throughout this journey, she grows closer with husband as he is very supportive of her search for meaning, she grows farther from her husband when they fight when it becomes an obsession. Her story intertwines with Julia Child’s journey of becoming a cook and becoming published. Not reinventing the wheel, but I’m not saying this in a negative light.
The duel storyline was interesting enough to keep me entertained through, what seemed to be, a forced two hour movie. The only other complaint I would have is that the movie rested too hard on Meryl Streep. During the two intertwining storyline, the time between Meryl Streep’s Julia and Amy Adam’s Julie seemed a bit off balanced. The movie begins and ends with Meryl Streep, and while Amy Adam’s acting was not off putting, it clearly wasn’t strong enough for the movie executives to let her play the lead, as she should have been.
As mentioned before, this movie is two hours long; however, you really begin to feel how long it is. I’m not sure if it was because it was starting to get late or just the movie seemed to drag a little too long, but I really started looking towards the clock more towards the end of the movie. I started to notice Brooke nodding off and watched happily as her head slowly wilted on my shoulder during her slumber. I let her rest there for the remainder of the movie, and even put my arm around her in order for her to be more comfortable. Her gentle but noticeable breathing was enough to put me in a very good place.
After I refocused, I did enjoy the end of the movie. It doesn’t provide a “happily ever after” ending I anticipated, but a more realistic, yet still fulfilling ending. I’m not providing spoilers; however, this movie is best described as satisfying. It didn’t blow me away; however, it did provide me enough pleasure to keep me interested in the characters. I did not read the preceding book, but am now interested in doing so. If you have a girlfriend and want to take her to see something for her, but make it seem like it was your idea, so she thinks you care about her: rent this movie. I ended the night fulfilled, rested Brooke on her couch, kissed her on her forehead, and went back home enjoying the night. I’ll give this movie a B.
