Silver Linings Playbook

I spent a lot of time at the movie theater this weekend. I work at one now and get to see movies for free! Friday and Saturday I was tearing tickets and working with all things popcorn, sweeping it, "slinging" it during busy concession times, and then scrubbing the maker at the end of the night.

Today I ate some while watching "Silver Linings Playbook" with my sis, and did I mention it was free? 

Okay, down to business. With all the buzz about SLP it has been on the top of my list of films to see. It was hard to pick just one, but with the Golden Globes a couple of a weeks away and the Oscars not far behind, I will focus on the films with nominations.

Bradley Cooper, co-starring with Jennifer Lawrence, has nods already for acting that I am sure will carry on to the Oscars. Lawrence, as young widow Tiffany, also is nominated for a best actress Golden Globe. 

The David O. Russell ("The Fighter") project is also in the running for best picture and screenplay. 

Cooper steps up his acting as Pat Solatano, a school teacher recovering from a betrayal in his marriage and resulting fight with his wife's lover that sent him on a court-ordered trip to a mental hospital. 

His father is Pat Sr. (Robert DeNiro) and balancing-act mother is Dolores (Jacki Weaver). 

Lawrence's character is thrown in the mix pretty early in the film after Dolores works out a way for Pat to be released from the hospital and live at their home in Philadelphia again. 

It's a relatively simple plot, but with complex characters. David O. Russell throws the viewer right into the story and it's (unnecessarily, I think) fast-moving. 

Because of that and the shift in focus from the Solatano's family dynamic to sports to romance to Pat's struggles with his past, I sometimes couldn't tell what genre the film is supposed to be in. 

It's not a drama for the most part and Zach Baron on Grantland described it as a "romantic comedy."

He also says it's a sports movie, but not really a sports movie. At least it wasn't another "Moneyball."

Baron's statement below put together the missing pieces I needed and made me feel a little bit better about not quite "getting" the film's messages:

"The ways in which Pat, in his pitiable mix of out-of-control rage and deranged optimism, is a product of his struggling underdog city and the maddening football franchise that it hosts will probably be obvious to most readers of this site and lost on a solid percentage of non-sports fans who go see the movie. You have to know Philly, know the Eagles to really get it, how each of these characters is simultaneously badly scarred and up for more punishment. Silver Linings Playbook is a few different movies at once, but one of those movies is about the complicated interplay between a city's sports teams and a city's citizens, the way that over time the two start resembling one another."

I can see how the average viewer may miss some of the Philadelphia references and connections to the plot, unless they read about the film or the novel in advance, but it's good to know I wasn't the only one who saw several movies in one. 

Overall, I enjoyed the scenes where everything and everyone slowed down a bit. Tiffany and Pat had the most heart-to-hearts, and Pat Sr. comes in the mix there too. Chris Tucker, as Pat's buddy from the hospital, was a key sidekick character. DeNiro and Weaver had good chemistry on-screen and their acting was the most polished. 

Cooper will get there as long as he continues to choose his roles wisely.

I haven't seen enough of the other award contenders to say if I think "Silver Linings Playbook" is the best movie of the year, but it should be on the list. I also feel like it would be exciting for Cooper and the film to win in their categories now because they may be underdogs when the popularity contest Oscars are on in February.

Next up: "Django Unchained."

Happy New Year!!!!!

Safety Not Guaranteed

"Safety Not Guaranteed" is a shining example of why I looooooovee mooooovies. Time travel back to 2001? Why not? Fake ears? Sure. Aubrey Plaza and Mark Duplass as a couple? Yes please.

It's one of those films that lets you escape from life for 90 minutes and come out of it feeling a whole lot better. No worrying about how I am going to shovel my car out of 15 inches of snow tomorrow in order to drive to the office for at least a 10 hour work day.

But it would all be better if when I got there I came across a classified ad from a man seeking a partner to time travel with and my editor allowed me to go on a road trip with coworkers to get the story. 

That's the premise of "Safety Not Guaranteed," written by Derek Connolly and directed by Colin Trevorrow. The cast also includes Jake Johnson ("The New Girl"), Karan Soni, Jeff Garlin, Kristen Bell and Mary Lynn Rajskub.

Darius (Plaza), Jeff (Johnson) and Arnau (Soni) are given the O.K. by their Seattle magazine editor to pursue the time travel story and find out who placed the ad. 

Their journey results in self discovery for everyone, including Kenneth (Duplass) who has the time travel mission. 

Kenneth doesn't take well to having Jeff as his partner, but Darius connects with him and is chosen to go along after extensive training.

There is something mysterious about Kenneth and Darius and her team can't figure out if he's crazy or actually able to build a time machine.

The question also is why does he want to go back in time? Why does Darius want to go with him?

Why would anybody want to go back in time? To do things over again and right the wrongs of your past, of course. Maybe there is someone you would never have the opportunity to see again without hopping in a time machine with a slightly off, but cute and endearing fellow. 

You won't know unless you try and unless you watch this movie. Like now!

It's smart, romantic, and unique in its story. If I have to watch a film with any science fiction in it (while I did really like "Looper") this would be my choice. 

"Safety Not Guaranteed" makes time travel as a metaphor for taking risks in life to find what makes you happy. I like, of course, that everyone wins out in the end and it's all happy happy happy. 

So the only choice you need to make is to watch this movie, and hopefully I've convinced you. 

Now, back to reality. There are at least two cars stuck in the parking lot of my apartment building right now and I've been listening to the sounds of tires spinning and shoveling all day. It's gotten so bad that my neighbors are cursing the landlord for not having the driveway plowed.

I am going to time travel to last year's winter when this didn't happen. Over and Out.

Killing Them Softly

Wait a minute, "Killing Them Softly" is based on a novel? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I am not saying that is a bad thing, but I wish I would have known this fact before seeing the film.
I am listening to a Grantland Hollywood Prospectus podcast about it now and have at least two bookmarks online to read about the mob caper set in time with Barack Obama's 2008 election and a financial crisis in the United States.
Writer and director Andrew Dominik uses audio and video of speeches by Obama and George W. Bush talking about the crisis throughout the film. Without reading the book I am not exactly sure what to make of the commentary, but basically the same political dilemmas happening in the United States are playing out in the world of hit men like Brad Pitt and James Gandolfini.
Pitt, as Jackie, is the enforcer sent to take out "kids" who step into business they shouldn't be in. The "kids" Frankie (Scoot McNairy of "Argo") and Russell (Ben Mendelsohn) hold up a card game run by Markie (Ray Liotta) thinking he will be blamed for it.
The same thing happened years back at one of Markie's games and no one ever knew who did it. There was the theory that Markie set up a robbery of his own game thinking he would never get caught.
Honestly, I don't know if I am spot on with the plot here, but I did get that much from the beginning of the film. Without throwing in any spoilers, it is best to just leave it at that.
While Jackie is the enforcer on the killing side of things Richard Jenkins, known as Driver, seems to be a kingpin on the business end.
Jackie calls in Mickey (James Gandolfini) when he gets a job tied into the robbed card game but it turns out he has to do it all on his own. Mickey is washed up and on probation and more interested in drinking and girls than doing the work.
When it comes down to it, Jackie is working like the rest of America and wants to be paid what he deserves.  It all comes full circle in his end monologue about capitalism with Driver in a bar as yet another Barack Obama snippet airs on the television.
Again I will say I didn't quite get the purpose of the commentary - not ever thinking it was unnecessary - and  decided just to take it out of the equation when deciding whether I liked the film or not.
It didn't really matter when I considered factors such as the acting, writing and visuals.
For me, Pitt made the film anyway in his performance as Jackie. As a fan of Jenkins, his role sweetened the deal for me. Overall the cast is well-rounded with Gandolfini, Vincent Curatola (also of"The Sopranos" fame as Johnny Sacramoni), and even Max Casella from none other than "Doogie Howser."
I've also decided to follow Scoot McNairy more closely now. He's got a long resume, but clearly is in the limelight more now having three big titles out this year. I know I'll be seeing his next film, "Promised Land" by Gus Van Sant and of course starring Matt Damon.
Okay I think I've digressed enough now.
I've come to the conclusion that "Killing Them Softly" is a strong film for the acting and I think it's very unique, love it or hate it.
I think it will definitely be one way or the other for audiences who choose to see it. Just please don't bring your kids, which happened during the showing I went to. This movie is very violent and I don't know what about the word "killing" in the title is not clear enough to show that.
Which does bring me to my one definite complaint about the film. I am a bit squeamish about violence so the realistic and tortuous scenes as the victim awaited his unavoidable death were hard for me to watch. There were also scenes where the violence is depicted off screen with hints to the viewer like blood splatter or gunshots. I thought both types of scenes fit in with the film artistically, but then I was lost when effects that looked more like a video game came into play.
I would have preferred the more realistic scenes - even if I had to look away half the time - but the filmmakers should have just picked one way or the other instead of mixing up the effects styles.
I will add "Killing Them Softly" to my list to see again and try to take more away from the meaning.
Heck, maybe I'll even read that book when I finish the four others I am in the middle of.
Any weekend is a good movie weekend, but with the snowpocalypse rumors flying around again in Minneapolis, maybe you'll want to stay in.
If you have cable, I see the Ken Burns documentary "Central Park Five" is available now as well as "Beasts of a Southern Wild."
Both are on my list, but I am going to try to venture out for a ladies night and a few cocktails tonight if the world doesn't end.
Then tomorrow - MOVIES!

"A Late Quartet"

Despite the complexity of the characters and Beethoven's Opus 131, "A Late Quartet", is a simple film. You can watch, take in the music and understand the struggles of the quartet members all while looking at snapshots of a New York City winter.
Christopher Walken plays the eldest member and cellist in the quartet, Peter Mitchell. He helped raise Juliette Gelbart, the violist played by Catherine Keener. Philip Seymour Hoffman is Juliette's husband Robert, and plays the role of second violin. The dark horse, while he has long-time ties to the rest of the quartet, is Daniel Lerner (Mark Ivanir) on first violin.
At the start of the film the quartet is embarking on its 25th season performing together, primarily in New York City. Mitchell then receives the news he is diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease, which is devastating to the rest of the quartet, especially Juliette.
The diagnosis serves to push the emotions, and in some cases impulses, everyone in the quartet has over the edge.
They're like a family, which director Yaron Zilberman says in a Los Angeles Times interview is not all that uncommon for an orchestra quartet.
Zilberman sets the film against the backdrop of the Opus 131, which is said to be one of the most challenging pieces for a quartet to play.
As Mitchell describes to a class of young orchestra hopefuls, it is seven connected movements that are to be played without pause. The players cannot rest, or tune their instruments. "Our instruments must in time go out of tune, each in its own quite different way," Mitchell says.
He talks to the class reading a poem, "Four Quartets," by T.S. Eliot.
"Was he maybe trying to point out some cohesion, some unity between randoms act of life?" Mitchell continues: "What are we supposed to do, stop or struggle to continuously adjust to each other up to the end even if we are out of tune?"
The struggles are Mitchell's illness, of course, but also lies, infidelity and ego between four people with a passion for music.
The Gelbarts' grown daughter Alexandra - also a musician - is a fifth to the quartet in a way. She is in Mitchell's class and also taught by Lerner. I think she struggles to know if she should be a musician just because her parents are and to have her own identity.
At times, though it was minimal in the scheme of the whole film, I think the strife between the characters was taken too far and at others not far enough.
The relationship between Juliette and Robert has the most strain, and love as we learn in the end, and I think that story needed to be the focus just a little bit more.
It's hardly a flaw of the film, especially with the cast assigned to play out these roles. A lot of Robert's struggle is tied to being second violin - both literally and in his relationship with Juliette - and I think Hoffman did the best standing out in his role.
Walken plays the subdued personality of Mitchell - despite his struggle perhaps being the worst of them all -  perfectly to balance the clash between Juliette, Robert, Daniel and even Alexandra.
Mitchell does break at one point, requiring Walken to escalate a bit, which he also does perfectly.
When the strife between the quartet - with Alexandra in the mix - goes too far it is mostly with her character.
But that's nothing negative about Poots' performance. If nothing else, I hope there are some acting nominations from this film when the big award season hits.
The script is deserving of recognition too with its seamless style following the continuity required in Beethoven's Opus 131. There are times when the focus is on one character more than the other, but Zilberman and co-writer Seth Grossman bring all the parts together for closure in the end.
Viewers can take away as little or as much as they want from "A Late Quartet," even just by listening to it in the background.
It reminds me of one of my favorite films, "Lost in Translation," in that regard.
As with most movies, I recommend giving "A Late Quartet" a try.
However, I do suggest watching it at home. You can crank up the volume, which was a big problem in the theater my sister and I went to, and not deal with the annoyances of the audience around you.
Bravo, I say, Bravo!

Looper

Slate.com

"How's your French? Slow."
"How's the coffee? Burnt."

There are so many good lines in "Looper" but, for some reason, I remember that one between waitress Beatrix and Joe.
First things first, I really do need to see this movie again.
I was finally able to listen to the Hollywood Prospectus podcast about the movie, which I knew there would be spoilers in, and Andy Greenwald dropped a very interesting Easter Egg that he thought he saw during an early scene.
How did I not see that? This movie better be playing at the budget theater, stat. That's not to say it wouldn't be worth paying full price, even twice in a row, but who can really afford that? Not me.
Luckily I have enough thrill from the film's magic and plot to analyze for a while.
I was expecting an action flick with a time-travel theme and for it to definitely be good. I love "Brick" by writer/director Rian Johnson and his episodes of Breaking Bad so I just knew I was in for a treat.
But it's so much more. The visual effects, the wit, the mystery, Emily Blunt, Old Joe, Young Joe, Jeff Daniels, and a kid that can be cute and creepy at the same time.
Basically, the plot you need to know is listed on sites like IMDB:

"In 2074, when the mob wants to get rid of someone, the target is sent 30 years into the past, where a hired gun awaits. Someone like Joe, who one day learns the mob wants to 'close the loop' by transporting back Joe's future self."

Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt with a fake nose) is the Looper who eventually encounters his future self to close out his career and move to France. The nose is to make Joe look like Bruce Willis/Old Joe.
It works once you get used to looking at it, but still never really made a match between the two actors for me. Maybe it was the eyebrows.
Gordon-Levitt's performance, along with Emily Blunt's and Daniels' stood out in the film. Johnson made some smart casting choices. One shortcoming, while I can't think of another actor who could have played Willis' role, is I feel like I've seen his performance before in other films.
Once Joe and Old Joe have their first encounter, the film is a chase through time that challenges two versions of the same person against each other. It's an internal battle as much as it is an external battle with people who control the Loopers closing in as they try to fix everything the way they want it.
Joe, at least initially, wants his silver and the next 30 years of his life after closing the loop. Old Joe is not ready to let go yet and has some unfinished business.
What is at risk is what stands between him and his younger self and people who Joe has developed relationships with in his life outside of being a hitman. Or, he could develop relationships with them in the future.
Joe (the younger one) I think, is ultimately in control. He just has to decide what he is willing to give up in the present at the risk of ruining his future plan.
There is some confusion in the plot, as can be expected with any futuristic story that explores time travel, , but Johnson brings it full circle.
I didn't know how long "Looper" would last in the theater, not because it's a bad movie, but because people who don't absolutely love science fiction, someone in the cast or the director may not give it a chance.
Now having seen it I recommend people -- no matter what your taste in movies is -- take that chance.
Johnson has managed to take a film with so many components and genre samples and make it for a universal audience.
I am feeding off the Hollywood Prospectus podcast again here, but I do need to stress how Emily Blunt's performance really took the film to another level. It was the component to the film that, I think, makes it accessible for everyone to have a benefit in their viewing experience.
I've liked all of Blunt's roles, but this one will push her more into leading lady territory.
Johnson clearly has it together when in charge of a script and behind the camera and I also want to see more from him. He doesn't appear to have any titles on the way, but that's okay with me. "Looper" is worth a second, and maybe even third look.

Argo

Hey! I'm back!
I've missed my blog and going to the movies, and I really have no excuse for falling behind. I paid the price in having to choose from all the movies out there I want to see right now, like right this second, like all in one day.
"Looper," "Seven Psychopaths," and yes, I admit, "Pitch Perfect" are all on my list. And that's not including the fare at the budget theater I didn't make it to the first time around. There is "Lawless" and maybe "The Bourne Legacy." Sadly "Beasts of a Southern Wild" escaped before I could see that one in the theater.
But, all that is okay because I am very happy with my choice today: "Argo."
I am still a little on edge because of it, but in a very good way. Ben Affleck's done it again. He's got it down when it comes to turning true events, lives and cities into a film as a star, director and producer.
This time he chose the Iran hostage crisis from 1980 and focusing on the rescue of six U.S. embassy workers who escape when the building is raided. They take refuge in the home of the Canadian ambassador, waiting for their way out.
Meanwhile, moving from the end of the 1970s into 1980, the CIA is trying to devise a solution that will safely bring one man, Tony Mendez, in and out of the tumultuous country with six hostages on his arm.
Mendez, lauded by the CIA and government for his mission, staged the production of a movie and pretended the six Americans were his crew. It all happened in two days as the Iranian people were starting to learn there were six people who escaped from the embassy, who they were, and where they were hiding.
That was the intense part that literally made my hands shake during the movie. But there was some relief from those tense moments too. Affleck had the opportunity to mix in some dark humor as John Goodman (John Chambers) and Alan Arkin (Lester Siegel) helped Mendez navigate making a fake science fiction movie seem realistic for the reason to ensure security in the world and the reputation of the CIA.
I wondered how Affleck decided what the balance would be between the two very closely-knit story lines and how to break down a worldwide crisis into two hours. I have read about some criticism of the film's inclusion of all the history, but I still think Affleck's storytelling is effective and true of heart.
Overall, I don't really think there is a target audience for "Argo."
"Looper" may draw in more science fiction fans and those who are intrigued by the film because Joseph Gordon-Levitt is in it (me).
Surely "Pitch Perfect" is marketed to the ladies, but it was actually Andy Greenwald who I heard rave about that movie.
So, if you find yourself in a dilemma of what to see at the multiplex, try "Argo."
Ben Affleck wasn't always one of my favorite actors but he is growing on me, especially when he pulls off a triple threat like this film or "The Town."
I enjoy his casting choices too and familiar faces showing up in his films. Take one of the hostages, Lee Schatz, for example. Who is he? None other than Lucas from "Empire Records."
That's a fun fact (at least for me)  totally unrelated to "Argo," but it goes back to Affleck's smart choices down to roles for key players and extras.
I would only make one request, and maybe it's a risk of "too much of a good thing," but I think it would be really interesting to see Affleck and Matt Damon work together again. It would have to be the absolute right movie but based on what I've seen and their choices of late, it can be done.

The Emmys

I haven't seen any movies lately, so how about those Emmys? What would happen if Jesse Pinkman were real and he actually received one of those heavy gold statues?
It was hard not to see some of how I imagine the "Breaking Bad" character would react on Aaron Paul's face when his name was announced last night in the supporting actor category. The man behind the mask of Jesse is much more classy (he did not shout "yeah bitches!" as I would have hoped) but in some way the accomplishment, even the second time around, seemed to mean as much to Paul as it would for Mr. Pinkman to have his wildest dream come true.

Maybe it would be to actually be respected by Mr. White instead of being called ridiculous, or have a career as an artist (I am watching season one again right now). I digress a little, but my point is that Paul's look and speech were my favorite moments of the Emmys. I didn't catch it right away, but my second favorite clip from the show is the moment between Paul and runner-up in the category, Giancarlo Esposito (Gus on Breaking Bad.)
It's nice that the Emmys is the kind of show you can watch while working, in my case on a last minute story to turn in Monday morning, and know when to turn your attention to the tube.
I did see the intro with Jimmy Kimmel and some of my favorite actresses in the bathroom, and it was funny, but once the late-night host got on stage his performance was just so-so and the presenters had more wit in their lines.
Steve Buscemi should have threatened Kimmel with a trip to the wood chipper for the joke about his weight, but whatever.

My other highlights were Julia Louis-Dreyfus' win for her role in "Veep" and the nods to Louis C.K. I think the lead comedy actress category had some of the toughest competitors this year, and I am happy "Elaine" took the statue home.
"Girls," both in the acting of Lena Dunham and as a comedy series, didn't get anything this year but I think the show will get its much-deserved award attention one day.
There are some shows, however, with moments in the limelight that may have passed. Mad Men, with 17 nominations last night, did not receive any awards.
It's not like the ad-agency drama over at AMC has an empty shelf collecting dust, but it is a little bit surprising an Emmy from 2012 won't be there.
I think the loss for Jon Hamm in lead acting, and for the series in best drama, is mainly because of the new kids on the block and a little bit about the most recent season of the show.
"Homeland" is the new kid taking home the actor and actress and best drama awards, and "Mad Men's" hiatus of more than a year between seasons four and five is perhaps equal to the popular jock the majority of people don't think is cool anymore.
I am not one of that majority, as I thoroughly enjoyed season five, but it may have been the one misstep for "Mad Men" and the television academy saw something better.
I can't argue one way or another about "Homeland" because I haven't seen it yet, but it is definitely on my short list. "Mad Men" will bounce back in its final two seasons, I think. It will be interesting to see if the academy then renews its faith in the show, but from now on I don't think winning is everything for "Mad Men."
Apparently it is for "Modern Family."
Eric Stonestreet, one of four actors from the ABC sitcom in the comedy acting category, and Julie Bowen earned awards and the show also won the best comedy series nod.
Enough already. I have liked the show overall, although I did not finish last season, but it's just too predictable now on all accounts.

I tuned out the Emmys' miniseries and reality-show categories, that is until Tom Berenger showed up on stage. No offense, but Jake Taylor is not looking so good these days.
But he is still in the acting game, apparently, with his winning role on the "Hatfields & McCoys." The miniseries earned several nominations and another win by Kevin Costner.
Looking at the full list of Emmy nominees and winners, it is obvious I haven't seen a majority of the good, bad and the ugly shows and performances on it. But now I know what to add to my list ("Boardwalk Empire" or "The Good Wife," for example) and what future award hopefuls to continue watching.
From here I'll turn my thoughts to Andy Greenwald's recap. It's what I would strive to say if I could land a job watching television and movies and writing about them.

Sleepwalk With Me

Mike Birbiglia.

I've learned to accept my flaws, or at least one of them, of late. I can prepare all I want to, but if I have the opportunity to speak to someone I admire and there is a big group of people there as well, it's just not going to happen. Words have yet to be exchanged between myself and Anthony Bourdain, David Carr and now Mike Birbiglia because of it.
For my job, while I do have to prepare and sometimes work up the confidence to do it, I can ask the important questions. Unfortunately none of the aforementioned superstars (in my book) have been at events I need to cover for work.
But just listening to what they have to say is enough for me. I actually just became a fan of Mike Birbiglia with all the buzz about his movie "Sleepwalk With Me." And, through my extensive research in the last week or so, I found out he would be doing a Q&A at the Uptown Theater during its grand opening weekend.

Uptown Theater.

The theater was renovated during the last year, thank goodness, and opened to sold out shows of Birbiglia's film based on his off-Broadway show of the same name. He wrote the screenplay with Ira Glass (This American Life), Joe Birbiglia (brother), and Seth Barrish, who also co-directed the film. Birbiglia starred in the film alongside Lauren Ambrose, Carol Kane, James Rebhorn, and comedians Kristen Schaal, David Wain and Marc Maron.
Due to my shyness I won't know why he acted in the film as the character Matt Pandamiglio, although it is pretty funny name, instead of just using his own.
That just doesn't fit because the film portrays such a personal story about Birbiglia's relationship with his girlfriend Abby (played by Ambrose), the start of his career as a comedian, and his sleepwalking disorder.
But I can't even complain about that because I loved, loved, loved this movie so much.
Birbiglia breaks up the story with his narration and commentary, which gives the viewer a real understanding of what he was going through.
I wouldn't go so far as to say I could relate to him, but that's not a bad thing, it's just a sign of how personal the story is. And I admire Birbiglia for that. It's one thing to do a comedy show about something where, even if everyone in the audience is not a fan, most of them probably bought tickets knowing what they were getting into.
Films go out to mass audiences, such as the parents of a film student sitting next to me, or a 12-year-old boy the next row over (who did have the guts to ask Birbiglia a question, sigh).
I wanted to ask Birbiglia, if for that reason, was it difficult to decide to make a film about a personal story versus a fictional piece?
But, because I'm a chicken, I'll just have to assume Birbiglia was meant to make this movie, not something else.
The 12-year-old boy asked Birbiglia if he had a problem with sleepwalking as a kid. Others in the audience asked what his family thought of the movie and why he decided to narrate the story in the past tense.
He did sleepwalk as a kid, "but not like this," Birbiglia said, and his family liked the film. He said he was nervous about that more than anything else because in the past they have not liked any of his work.
If you want to know more about Birbiglia, I recommend listening to his interviews on "The Nerdist."
He talks there about his now ex-girlfriend's input on the film, the relationship themes it touches on, as well as using truth in comedy.
Comedy is a way for both the performers and audience to laugh about what makes them uncomfortable or tough situations in life, Birbiglia has said (also on The Nerdist).
Birbiglia didn't get any laughs for his jokes about the Cookie Monster, but when he did a bit about not wanting to get married until he was sure nothing else good could happen in his life, audiences started to chuckle.
Since I started following Birbiglia on Twitter and liked him on Facebook, I learned the films "High Fidelity" and "Once" also inspired him in the making of "Sleepwalk With Me" into a movie.
Both those stories are also about the mix of career goals, the obstacles of life, and relationship reality.
As I said before, I admire Birbiglia. Why? Because he put a very personal story out there for mass audiences to critique. Not surprisingly, I have yet to hear anything bad about it.
People coming out of the show as I waited in line were saying, "that was so good" and, "that was awesome." One woman even said it was her second time seeing the film in just two days.
"Sleepwalk With Me" is actually available to order on cable already, but I had to see it in the theater knowing Birbiglia would be there. It was surreal to see him in real life minutes after he was just on film in front of me.
I am hoping he comes back to the Twin Cities on tour. I doubt it will be in the 'burbs where I work, but maybe I'll use my press badge to force myself to speak to him.

Dance Dance Revolution: Step Up and Footloose

I've been on a bit of a Channing Tatum kick lately - which has since turned into the beginnings of a dance movie retrospective. I am not ashamed to admit it started with Step Up and the second showing was Footloose, which I actually had never seen before. I only rented Step Up because of the aforementioned Tatum, but the movie wasn't all that bad. I give it a three on the cheese factor scale. Plus he married his costar, how cute is that?

I actually wasn't even going to write about Step Up, but I found an interesting (at least to me) parallel between the two movies in how they exemplify what my generation and "kids these days" have to choose from at the box office.
It can be dangerous for a product of the 1980s like myself to watch a movie from that era, case in point Footloose, for the first time as an adult. Luckily, Footloose does hold its own and even people who never wore stone-washed jeans and jelly shoes should watch that one and not the remake from last year.
The target audience for the recent version may not even know where the inspiration for Kevin Bacon's role came from, just like I don't even know who the star of it (Kenny Wormald) is.

Maybe I deserve some criticism for not seeing Footloose in its heyday, but in my defense I was only 3 when it actually hit the big screen so it would have been some time before I caught up to it anyway. At 31? Why not?
It's no worse than seeing Step Up at my age. While I enjoyed that movie more than I thought I would, my point is the target audience for Step Up can't appreciate a movie like that as much when they haven't been exposed to classics in the toe-tapping genre.
Channing Tatum will probably have a solid career 30 years from now, but I certainly can't imagine anyone reminiscing about Step Up vs. an iconic movie like Footloose.
Numbers from the box office may prove me wrong someday with Footloose at No. 6 and Step Up at No. 7 among the top grossing dance movies from 1977 until now, but money isn't everything.
Magic Mike is to date the top grossing movie of them all, with Black Swan in second followed by Saturday Night Fever and Flashdance.
Full disclosure, I haven't seen those two movies, yet. But given their staying power on the list I think they will match my theory of living in the best of both worlds with a 1981 birth date.
The wheel is always being reinvented and I don't mind artists who do that because, at least for now, there is also just as much original content out there.
The question is, will it get to the point where it's all been done before and appreciation of the original gets lost?
Maybe this a little bit deep for a post that started out talking about dance movies, but they just made me think about the state of culture and film right now.
Ren McCormack can always lighten things up. "Hey, hey! What's this I see? I thought this was a party. Let's Dance!"
On that note, I only have Staying Alive (after Saturday Night Fever), Flashdance and Fame on my list. Send some recommendations my way, please!

Catching up: The Postman Always Rings Twice, Celeste and Jesse Forever, Bachelorette

Hey there, I'm back and, "I'll take a small steak, two eggs on top, some fries, juice and a side order of toast." I finally watched The Postman Always Rings Twice (1981) after having it for nearly A MONTH from Netflix. I was glued to the screen and the film noir style, but I also found the movie to be very sad.  I can cross it off my Jack Nicholson list and as yet another top performance by him. I haven't seen Jessica Lange in anything other than Tootsie, so it was also enjoyable to watch one of her roles and chemistry with Nicholson on screen.

Once you see the film, the title does make sense. You want the characters, Nicholson's Frank and Lange's Cora, to win out in the end but their past and secrets are never far behind. This 1981 caper is a remake of a classic film and based on a novel. Whichever medium you choose. although I am obviously partial to anything and everything Nicholson, I definitely recommend the film or book.
Moving on, I actually saw two other movies on my list yesterday. It was a rainy day, so why not?
It was tough to choose which one to see but Celeste and Jesse Forever may not be in theaters, well, forever so there I went. I hope it has a long release because just about every 30-something man or woman should see this film.
Rashida Jones (Celeste) and Andy Samberg (Jesse) star as a divorcing couple in their 30s who decide to stay friends during and beyond their separation. I was a fan of Jones before (see Parks and Recreation, I Love You Man and Our Idiot Brother), and now knowing she co-wrote this film appreciate her work even more. At first I thought Samberg was an odd choice and pairing for Jones' character, but the two actors made their relationship and story very believable in this film.
That's perhaps because the story from Jones and Will McCormack (the film's other writer) came from someplace real. Jones and McCormack briefly dated in the 1990s and, while they were not married, tested the concept if ex-lovers can be friends for life.
The film starts at the beginning of Celeste and Jesse's divorce. She owns a home and a car and is focused on her career as a "trend forecaster." Jesse is living in the guest house/studio adjacent to Celeste's and doesn't have a job. The story portrays Jesse as still in love with Celeste, but there is definitely some co-dependence on both sides of their relationship. They both try to move on in their own ways but, several times, come back to each other before they can fully cut the cord of their marriage.
It's by no means a funny story, but I am happy the filmmakers chose to tell it with comedy as the backdrop.
Speaking of comedy, my second choice yesterday was Bachelorette, starring Kirsten Dunst, Isla Fisher and Lizzy Caplan. It's like Bridesmaids but, pun intended, on crack. Chelsea Handler interviewed Isla Fisher on her show last week and said everyone in the movie is a "hot mess." That's about right.
The movie is not in theaters yet, but you can buy it on iTunes or On Demand. The trio of Regan (Dunst), Katie (Fisher), and Gena (Caplan) are in the wedding party of their high school friend Becky (Rebel Wilson).
With their reunion the night before the wedding, it is evident the foursome's friendship has not changed much since high school. They all have their own lives now but still harbor the angst from their teen years. Throw in an equal number of guys from their graduating class, a ruined wedding dress, drugs, alcohol and just the right combination of comedy and realism and, to me, Bachelorette is a must see.
I was happy to see some of the cast of the short-lived show Perfect Couples in the male half of the ensemble cast and Adam Scott and James Marsden alongside the ladies in the film.
Bachelorette caters more to a female audience than to men, but Celeste and Jesse Forever balances that out with a plot both sexes can relate to.
Viewing these two films in one day has maxed out my romantic comedy (although I don't know that's the best genre description here) quota for a while, but I am happy with my choices and recommend the indulgence.
To cap off the weekend Magic Mike is playing at the budget theater and some of my friends haven't seen it yet. I GUESS I'll have to go again.

Take This Waltz

I think in Take This Waltz writer and director Sarah Polley did somehow accomplish what she set out to do ... making a film about emptiness and familiarity vs. passion ... but it just missed the mark for me. I was actually a bit hesitant to watch this movie knowing the subject matter but I did want to give it a try because of the cast, including Michelle Williams, Seth Rogen and Sarah Silverman. That didn't do it for me either.
Williams plays Margot and Seth Rogen is her husband, Lou. Silverman is Geraldine, who I think is on Lou's side of the family. Of all the characters Geraldine is the only one who provides a bit of honesty and realism about herself and the people around her and I did like Silverman's performance.
There is also Luke Kirby who as Daniel brings to light what the characters, mainly Margot, think they're lacking in life.
Daniel is introduced pretty early on in the film, but Polley also spends a good deal of time focusing on the relationship dynamic between Lou and Margot. That focus continues to build throughout the film, but I found the message about their relationship to be inconsistent. Overall, because of Margot's interest in Daniel, I thought it would be that she is clearly the only one unhappy in her marriage to Lou . Sometimes that's the case and she is the bad guy of the two, other times it's Lou and then at times they both seem in love and happy -- but definitely in their own way. Their inside jokes and habits around the house are charming, but I did have a hard time believing it all.
That is actually the main problem I had with this film. If you're going to tell a story that clearly comes from some level of realism and experience, I find that it has to be believable and as a viewer I want to relate to it on some level.
Yes, it's a movie and not actually real, but since Take This Waltz was very stripped down in the way of focusing so heavily on characters' emotions I thought I would be drawn it a bit more and be able to understand where they're coming from. I am normally a fan of Williams and Rogen, but I think in the end they were not right for these roles. It seemed like they were trying too hard, even though Williams mastered the role of a somewhat similar character in Blue Valentine. (See that one, for sure).
Acting aside, I think another important flaw here is the buried message of the film. The contrast between familiarity and passion can be seen in Margot and Lou, but I don't like how Polley avoids having them outwardly acknowledging their problems. I think it's clear to Lou that Margot is interested in Daniel, but he doesn't acknowledge that either. Are they too familiar with each other to care? What does Margot want? Lou, Daniel, or to be alone? The film presents all those questions, but no clear answer.
Of course those answers would be subjective for each viewer, but Polley did not create enough connection with the characters in the film for me to get there.
I enjoyed the cinematography, music and style of the film as well as the overall idea of what the story could be, but all the chapters just did not come together.

Jeff Who Lives At Home

"Everyone and everything is interconnected in this universe.
Stay pure of heart and you will see the signs.
Follow the signs, and you will uncover your destiny."
- Jeff

Who can develop a simple story about the meaning of life in just under an hour-and-a-half? The Duplass brothers, that's who. Maybe you haven't ended up on a soul-searching mission after going out shopping for wood glue, but I think there is an emotion and experience anyone can relate to in Jeff Who Lives at Home.
Jason Segel is Jeff, who lives in his mother's basement and has the responsibility on her birthday to fix a wood shutter on the kitchen cabinet. The project is the start of a long and complicated journey for Jeff to discover his calling in life, but it all comes full circle in the end.
The story itself isn't funny, but the Duplass brothers use humor to tell it and provide a silver lining to the plight of their characters.
It's also interesting how they connect the main characters in the movie, who are all family, through the problems they're experiencing in one day.
The mother Sharon (Susan Sarandon) is at work worrying about Jeff and wishing she was anywhere but there when a secret admirer starts sending her instant messages. Pat, her other son played by Ed Helms, is in a marriage rut he thought would be solved by buying a Porsche.
Pat and Jeff eventually connect during their individual quests that day and I think their closeness as brothers is renewed. For Pat a test to his marriage, not just the Porsche, is a wake up call as is realizing his brother is not just a loser who sits on the couch all day getting high.
All the characters have to search to find their destiny, it just turns out to be closer than they thought.
On the surface it may seem like Jeff Who Lives at Home is a film that follows the overused premise of connecting characters on different paths in their lives through some common bond or event. I've seen it anywhere from blockbusters to independent films and maybe there is a small part of that in Jeff Who Lives at Home.
But, the Duplass brothers are always reinventing the wheel and any film they do is a just the right mix of reality and imagination. That's hard to find in Hollywood.

The Dark Knight Rises

The amount of information about The Dark Knight Rises on the Internet right now is, well, overwhelming. The shootings in Colorado have certainly, and understandably, drawn a lot of media attention and created a tragic cloud over something that is supposed to be a joy in life.
I won't get much into it, but what happened saddens and scares me. It seems in the world we live in now, the shootings could have happened anywhere and as David Carr so poignantly writes we'll always be wondering why.

That said ... I do want to talk about The Dark Knight Rises in all its heroic glory. I am going to have to write around certain plot points, which is going to be very difficult given the surprise role Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays in the film and well, you know, because I adore him so much.
First things first, to summarize Christopher Nolan's trilogy conclusion overall, it does provide closure in all the right places and yet could stand on its own if someone who has not seen Batman Begins and The Dark Knight decided to jump on board now.
But for true fans hooked since the beginning, the film does pick up about where The Dark Knight ends. I had just watched that one before going to the theater Sunday, actually, and finished a refresher on Batman Begins recently as well. 
Compared to Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, the special effects, stunts and fight scenes are bigger, better, and more catastrophic for Gotham City in Rises.
Acting-wise I think Michael Caine's performance topped them all for his character, Alfred, who was also very pivotal in the plot this time around. (Softies, like me, may shed a tear or two in some of his scenes).
Unlike the heroes, villains are hard to rank in the Batman trilogy. While Tom Hardy as Bane may have nothing on Heath Ledger's the Joker, he was terrifying, even just by the look in his eyes.
Christian Bale continued to master the fallen hero with anger issues/fearless crusader with his mind set on saving Gotham City. And that voice, I am starting to wonder if it's computerized.
And now, ladies and gentleman, the award for standout performance goes too ... JGL!!!! Sure, Gary Oldman reprises his role as the top cop in Gotham City very well, but there always has to be a rookie looking to rise out of the shadows.
Nolan draws some comparisons between Batman and Blake (Gordon-Levitt's cop character), especially with how they translate anger they've developed from their past into the will to help others.
Gotham City does need its heroes.
With all the anticipation for The Dark Knight Rises, I am sad its over. I do believe Christopher Nolan has walked away from his franchise, even though there is always the small glimmer of hope he would continue it forever. He's just that good.
Since his brother Jonathan Nolan and David S. Goyer have been along for the Batmobile ride (and attached to many other of his projects) there is always the possibility they would be next in line to continue the comic book saga. 
I'll be honest, here's where it gets tricky. I clearly can't say what happened at the end of the film, but it is not at all what I expected.
One article I read, I can't find the link anymore but I think it was on HitFix, posed the question of "What does "The Dark Knight Rises" mean?

Is it related to Batman's return to Gotham City in the aftermath of Harvey Dent's death to face his inner struggles and fight Bane or a sign of what's to come when his dust settles?
The answer is subjective. Nolan really leaves it up to the viewer to interpret his ending and what's to come from it. Based on what I saw I want more, but if it has to end when the cute little boy sings the National Anthem, then it has to end.

Magic Mike

Well, if I could ONLY say two words about Magic Mike they would be ... yamma hamma!
It's not actually possible for me to do that, so here are my full thoughts on the movie and one of my new favorite actors.
I don't like to read reviews before I see movies, so I only knew going into Magic Mike that it is about the male stripper lifestyle and Steven Soderbergh directed it.
For both those reasons, and oh yeah Channing Tatum, I was intrigued.
Tatum is the face to Magic Mike and as silly as that name is, he pulled off the character quite well.
The story, apparently based on Tatum's own brief foray into stripping while living in Florida, is simple.
Mike was spotted on the street by the Xquisite strip club owner Dallas (Matthew McConaughey) and six years later was the main act that made women line up around the corner of the building for a show.
Mike saw it as a money-making venture to support his true dream of opening his own furniture company and embraced his job while trying not to get too involved in the drama.
I know the trailer makes Magic Mike look extremely cheesy and superficial, but it's not. If that's what it takes to get people to the theater then so be it; but between Soderbergh's smart directing skills and his golden boy Tatum's acting props, the project is a success. On top of some of the obvious visual entertainment in Magic Mike, there is actually some strong cinematography to note in the film as well.
I think the main flaw of the movie is Cody Horn cast as Mike's maybe-maybe not girlfriend Brooke. Horn, unfortunately, did not pull of the same acting profile as her co-stars. Olivia Munn, whose character Mike has a fling with now and then and maybe did really want to be with, should have been cast in Brooke's role. 
I also didn't care much for McConaughey, while he did a solid performance, I am just not a fan.
He fit the part and if the man is willing to wear a belly shirt and do a scene teaching a young stripper hopeful how to dance, then more power to him.
The young stripper hopeful is Adam (Alex Pettyfer) whose character I think really makes Mike decide if he wants to continue to pursue his dream by making easy money or if he just wants to take the chance and do it.
I'll leave that for you to find out when, not if, you see this movie.
The best thing overall about Magic Mike is that Soderbergh and Tatum made good on actually developing a believable story and out of something that could have been totally trivial.
My expectations for the film were not that low, again because of the names attached to it, but I think most viewers will get more than they bargained for if they can look beyond the oodles of scenes with hot men doing their thang on stage.
I have no complaints about that, believe me, but I do feel better knowing I saw a good movie as well.
And, there might be a sequel.
In the meantime I am glad Tatum is working with Soderbergh again after Magic Mike. He was a fresh face in Haywire and now is attached to The Bitter Pill alongside Rooney Mara and Jude Law.
If that's not enough, he's got movies coming out with Dustin Hoffman, Mark Ruffalo, Steve Carell and Maggie Gyllenhaal.
I say that man Magic Mike, he's going places.

Batman Returns

Max Shreck: "Bruce Wayne, why are you dressed up like Batman?"
Catwoman/Selina Kyle: "Because he is Batman you moron!"
I FINALLY watched Batman Returns as a follow up to Tim Burton's first take on the comic book franchise. While I am early on in my revue of caped crusader movies in preparation for The Dark Knight Rises (this week!), I will say it's tough to beat Michael Keaton's approach to playing Batman.
Tim Burton's fantastical influence over the story of bad and good powers at war in Gotham City and police calling on Batman to save the day fits well with Keaton's humble hero performance.
With music reminiscent of Edward Scissorhands throughout Batman Returns, Burton stresses the faux reality of the risks in Gotham City being a sewer penguin and a crazy-haired Christopher Walken as greedy businessman Max Shreck.
And, it shows through the fact that the hero of Batman has weaknesses even when wearing his armor, mask and cape.
Nobody is perfect in Gotham City and sometimes it's hard for even Batman to help.
Especially when he has a vigilante nemesis trying to seek her own revenge getting in the way.
Selina Kyle (a.k.a. Catwoman) is introduced in the film as a defenseless woman being attacked by a circus freak and Batman saves her.
But that doesn't last long. After falling victim to the wrath of Shreck, her boss, Kyle comes back with her claws out.
It will be interesting to see the rendition of Catwoman (played by Anne Hathaway) in Christopher Nolan's trilogy cap this weekend. But I have to say the campy character by Michelle Pfeiffer and her chemistry with Wayne/Batman probably can't be replicated. And, as Wayne/Batman says himself in the film, "Selena, don't you see? We're the same."
I wonder if Nolan will interject a similar line by Christian Bale in his husky voice to Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises. If he does develop a relationship between modern Catwoman and Batman, I don't think it will be quite as strong as Burton's character duo.
Nolan and Burton have done their own thing with Batman, as they should, but in the The Dark Knight Rises I see Catwoman as more of a one-track character.
It's not to say Nolan doesn't mix in the human side to his heroes and villains, but from what I remember those traits seem to be less of a focus.
I'll pay attention to that as I re-watch Batman Begins and The Dark Knight this week.
Before I sign off I must say in addition to Keaton and Pfeiffer, Danny DeVito's penguin character brought to life by Burton's imagination was one of my favorite parts of Batman Returns.
Even with the penguin, Burton delves into his back story of being abandoned as a baby as the source of his revenge on Gotham City. But it makes sense to explain his motives and then let the viewer enjoy the penguin waddling around and traveling in a duck-shaped carnival ride car.
I am sure someone will take on Batman again now that Nolan is done. I wouldn't mind if Keaton stepped into the bat suit one last time and if Burton brought back some of his other characters. And, based on Burton's long working relationship with him, Johnny Depp would and should be cast in it.
Let the next countdown begin!

Seems Like Old Times

I've got To Rome With Love on the brain, so maybe that's why watching Neil Simon's Seems Like Old Times reminded me of a Woody Allen film. After thinking about it a bit, Woody Allen would not have made the same movie as Simon and director Jay Sandrich but I do think he could have conceived the same characters and story as a starting point.

Seems Like Old Times stars Goldie Hawn and Chevy Chase (pre-Fletch) as a divorced couple who reunite under some unique circumstances that turn both their worlds upside down. 

As Nick Gardenia (Chase) is one minute writing at his secluded cabin in California and the next is kidnapped to help two drifters rob a bank; his ex-wife Glenda Parks (Hawn) is working as an attorney and living in a mansion with her new husband Ira (Charles Grodin), their six dogs and multiple staff. 

That being the case, who else is Nick going to turn to when he escapes his kidnappers but still becomes the prime suspect in the bank robbery? Glenda. At that point in the story Glenda and Ira are hosting a swanky party to celebrate his bid for district attorney. 

It's Ira's character who makes the story representative of Allen and the roles he often plays in his own films.

Ira is in line for a promotion and supposedly has his life in order, all the while a fugitive and his beautiful wife's ex whose capture could lock in the district attorney job is hiding in the guest quarters.

Glenda is out of Ira's league and Nick's presence brings that to light. Would Ira have the confidence to show up at his ex's house during an important party and cause an uproar? Would he serve chicken pepperoni in the passed-out butler's tuxedo (which actually belongs to his wife's new husband) at a dinner for the governor? If he did, Ira wouldn't pull it off like Mr. Nick Gardenia. 

Nor would any of the Alvy Singer-types Allen portrays or casts in his projects. Yet those bumbling goofs always have a beautiful woman on their arms as Glenda is to Ira. 

I think the comparison between Allen and Sandrich's take on Neil Simon's Seems Like Old Times ends there, but not my appreciation of the film. It's a smart and simple film and while it's nice to associate the 1980s only with such projects, I wish more like it would come up today. Oh yeah, To Rome With Love is in theaters now. 

Batman

I usually don't do well with committing to watching movie series I come up with to add to my never ending Netflix movie queue. I have seen a good number of the Coen Brothers movies, but when I decided to do a full retrospective from past to present I only made it to Miller's Crossing. Fail. I also once had the hair-brained idea to see everything Jack Nicholson has ever made. Some of those titles are sitting comfortably in the mid-100s on my queue.
Although I did inadvertently watch one of Nicholson's movies in my preparation for next month's release of The Dark Knight Rises. My plan, although I'm only one movie into it, is to revisit Tim Burton's Batman franchise as well as Christopher Nolan's soon-to-be trilogy that concludes with the aforementioned film.
Nicholson plays the Joker in Burton's 1989 flick, complete with green hair, a creepy surgically created smile and a boom box with Prince songs on repeat. I don't remember if I ever saw this film before, but I certainly appreciate it much more now. Who knew that the guy who portrayed a writer turned murderous father in The Shining and perfected the role of Col. Nathan R. Jessup ("You can't handle the truth!") in A Few Good Men could also be seen dancing around to music by "The Purple One" wearing a suit of the same color?
Of course Nicholson is a villain in Batman too, but he took it to a new level.
(Before I continue, interesting factoid: Nicholson's characters in both The Shining and Batman are named Jack.)
I think Nicholson's quirky role as the Joker against the backdrop of Tim Burton's imagination show that some people in Hollywood can do any project they want to and still be respected for it. In this case both pulled it off, but even if they didn't their reputation in films wouldn't change.
In Burton's take on Batman, I enjoyed how he kept the characters relatively simple outside of their crime-fighting (or causing) superhero costumes. Michael Keaton as Batman could be any man on the street when he's not wearing a mask or driving the Batmobile. Throw in Kim Basinger as Bruce Wayne's love interest and journalist trying to uncover his identity and I have no complaints whatsoever.
I also have no complaints about Christopher Nolan and his cast of characters, but Christian Bale just cannot pull off the anti-hero and the hero at the same time. And, even though it somehow fits in the movie, is the fake husky voice while in bat costume necessary, Christian? Michael Keaton did not do that. (And he was in Mr. Mom).
As far as comparing the Joker characters Nicholson certainly pulled off a maniacal laugh quite well, but Heath Ledger's role really stands on its own in the world of villains. I'll have to issue a final verdict on the bad guys vs. good guys after watching Burton's Batman Returns sequel and the first two films by Nolan.
I might squeeze in Batman Forever if I have time, even though it strays from Burton and Nolan's work, it would be fun to revisit and compare.
Then July 20 will be the beginning of the end. I actually hope maybe it is REALLY the end, as in no one would ever make a Batman movie again, but who knows? Maybe if my dream boyfriend Joseph Gordon Levitt's character survives The Dark Knight Rises (I'm thinking that is unlikely) and continues to be involved in any sort of spin off I'd watch it. But there is always the possibility of too much of a (very) good thing and, sadly, this may be it.

(P.S.tickets are, or in some cases were, already on sale for opening weekend of The Dark Knight Rises. In Minneapolis, there are 12:01 a.m. showings listed for Friday, July 20. It is tempting, especially after hearing about this movie since at least Christmas, but I think I'll wait until after the opening weekend hoopla).

Documentaries: First Position, The Interrupters, Sicko

I've been on a bit of a documentary kick lately, and as per usual I am behind on my blogging duties.
So here is the rundown of my recent film escapades:
First Position
I used to take dance classes back in the day, so this documentary about young ballet company prospects competing for scholarships and basically a career that matches their passion was of interest to me. I heard about it through my weekly emails about the coming attractions and luckily found I could order it on cable. I do love going to the movie theater, but I couldn't resist the film being right at my fingertips.
I don't regret the one time purchase, but by the time the credits started playing I wanted a little bit more about the lives of the dancers profiled in the film and just a little bit less of them on screen in performance after performance and audition after audition.
Those were beautiful scenes and certainly telling of how hard it is to be a 9-year-old whose future career plans are contingent upon constant perfection, but there were just too many of them. The documentary focuses on six dancers from around the world with life stories that prove what they're doing isn't just handed to them. They are lucky to have supportive families, but many are really doing it on their own.
So overall I appreciated the subject of the film and the effort put into it, I just think it needed a little bit more focus.
The Interrupters 
This next one is a little heavy, but I still found it to be a must-see because of the subject matter. I've been covering a lot more crime than I have in my past news reporting jobs and I thought this documentary would shed some light on what I've seen and heard. In the end I don't think it's possible to fully understand crime and violence, but there is a group out there trying to do just that.
The Interrupters, working for the CeaseFire organization on the south side of Chicago, include ex-convicts and gang members who have turned their lives around to prevent the crimes they themselves once committed.
It was hard to watch at times because the film looks at the issue through conversations with people who are criminals, their families and the families and friends of the victims of their crimes.
CeaseFire's interrupters have no fear and somehow are able to instill some rational thinking in the people who resort to violence to solve problems, even when they aren't really problems. That problem, unfortunately, may never fully go away, but at least there is a face now to what is being done. I picked up this movie at the library and it's also available online at the link above.
Sicko
Last but not least, why not top off the series with a very comprehensive profile of health care in the United States and behind-the-scenes of a universal system in other countries? Fun stuff. I was surprised throughout Michael Moore's documentary that he covered so many issues and interviewed so many people to exemplify the state of health care around the world. I don't do politics, so whether you agree or disagree with Moore or any one of the people in the film's views about how health care should be offered, I think the film effectively shows what the problem is and why.
Moore also sets an example of how documentary films should be made, no matter what the subject matter is.
I think I've had enough truth on film for the weekend, but my next documentary to watch is Food, Inc. I'm taking recommendations as well. Happy Sunday!

Moonrise Kingdom

Where do I even begin with Moonrise Kingdom? Maybe with this quote by writer and director Wes Anderson I read on his IMDB page: "I want to try not to repeat myself. But then I seem to do it continuously in my films. It's not something I make any effort to do. I just want to make films that are personal, but interesting to an audience. I feel I get criticized for style over substance, and for details that get in the way of the characters. But every decision I make is how to bring those characters forward."
Well said, my friend, well said.
This film did remind me of Anderson's other work, The Royal Tenenbaums for example, but that is by no means a bad thing. Moonrise Kingdom stands on its own, but I did think of Tenenbaums while watching it mostly because of the large family of characters and introductory narrative with the camera panning throughout the house.
The family is the Bishops, with Bill Murray as the father Walt and Frances McDormand as the mother, Laura.
Their daughter, Suzy, meets a young "Khaki Scout" named Sam and the story centers on their plan to run away together and the chaos it brings to light for the people surrounding them. Sam and Suzy also fall in love, bringing in the true heart all of Anderson's films have alongside the challenges he presents for his characters. It all takes place set on an island in 1965 New England where the Bishops live and Khaki Scouts attend Camp Ivanhoe to learn survival skills and work up to attending the regional "hullabaloo" event. (I LOVE that word!)
Back to Anderson's quote, "I feel I get criticized for style over substance, and for details that get in the way of the characters." I completely disagree with anyone who would say Anderson's attention to detail in the style of his films is a distraction from the depth of his characters and their experiences.
I find being able to study each of the set pieces and costumes in one scene while watching the story play out only draws me in more to what's happening. In Moonrise Kingdom, the music, the pins and badges on each Khaki Scout's uniform (my favorite being the "Sudo Expert") and the meaning of each and every line the characters say were all part of the escape into Wes Anderson's creative mind for me and understanding of what he wants viewers to take away.
I feel I could watch this movie, and any of Anderson's work for that matter, over and over and pick up some new detail or meaning every time.
Moonrise Kingdom mixes what may seem like fantasy through Anderson's film-making style with what actually is a very true to heart story.
I think Anderson made all the right decisions in this film, from his cast of regulars and new faces to the facets of the story I know will mean something to each and every person in the audience.
If you choose not to be in that audience, fine, but I think by now Anderson has made it known his mission in film-making and those who complain about it should be forced to watch the sure to be hot mess of That's My Boy instead.

Our Idiot Brother

I can't pinpoint exactly why, but I really enjoyed my screening of Our Idiot Brother last night. I had the DVD from Netflix for over a week so I figured it was time to drop everything else I was doing, open a Spotted Cow, and watch the Paul Rudd, Zooey Deschanel, Emily Mortimer and Elizabeth Banks ensemble film.
I am a fan of all those stars, in that order, and I am warming up to Elizabeth Banks after seeing her as Miranda in this movie. The three ladies are sisters and, you guessed it, Rudd plays the idiot brother. But is he really an idiot? On the surface maybe, but his happy-go-lucky attitude seemed to be just what his sisters needed to uncover reality in their own lives.
It's not a serious movie, by any means, and the performances by the four main stars come off natural and at times improvised. Some of the scenes were a bit disconnected, but it didn't harm the overall plot or the film's entertainment value.
I don't know how many people actually paid attention to the movie's release last year, but I recommend seeing it now.
It's overall heartwarming, has an actually talented kid actor in it and a golden retriever named Willie Nelson is even one of the main characters. There should be more movies like this that can actually pull off humor without throwing it in your face or using over-the-top effects.
As Paul Rudd's character, Ned, would probably do I am going to stop now and not over analyze this subject anymore.
"Enjoy your burrito." (Chris Hardwick)

The Great Outdoors

I love watching old movies my family used to play on VHS after recording them from TV. Now with the ubiquity of Netflix or even rentals from the library, those classics can be at your doorstep in a day for a modern movie night.
Last night's choice, The Great Outdoors is, as my cousin David would say, "the cat's ass."
Anyone who has seen the John Candy/Dan Aykroyd caper would respond to that with, "thank you for sharing that, thank you."
Such lines have stuck with my family's vernacular over the years and watching the movie again last night also brought to light tidbits of it we didn't remember or notice during past viewings.
First things first, if for some odd reason you have not seen The Great Outdoors it's about Dan Aykroyd and his family crashing the cabin vacay of his brother-in-law Chet, played by John Candy.
Or as described on IMDB, "A Chicago man's hope for a peaceful family vacation in the woods is shattered when the annoying in-laws drop in."
Roman (Aykroyd) drives up to the northwoods in his posh Mercedes with personalized license plates while Chet and company travel in the family truckster, a Wagoneer. That vehicle factoid makes the movie even more of a favorite, seeing as my family had both a Mercedes and a Wagoneer during my childhood.
The cabin in The Great Outdoors reminds me of those we used to rent during the summer and nights of playing games or going out to local restaurants.
There was never an old 96er steak (people seem to like it) or bald-headed bear, but that is what watching The Great Outdoors is for. I could live without the cheeseball scenes between Buck and Cammie and the constant accompanying track of a Hungry Eyes knockoff, but I guess those are requirements for a movie from the 1980s.
Next up on the family film agenda this weekend is Fletch, so stay tuned for more posts about oldies but goodies.
I think that just about does it.