Crash

What's interesting about the audience reaction to this Paul Haggis movie is that it creates such a strong reaction. People either love it..... or hate it. Even amongst critics I've read a lot of top ten lists that have this movie amongst the best. Roger Ebert picked it as the best movie of the year.

The film is nominated for the Academy Award for Best Film of the year.

But I've also found the film to be on some worst film lists. L.A. weekly's Scott Foudas basically calls the movie irresponsible and insulting. He's not alone. Critics from the New York Times, Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times have had negative reviews of the film.

I think that the reasons why the reactions are so strong for the film is because the movie has noble intentions. I think that it tries to illustrate that ALL people are racist in some way, but they are also redeemable, and ultimately can have good intentions. It's easy to look socially conscious for liking the film. While detractors can come off as a Grinch for not liking the film or at worst even a racist.

RIDICULOUS.

My immediate reaction to the film after just watching it is indifference.

In all honesty, I'm having trouble figuring out what all the fuss is about. I estimate by next year the movie will be forgotten, and dismissed as a mediocre film at best. Certainly not worthy of the praise or disdain it seems to be generating.

At it's core the movie has a good heart, it's trying to encourage discussion about race relations. God knows there's nothing wrong with that. What's frustrating about the movie, however, is that it does such a sloppy job at it. There are huge holes of logic and believability. The scenario's in the movie are also juvenile and uninspired. It's obvious why some people are insulted by the film. The movie resorts to the most stereotypical, and simplistic interactions to tell it's story.

The movie's point is to simply provoke the viewer to condemn or praise the behavior of certain characters in the film, so that the viewer can feel superior or sympathetic towards them. Then in the third act, the film pulls the rug from under the viewer by showing them an opposite side of those same character's personality smashing their perceptions of the characters.

It's shamefully manipulative, and to the educated it's insulting.

In terms of originality the movie doesn't contribute anything potent or impressive, it's laughable as a morality tale.

But the sad thing is that there's probably lots of uneducated people out there that will find the film inspiring. It's hard to believe, but it's true, I can see why some viewers can see the film as important. At it's heart the movie is saying that people are complex and shouldn't be judged at first glance.

Not a bad message.

But to the educated, the film seems like it's preaching to the choir, and preaching in a condescending way.

I guess, If I were to defend the film I'd say that in some ways, it's a lot like a workplace training video. At first view, the stuff covered on the video seems like pretty standard, and logical stuff. It may seem insulting to watch. But ultimately, one day, there willl be a moment when one is working on the job, and they will painfully notice, to their own disbelief, that one of their fellow employees should've paid closer attention to the video. There are people out there that don't know how to act. They need to be told that stuff is wrong. What's simple for some to comprehend, is difficult to others. It's sad but true.

I just wish the film was good.

As I mentioned earlier the film has gaping holes of logic. For instance one crucial moment in the film a police officer sexually gropes a character. Everyone knows that no officer in their right mind would ever attempt anything like this. Especially in Los Angeles, with video cameras everywhere, even in the police cars. The last thing any L.A.P.D cop wants to do nowadays is create ANOTHER controversy. Especially involving an obviously upperclass citizen. Unless they want a huge lawsuit and infamy.

At another point in the film a character pulls a gun, and almost shoots someone. The problem is that the character who is almost shot knows exactly who this person is, and doesn't turn him over to the police. Apparently it's okay to let irresponsible gun wielding citizens to almost shoot loved ones, and then let them go for no reason.

At another point an officer inexplicably picks up a strange hitch-hiker than.....AFTER picking him up, and riding with him suddenly becomes suspicious and nervous.

The movie is filled with these types of moments of stupidity, it's horrible, immature, writing.

The fact that the film is set in Los Angeles is also unbelievable, not to mention insulting. From watching the film an outsider would think Los Angeles was a recreation of 1960's Alabama. It's simply not an accurate portrayal of life in Los Angeles. Not to say that there isn't racism in L.A. But the type of racisim shown in this movie is so juvenile and idiotic it resembles at times an out of control Saturday Night Live sketch, or a grade school theatre play written by the school nun. It's really a wasted opportunity, especially with the talent and budget the film has, to me it really doesn't ring true on any level.

But it's obviously striking a chord with people. I don't consider Roger Ebert an idiot, so the film is doing something right. It's not the worse film of the year, just very forgettable.

Like I said it has a good heart. It's pretty slick, and handsome looking. The acting is solid as well. It's not a complete waste of time. I'm sure it can work as harmless entertainment for some people. It's a nice conversation starter over lunch. It's safe and mainstream in a non-threatening way.

But it actually makes me sad, and depressed that some people might consider the film important or groundbreaking. It's a joke that the film is up for all these awards. It makes me think that a lot of people aren't socially educated enough to see how immature, mediocre, and obvious the film's handling of race relations is. Scary.

Not to mention that in terms of good storytelling, I'd say the movie is a complete failure.

If one is looking for an excellent film about race relations I recommend Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing. Not only is it more interesting, it's more thought provoking, subtle, and sophisticated in it's approach.

Junebug

Junebug tells the story of a newly married couple, George (Alessandro Nivolo) and Madeline (Embeth Davidtz). George and Madeline travel from Chicago to North Carolina so that Madeline can recruit a local artist to exhibit at her gallery. They use the opportunity to visit George's family, who happens to live only 30 minutes away. What Madeline finds at the house is a complex and repressed family, which is put into turmoil by the visit of herself and her husband.

First off, this is a strange movie.

Not David Lynch strange, more like a low budget student film kind of strange. For instance, the movie inexplicably opens with scenes of men yodeling. I guess one can argue that the scenes are creating an atmosphere around the film. But in reality, from what I can gather, it serves no purpose to the story. It seems that its just a different kind of moment put into the movie to be...well...quirky. Director Phil Morrison also likes to line up silent images and shots of atmosphere throughout his film. For example he'll shoot the image of trees lightly blowing in the wind for 10 seconds, then he'll cut to an empty street for 10 seconds, then a kitchen table set for another 10 seconds. The images aren't something that's breathlessly beautiful to behold like in a Malick or Jarmusch film. They also aren't moments meant to express the passage of time, because the moments happen AFTER a fade-out of the previous scene. They are just moments of silence that gives the viewer an effective uneasy feeling that makes us feel like we are watching a unique film about non-traditional characters. If this sounds pretentious, that's because it is. I'm not sure that it entirely works, but I respect the vision.

Maybe I'm missing the point, maybe there is poignant symbolism being practiced. After some thought I came up with the interpretation that the silent scenes are expressing that the world is calm and still, and humanity creates their own stress and difficulties in life. Could be bullshit though. Maybe it's just scenes of fucking silence.

As far as the characters go, the movie is impressive and unique in it's ability to capture the truthful moments, and dynamics of the different characters. Not much effort is put into revealing a back story, or explaining certain relationships. The movie is simply observing the characters as they live from moment to moment, much like real life.

As a viewer, it's rather uncomfortable to watch, because questions arise about characters that have no intention to be answered. For instance the relationship between the two brothers is strained, but there is no explanation why. One can assume that there's family jealousy, maybe a bit of resentment by Johnny (Benjamin Mckenzie), because his brother is seemingly perfect. But the audience is never fully sure. A lot of the movie plays on assumptions, because there are no answers. It's like the audience is experiencing the family like the character of Madeline.

We observe the quirky family from up close, but we're afraid to ask why they behave a certain way...because it would be rude.

It's very interesting, and yet also frustrating to experience. It's actually something one doesn't really comprehend while watching the film. But only after, when the viewer has time to reflect. I'm sure a typical movie would give us a short monologue by a character to explain why things are the way they are.

But THIS movie doesn't care about explaining things. Just observing.

On one hand it's refreshing to experience a different way of story telling. But it also tends to push the audience away. We can't really sympathize with the characters, because we aren't allowed into their world. We sympathize with their situations, but not the characters themselves. Which is probably the director's intention. But I don't think it benefits the film. It also is a reason why a lot of people misinterpret the film as a comedy. Lots of the moments are painfully awkward, but because the audience is at an emotional distance from the characters, the audience might feel it's darkly comedic or morbidly fun.

But in reality it's not really funny.

I think the moments are painfully truthful and awkward, if anything it's funny because we recognize the behavior being displayed in our own family lives. It's really interesting to consider. I'm sure the viewer will come away thinking that the family being portrayed in the film is strange and quirky. But the reality is, more than most films, these characters are actually very normal. When people let their guards down in life, people tend to be petty, childish, resentful, and....well....strange. I think it's a big triumph of the film to expose those ideas without being dramatic or stereotypical.

That's not to say the movie is completely satisfying. I think the movie is more effective after one has time to absorb the film. It doesn't really work as an enjoyable two hours of entertainment. Since the movie is not necessarily important, it's a little pretentious to have to consider the film hours afterwards.

Lots of the attention the movie is garnering is for the performance of Amy Adams. It's a fun character, actually quite similar to the character she played in the movie Catch me if you can. It's a little surprising that she's nominated for the Academy Award, but not totally absurd. She does do a good job. If anything I came away impressed with Benjamin McKenzie's work. He rarely speaks in the film, lots of his work is internal and subtle, not something one expects from an actor from the television show The O.C.

Overall, I found the film interesting and unique. Like I said earlier, I'm not sure it works as a piece of entertainment, but if one is looking for a challenging and thought provoking piece.....about a simple family, then this is the movie to watch.

It's now available on DVD.

Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit

Even the biggest cynic in the world will have trouble not enjoying Wallace & Gromit's latest adventure. I'm sure the use of claymation will bring back childhood memories of Gumby and Davey & Goliath. But unlike those two works, this movie is very appealing for adults, as well as children.

This latest adventure finds the duo running a humane Anti-Pest company. The company is protecting the town from mischievous rabbits, as the towns-folk prepare for the annual giant vegetable contest. Troubles arise when the dangerous Were-Rabbit is unleashed on the town's gardens. It's up to Wallace & Gromit, with the help of Lady Tottington (Helena Bonham Carter) to uncover the mystery and capture the mysterious Were-Rabbit before it destroys all the crops and before the evil Victor Quartermaine can use this opportunity to hunt down, and kill not only the Were-Rabbit but all creatures that stand in his way.

First off, it's hard not to marvel at the wonderful visual work being presented here. It's simply stunning to watch. The detail, and look of the film is amazing. The movie has been nominated for the Academy Award for best animated feature, and the film is well deserving of it. Considering the movie took 5 years to make, at about 3 seconds of footage per day, it's the least the academy could do.

As far as the story of the film, I found it funny, and entertaining. The story is obviously not the most sophisticated stuff in the world, for me the movie seemed to work best in short bursts, with scenes of comedic bits, alternating with action pieces. For less patient people I can see how the story can drag for them, but overall I found this story much more fun, and definitely more effective than the movie Chicken Run which was made by the same creative team.

But there are some genuine good laughs in the film. I was surprised how much I laughed. It's also a really cute film. I mean that in a good way. I'm sure that a lot of film-makers wouldn't like that adjective attached to their film. But it's really an appropriate word to describe this film. It has little bunnies running around, the towns-folk are really fun and affable, the silent Gromit is adorable, the Were-Rabbit is big and furry. Even the evil character of Victor Quartermaine is fun to watch in a non-threatening way. I found myself smiling through the whole movie.

In short it's a fun, cute, enjoyable film, and definitely worth checking out.

The movie is now available on DVD.

Hot Clicks on SheNeedsIt.com!!!

     

Waiting...

Don't fuck with the people who handle your food.

Rob McKittrick drives that point home several times in his writing and directorial debut, to sickening effect. The movie is obviously a tribute to Kevin Smith's Clerks. The material is a direct rip of it's structure. It has witty dialogue, with trendy, and movie related references, crude humor and it all takes place in a workplace environment. Unfortunately it doesn't elevate enough to be special like Clerks was. In the end the movie is just another forgettable low brow comedy, with a couple of cheap laughs.

The thing is I doubt the film had any higher aspirations than just being a silly, forgettable comedy, which means it's probably a success for Rob McKittrick.

Waiting is about the workers in a restaurant called Shenanigans which is a type of T.G.I.F Fridays. Throughout the course of a work day, Dean (Justin Long) contemplates his future, Monty (Ryan Reynolds) trains the new kid, and the Cooks of the restaurant (played by Luis Guzman and Dane Cook) harass the co-workers, drop and spit on the food they prepare, and play a game where the object is to get others to look at their penis and ball sack.

The first thing people will notice when watching the movie is that it's obviously low budget. The production value feels cheap, the cinematography is weak, and the direction is mediocre to poor. The movie survives being barely watchable by the affable nature of it's comic cast. For a low budget film, it's a little bit surprising to see Luis Guzman, Ryan Reynolds, Chi Mcbride and Anna Farris. In all honesty, I can't imagine what drew this caliber of talent to a project like this. Not that this talent is an A-List crowd, but the writing really isn't that impressive, actually it's kind of juvenile. I can only speculate that they were all either paid REALLY well.... or that they were good friends with the director.

Being a server in my past, I found some of the restaurant references kind of funny, also the relationships with the co-workers and customers were amusing. But the fact is, I'm easy to please when toilet humor is involved, so I was able to find a little comedy in the film, but I'm sure a lot of people will not be so easily amused.

The movie really is just about watching some actors having fun, while making money. It's barely a movie. I almost feel guilty for ripping the film, because it's obvious that this is McKittrick's first film, and he is just starting out in the business. I'm sure it was just an accomplishment getting this talent assembled.

Which makes me question why I'm even reviewing this film.

It's obvious that McKittrick needs to develop his writing more though, if he wants to have a future in the business. He does have some potential for witty, amusing, dialogue. The script is not totally incompetent, but the movie just didn't feel polished or ready, it feels almost like a first draft. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if half the film was improvised. I'd be slightly curious to hear the back story of how, and why this film was made, but I'm really not interested enough to do the research.

If one is interested..... Waiting is available on DVD on Tuesday.

Two for the Money

Paging Michael Mann.....Mr. Mann, Mr. Pacino needs your assistance.

Wow.....where do I begin?

I guess I have to begin by saying that Al Pacino is one of the most beloved actors of all time, certainly one of my all time favorites. His resume includes some of the most memorable performances in cinematic history.

Brother....we're a long way from that here.

In all honesty, I don't think he even cares anymore, and seriously I don't think he should. At his age, he shouldn't be putting his body through a draining, stressful, physically and psychologically demanding movie shoot. He would probably be the first to admit that the days of Dog Day Afternoon are WELL behind him. I think that at this point in his career he's content with just having fun, making obscene money, and doing mediocre work with no effort.

The sad part is that I don't think the people working with him, feel the same way.

I think all the actors, and creative team TRY to bring their A+ game to the projects he's working in because the guy is still Al FUCKING Pacino. What results is even more unfortunate because even when mediocre talent tries to do excellent work, the results are still mediocre..... or worse.

The sad fact is the only reason why this movie was made in the first place is because Al Pacino was attached. It really has no business seeing the light of day.

Two for the Money tells the story of Brandon Lang (Matthew McConaughey), who after suffering a career ending football injury, becomes a sports betting expert. His uncanny ability to predict winners catches the eye of Walter Abrams (Al Pacino), one of the best betting handicap's in the business. He invites Lang into his profitable company to try, and capitalize on Lang's lucrative run. Problems arise when Lang's run of luck seems to run out.

The movie basically follows the structure of a lot of Al Pacino's recent work. He basically plays a elder tutor,with a hidden agenda, to a younger ward. Devil's Advocate, Donnie Brasco, The Recruit, Any Given Sunday, City Hall, Scent of a Woman, Two Bits the list goes on and on. It seems like the only time he stretches away from that formula is when he works with Michael Mann, or when he does Shakespeare, which is obviously something he feels passionate about. As far as I'm concerned that's the only thing worth watching from Pacino nowadays, Michael Mann movies and Shakespeare. Stuff like this movie just feels like Pacino is showing up to collect his paycheck.

As I said earlier the movie feels like it wants to be important. But in reality the material, and creative team are not up to the task. The result is unintentionally humorous, and just plain horrible. One can tell that Matthew McConaughey and Renee Russo are excited to work with Pacino, but it's a one way street. They are running in circles, Pacino is on automatic. It's sad to watch actually, and the excitement is not limited to just the actors. One can tell the script was altered to make Pacino's part more appealing to the actor. For instance, for some strange reason, Pacino's character has an unspecified heart ailment which makes him prone to strange, chest grabbing, panic attacks that are remedied by magic pills. The moments play out like a comedic SNL type recreation of his Diabetic attacks in The Godfather part III. The three times they occur in the movie, I let out hysterical laughs of disbelief. It's obvious that they were put into the movie to showcase Pacino, because there is no payoff in the movie. Just a random quirky tick that the character has. The character also has long winded philosophical speeches about man's nature, and the business that just feel like the writer padding the character's dialogue.

The script is apparently based on a true story. There's even a feature on the dvd of a conversation between the real "Brandon Lang" and Script writer Dan Gilroy.

The fact is there MIGHT be a good story in the script. Some of the stuff in the movie is kind of interesting....maybe. I'm thinking if it was a small independent film, with two solid character actors in the lead, and a cold feeling, gritty look to the film, with an exciting, talented, director there MIGHT be something interesting there. But the whole movie feels like it's been run over by the giant HOLLYWOOD machine truck.

A perfect example of that fact, is the look of the film. For some strange reason the movie is shot in this glossy, soft light that makes the movie almost feel like it's a dream. Which is a strange choice because the film feels like it WANTS to be dark, and gritty. The character's talk and act gritty, the movie has prostitutes, deadbeats, mafia types and goons. But they are all running around in this absurd soft light that makes me think of Christmas.

Needless to say the movie is horrible.

But just to drive home the point of how absurd the movie is. At one point in the film, Armand Assante, who plays a mafia type, tracks down Matthew McConaughy's character after losing tons of money on his picks. Assante puts a gun to his face after pushing him to the ground, a goon holds him down, and then Assante proceeds to.........urinate on McConaughy's chest.

He URINATES on McConaughy.....I think the pee was clear.

The moment is supposed to be powerful, but it plays like something from The Naked Gun. Something O.J. Simpson would have to endure while he's in a coma.

Two for the Money is now available on DVD....rent it at one's own risk.

Dazed and Confused in Babies "R" Us

The baby is due March 19th, and yesterday I've received confirmation of what I feared all along.

I have no clue what the HELL I'm doing.

Erin and I registered for our upcoming Baby Shower yesterday. Half the stuff we're requesting I have no idea if we need or not.

If it was up to me, I just would've went down the aisles scanning stuff. A blind man might have done a better job than I did.

Thank God Erin was there. Erin had a good plan of going down the baby essential list that the store provided. But I have a feeling that when we end up with half the stuff we requested, a lot of it is going to end up in a big pile in the corner of the Baby's room.

Cause we won't know how to use any of it.

Even a thing like baby clothes was an ordeal. Apparently, according to the list, we needed Onesies. What the hell is a Onesies? I assume it's a one piece suit. But is it his underwear, or is it his clothes. See what I mean? I always joke with Erin that I want to dress the kid in sweats and a t-shirt till he's 12 years old. Roll the sweats up when he's small and just let the baby grow into a big pair of sweats. I don't think that's such a bad idea. Dressing a baby shouldn't be complicated. All they do is shit and piss themselves. What do they gotta look fashionable for anyways?

The first hour in the place we just looked around the store lost. There was a bunch of pads, blankets, hooded towels, humidifiers, breast pumps, waterproof, soil resistant things that looked important. We didn't know where to begin. The funny thing was that when we asked the worker's there how to use any of the stuff, they didn't really know either. We ran into other first time mother's, and they were as lost as we were. Everyone was walking around with a combined look of confusion and fear.

A look like "What the Hell did we get ourselves into?"

As far as our strategy for selecting items went, when we got to the big stuff, I usually just picked the most expensive, or best looking gadget. They had all these fancy swings and junk. It was all confusing, I do remember the Eddie Bauer brand. I picked a lot of Eddie Bauer stuff. For all we know it's crap, but hell I know the brand, I seen it in the mall, it's a camping store right? Anyways it looked sturdy and tough to me.

When we were looking at strollers we had the good fortune to run into an actual mommy. Erin smartly asked ,"What was it that we should be looking for when we pick a stroller?" She answered that we should get something light and easy to use.

Easy to use? I thought all you had to do was push the stroller. I guess nowadays it's hard to push. But apparently I'm wrong.

The mommy pointed out that we should pick one that stores easy, to put in and take out of a car. She pointed out that half the strollers in the market today are heavy, and take forever to unfold. At that exact moment, I was fidgeting with a Eddie Bauer stroller, when I realized that the huge monster stroller that I currently had in my possession was exactly what she was speaking about. To test her theory out, as she was talking to Erin, I tried to fold the stroller for storage, after about 10 minutes, I realized that I actually needed to have at least 4 years of engineering training, and a masters in physics to understand the complexities of the device.

Needless to say we went with the stroller she recommended.

Car Seats were another adventure. They had different sizes, shapes, weight regulations. When we looked for our little mommy friend she was nowhere to be found though. She disappeared into thin air, she was almost like a little stroller Angel sent by God to push us in the correct direction. But this time she was gone, there was no such luck with the Car Seats. No one to help us out.

So we went with the Eddie Bauer brand.

I guessing most of this junk is going to be unnecessary anyways. I have a friend who said that when she was a baby her parents put her to sleep in a dresser shelve.

Wow, why can't we go back to those days? I'd be willing to let the kid sleep in one of my dresser shelves. I could use the extra money to buy a new DVD player or download some songs.

Something tells me that Erin isn't going to let me do that though.

I admit I'm confused, but the truth is I'm also excited. I keep hearing from people that it's going to be difficult, a nightmare, I won't sleep anymore. That my life is never going to be the same. That kind of thing. It's actually getting a little annoying.

We know it's going to be difficult.

It's not like we're going to just give up the baby one day when it gets hard. As if, when the baby won't stop crying, I'm going to throw him out on the curb. That maybe one day I'll snap and I'm going to say:

"That's it, I give up!!! It was fun while it lasted but this parenting thing is too hard!"

I'm thinking we can't return the baby to the hospital....whether we have a receipt or not.

I'm just worried about doing a good job taking good care of the kid, and using the stuff we get right. I don't mind hard work.

I'm sure in time, I'll be an expert with all these devices, and things. I'll be like Inspector Gadget pulling crap out of my ass to make the baby stop crying. But for now I'm a novice, and I have no clue how to make this stuff work.

I just hope it will come with easy to read instructions......

Or else I'm just going to have to call this Eddie Bauer guy up myself.

The L word

I know there are going to be people out there who are questioning my motives for reviewing this show.

I can hear them laughing now.

I admit that the show caught my attention when I was channel surfing, and a provocative lesbian scene grabbed my attention. The show does feature provocative sexuality.....at times. But I found out pretty quickly that the show also has interesting, dramatic storylines, side splitting humor, and strong political statements weaved throughout the show.....

..... as well as sexy girl on girl action.

The L word takes a look into the lives of a small group of close friends in Los Angeles....mostly lesbian. The characters consist of a Lesbian couple raising a child, played by Jennifer Beals (Bette) and Laurel Holloman (Tina). Tina's sister, Kit, who is NOT a Lesbian played by Pam Grier. There's also a professional tennis player who's recently come out of the closet, named Dana, played by Erin Daniels. A journalist/KCRW radio dj who is bisexual named Alice, played by Leisha Hailey, (who happens to be the only real Lesbian on the show). Rounding out the cast are a hairdresser and sexually aggressive Lesbian heartbreaker named Shane, played by Katherine Moenning, and a struggling artist bisexual named Jenny, played by an impressive Mia Kirshner.

Among the many things the show has going for it is good writing, and great characters. I don't think I'm overstating by saying this cast must be the envy of all female actors working today. Simply put, it's the best material out there available for actresses. The characters are strong, emotional, sexy, articulate, witty and multi-dimensional. It's really something one doesn't see nowadays in entertainment. It was almost jarring for me to watch the show. I kept expecting the stereotypes, and one dimensional female characters to appear and instead I got fascinating and unpredictable. It's riveting to watch, I didn't know how much I've been craving female characters like this, but after watching a marathon of roughly over twenty episodes......that's right TWENTY!......the past week, I find myself wanting more.

To be honest, I can't wait till 10:00 P.M. next Sunday.

I can't stress how impressed I am with the writing. As a man who's written female roles in the past, I've always struggled with finding the true voices of the female characters. To be honest, the female characters I wrote always seemed like ideal visions of what a man would think was cool or cute to hear from a woman. I've never felt like I've found a female character's true voice. It's probably because that's the only kind of female character's that I've been exposed to in the media. Even a show like Sex and the City, which is groundbreaking in some ways, doesn't feel authentic to me. Almost like the characters were just channeling the voices of the Gay male writers who wrote for the show.

The L Word doesn't feel that way.

At least for me, the voices and characters feel real and authentic. They sound like the female friends I have. One second they say something smart, touching and sensitive, the next second, they say something silly, flawed, cruel, or uncool.

In other words real.

It's not surprising that the series has an impressive list of female guest stars who probably begged, and bribed their way onto the show. Off the top of my head Dana Delaney, Rosanna Arquette, Kelly Lynch, Anne Archer, and Margot Kidder come to mind.

What IS very surprising about the show is how the male characters aren't objects of ridicule. Which would be what people might expect with a show like this. For example, in the first season the character of Jenny (Mia Kirshner) is in a love triangle between an exotic, sophisticated woman played by Karina Lombard and Jenny's male fiance, Tim, played by Eric Maibus. Under the typical Hollywood formula, the male character of Tim would be ignorant, neglecting, and chauvinistic. But the show goes the other way with it. Tim is incredibly loving, caring, and thoughtful. There's no reason for Jenny to leave Tim, but as in life, things are not always that simple.

The show is also politically articulate, and thought provoking. A lot of energy is spent on the struggle with the current political climate of Right Wing political leadership. Lots of that type of drama surrounds the character played by Jennifer Beals. She's a Yale educated Art Curator, with an ultra conservative father (who was played by the late Ossie Davis in his final role). Her character is constantly struggling with increasing censorship and religious backlash. She also happens to be half African American. So her character is working on four different political levels, she's a artistic loving lesbian, who's also half-African American, is an adoptive mother to a half black son, and an intelligent vocal, articulate, female, liberal democrat.

Where else is one going to find a character like that?

The real revelation of the show though is Mia Kirshner. She's outstanding on the show. She's heartbreaking and powerfully tragic. I can't believe that her work is not garnering more attention. I've enjoyed her work in the past with movies like Exotica and Love, and Human Remains. But she really shines here. Besides the love triangle I mentioned earlier, her character deals with sexual confusion, childhood rape, relationship betrayals, and self mutilation....she's also a struggling performance artist and writer.

Like I said.....fascinating characters.

I can go down the line and describe each character, and one will find them all to be grounded, fascinating and fully fleshed out. It's exciting to discover really, cause there really isn't anything on now or hasn't been anything like it on t.v. I think the show is important, and yet entertaining.

I'm hoping my description of the show doesn't make it sound pretentious or soap opera like cause it really isn't. The show is sensitive, realistic and often times humorous. It's really well done, a nice balance.

I guess if there's a weakness in the show, it's that the main characters are all mainstream society's ideal visions of lesbians. They are attractive, fashionable, feminine, educated and smart. The so-called masculine or "butch" lesbians weren't represented fully in the show. However, Kelly Lynch did have a 4 episode arch in the first season, where she played a masculine lesbian character named Ivan who had feelings for the straight Kit. This season they've addressed that issue by introducing Moira, who is a lesbian with masculine traits, as a major character, who is dating the frail Jenny. Once again the show is showing sensitivity by illustrating Moira's awkwardness around Jenny's feminine lesbian friends.

The real question is why isn't there more characters like this on television and in movies? It's unfortunate that a mediocre show like Desperate Housewives is garnering more attention. To be honest there is a lot more interesting, and dramatically impressive work being done on the L word. I'm guessing that the homosexual nature might turn people off, which is unfortunate, not to mention silly, cause people are missing good stuff. But I also think that the show isn't reaching enough audiences because of SHOWTIME'S smaller subscription base.

In any case, I'm just glad that this show is around to help fill the void of a lack of female voices.

I'm hoping more people will notice the fine work being done on the show, and it'll start a larger trend. The first two seasons are available now on DVD. The third season is currently airing on Sunday's at 10:00 P.M. As one can probably guess by now, I highly recommend it.

Thumbsucker

Growing up is hard.....seriously.

That's pretty much the message in Mike Mills solid directorial debut.

Thumbsucker is the coming of age story of Justin Cobb. He's a boy who seems to be a normal teenager, complete with parents who love him but can't relate, a crush on a girl who SEEMS like she's interested....or maybe not, a teacher who's demanding and yet sympathetic, and a orthodontist who's a wanna be new age guru. He's a pretty normal kid except for one slightly quirky nervous trait......in times of stress he likes to suck on his thumb.

What's great about Mike Mills' movie is that the character's are all solidly written, and realistically portrayed. It's a refreshing change of pace from the stock character's we often see in these coming of age movies. The parents , played by Tilda Swinton and Vincent D'Onofrio in solid, grounded performances, are aloof, yet they are also very sympathetic. The truth is they care, but in REALITY they have no idea what they are doing. The refreshing thing is they are the first to admit they aren't perfect, and are just doing their best to raise children. The teacher, played by a solid Vince Vaughn, is awkwardly affable. He's the kind of teacher that's cool in a friend sort of way, but at the same time not totally irresponsible, and quick to discipline when things get out of hand.

Sort of like real life.

The whole movie is like that. It feels authentic and sensitive, not exploitive or cheesy. The problem is that in the current entertainment market the movie is not quirky enough to be memorably hilarious, or moving enough to be interestingly dramatic. As my friend Lons remarked to me the other day, it feels like a network television drama pilot. If the movie was made in the 80's, in the midst of the John Hughes era, I'm sure it would have been a quirky hit that would have offset nicely from the Pretty in Pink type movies of the day. But in the age of Napoleon Dynamite, Rushmore, and the t.v. cult hit Freaks and Geeks, the movie becomes unfortunately forgettable.

Not that there aren't memorable performances in the movie. Keanu Reeves gets some good laughs as the Orthodontist who can also hypnotize, Kelli Garner is solid, as an elusive girl that Justin has a crush on, and Lou Taylor Pucci anchors the film nicely in a demanding role, he even received merit at last year's Sundance film Festival.

The movie is a solid although unremarkable film....which means it's better than 75% percent of the Hollywood movies out there today.

It's now available on DVD.

Munich

Munich is one of the best, most fascinating, and exciting movies of 2005.

Unfortunately it's also been one of the most controversial movies of the year. Mostly because some audiences seem to interpret the film as a story that paints the Israeli assassin team in a negative light, while at the same time humanizing terrorists. But I'm not sure that's the true intention of the movie. I believe the movie's intention is to be a thoughtful meditation on how violence ultimately begets more violence, but what makes the movie so unique, and impressive is that it also works as an outstanding suspense thriller.

Munich recounts the events, and aftermath of September, 1972 when during the Olympic games 11 Israeli athletes are taken hostage, and brutally murdered by a Palestine terrorist group called Black September. As a result of the murders, Golda Meir and the Israeli government assemble an elite squad to assassinate those responsible for organizing the terrorist attack.

Among the many things the movie has going for it is the production design of the film. It's simply incredible, outstanding really, almost like we were viewing historical footage. The costumes, set, and historical detail are all perfect. Janusz Kaminski's Cinematography is stunning to behold, and the acting is all top notch , and superb, especially Eric Bana as the squad leader, and Ciran Hinds as the mission scene cleaner. Each character is grounded, touching, and effective.

But the real star of the movie is Steven Spielberg. It's a virtuoso accomplishment, the direction is almost impressive beyond words. It's thrilling, suspense filled, touching, and poignant. He blends two different genres, a morality drama and suspense thriller, masterfully. The action sequences in particular are unbelievable. The moments are remarkably well choreographed, and cinematically realized. The assassinations themselves are suspense filled, thrilling, well executed, and visually mesmerizing. At one point in the movie Spielberg even shifts into paranoia mode, and the film is taken to yet another incredible level. It's obvious that Spielberg is using all of his cinematic skills to the best of his ability, and the effect is outstanding. The movie leaves little doubt he is one of the top 3 directors working today....maybe even ever. My buddy Lons over at Crushed by Inertia has a well written Munich review on his site, which I pretty much agree with, and he articulates much better than I could the positives of the film.

If there's any weakness in the film though, and I'm really nitpicking, it would be with the writing. Not that the script isn't polished, tight, clear and articulate, but at least for me I could hear two distinct voices telling the story, mind you they are two outstanding voices in Tony Kushner and Eric Roth. But it's still two voices, and I'm not sure that's a good thing. In a sense I could see the seams of how the movie was put together. I could see where a polish was made to give the movie more heart, more moral meditation. Under normal circumstances I probably wouldn't even have noticed those seams, but after viewing this film on the heels of two outstanding written films with distinct singular voices, Match Point and New World, the weaknesses in this script to me seemed to stick out more than usual.

The movie, to me at least, suffers slightly by having awkward placed plot devices throughtout the film. The most blatant being in a scene between Avner and an intelligent, thoughtful Palestine sympathizer in a stairwell, outside a safe house. It's a well written scene probably written by Kushner, because the moment almost feels like a theatrical one act play. In the scene they debate each side's political position over who has right to the land, and who is right in their cause. It's a well written, thoughtful scene with strong arguments on both sides, but for me, the moment feels fabricated, and theatrical for the benefit of the audience, rather than serving the story. It doesn't feel genuine to me, that at that moment in time these two people would have this debate. Any reasonably intelligent middle east citizens in that situation, wouldn't feel the need to debate their beliefs. I'm sure they would both be well aware of the oppositions argument. There's also no benefit to the argument. It serves no cinematic purpose in the story other than to create sympathy for both parties.

In terms of plot development, I believe that the film would have also benefited greatly from more meditation by the characters on the consequences of their potential actions BEFORE they accept the actual mission. I think a lot of the criticism that the film is receiving now would have been muted by some well thought out scenes of pause and consideration. To me the characters needed to have some meaningful discussions, and explorations of the potential ramifications of the actions that they were about to embark on.

Some of the scenes which take place later on in the movie could have even been re-located to earlier in the script. Most notably a well written powerful scene between Avner (Bana) and Robert (a very strong Mathieu Kassovitz), when Robert questions the righteousness of their mission. He eloquently states that the point of the Jewish religion is that they try to live their life to a higher standard. That just because evil is done to them, doesn't give them the right to perform evil. He grieves for his soul in that moment. It's an excellent argument, and if that discussion had happened BEFORE they take the mission it would have painted the Israeli team in a more positive, and for me a more realistic, intelligent light.

By putting the scene at a moment in the film when things begin to go bad for the team, gives the characters almost a feel of uncharacteristic panic, weakness, and to me a lack of intelligence . It doesn't ring true that these strong, smart, characters would be so short sighted about the sacrifices they are making by taking the mission. It's not believable that the characters didn't think of the potential consequences before they took the mission. Did they really believe there would be no casualties? Did they really think that it was going to be easy? That the morality of their actions wouldn't be tested? Again, to me it feels like a poorly placed plot device to add suspense, and give the protagonists of the film second thoughts about their mission. I believe a lot of the defenders of that plot point will try to argue that the team was swept up in a feeling of nationalism, and religious fervor in the first act. But the script honestly doesn't support that argument.

If anything Eric Bana's character in the beginning is clear headed and calculating. Which is another point for me, it takes away from the character by making him so. That he would leave his loving wife, and unborn child so readily doesn't ring true for me. It's possible that it could be a cultural difference, but the script doesn't make that clear. As a result, for me it feels like another poorly placed plot device to illustrate the sacrifice he makes for his country.

It's a seam in the script.

In reality, I don't even think any reasonable government would bother asking a family man to undertake such a sacrifice. They'd just as easy ask a single man with no dependents, no bonds to hold him back, to undertake the mission. No messy ties for the government to clean up or explain to a grieving wife and child. Especially with so little to gain by having a family man undertake the mission. It would just complicate matters by having a married father being point man for this team. Which is illustrated awkwardly when he "sneaks" back home to attend the birth of his child. The opening scenes of the movie even makes light of how Bana's character gives up his insurance, and death benefits. But how could an intelligent, and reasonable father make such a big sacrifice so lightly, when his family depends so heavily on him? Again, it feels like a poorly placed plot device to illustrate the character's personal sacrifice. The payoff happening when Avner listens to his child's voice on the phone for the first time. It's a heartbreaking moment, but it doesn't ring true. It actually becomes hard to sympathize with him when we saw him earlier in the film leave his family so readily by choice, with very little coaxing.

The script also has a heavy handed moment at the end of the film, when a tragic flashback is happening during a love making sequence. The metaphor is obviously love and hate. But it feels over done. A little over dramatic. I think the same effect could have been made much simplier and more subtle, maybe while the character is watching his child play or observing his wife and child together. Let me just note that Spielberg DOES do a great job with the moment. The artistry is captivating and well done. It just feels a little heavy handed and over the top.

Again, I don't want to give the impression that I disliked the movie. It's only because everything else about the movie is SO fantastic, incredible really, that I even notice these minor shortcomings in the film's script.

It's a shame that the controversy is putting a cloud over the film, it's really unwarranted. The film actually has the same message as Saving Private Ryan, another film by Spielberg which wasn't deemed controversial. It's a movie about self sacrifice, about human nature when faced with lethal danger, about the depravity man will go to in war. It's absurd to think that the film supports or condones terrorism, and the people who perform it. It's a call for non-violence. It's simply saying that violence will snowball out of control if not attended to with cooler, peace seeking leadership, instead of vengence seeking hot heads. It's a powerful film with a strong message.

That message is more relavant now than ever.

The Girl Next Door - The Stacy Valentine Story

What happens when the best, and most confident thing one does in their life is have sex?

If the person is Stacy Valentine she becomes one of the most famous porn stars ever.

This documentary chronicles the rise of her porn stardom.

It's a humanizing look into the world of pornography from the point of view of one of it's most admired former stars. Because of the popularity of pornography, there's been an increase of documentaries on the subject. HBO has had critical, and commercial success with their special Thinking XXX, and their mini series Pornocopia: Going down in the Valley. SHOWTIME, in the meantime, has been successfully airing their comedic reality show Family Business for several years now.....and counting. What's interesting about this new batch of documentaries is that they all seem to feature positive, even humor filled aspects of the business. It would seem that nowadays porn stars are respected, and admired for their abilities as much as some of our most famous athletes. The fact is that pornography is more mainstream than ever, and it's incredibly lucrative, and profitable, especially for the top tier female performers. There was even a romantic comedy recently starring Elisha Cuthbert as a porn star. Ironically, the movie had the same title as this film.

This documentary doesn't make any judgments on the business, but looking into Stacy Valentine's eyes one can easily see that there is a huge price to pay for porn stardom.

The most intriguing aspect of the movie is witnessing Stacy Valentine doing, and saying all the right things about her job, but because of her affable and simple nature, one can tell she doesn't REALLY believe what she's saying. One also notices pretty early on that unlike some of her other fellow porn stars, like Jenna Jameson or Seymore Butts for example, she doesn't have the business savvy, personal drive, and intelligence to deal with the difficulties of being a porn star. She depends too much on her heart, which is something she needs to turn off to be mega-successful in such an unforgiving business.

The movie begins with her background, and up bringing in Oklahoma. She's born Stacy Baker, and has a seemingly normal childhood. But soon the viewer finds that her father was mentally, and possibly physically abusive. During the film, Stacy claims that she was never sexually molested, and that the abuse she went through had nothing to do with the fact she pursued porn. Strangely enough, she gets into the business when her then-husband encourages her to send photos to Hustler magazine. Upon winning an amateur contest, and enjoying a x-rated photo shoot she soon realizes that she wants to leave her husband, and join the adult business.

What follows is a unnerving look into the world of being a porno star. There's some revealing footage of her personal life with male porn star Julian, and the difficulties of dating within the business. There is also some interesting moments on the set like her first movie shoot, and even a humorous moment when she becomes violently allergic to the fog machines on a porn set. In several scenes she awkwardly interacts with fans, and we also attend an adult movie award show.The most startling footage in the movie, however,is her preparing for, and the actual filming of the plastic surgery performed on her body. In a poignant moment in the film, she remarks how sometimes she doesn't even recognize herself in the mirror, and she worries about what kind of psychological affect that will have on her.

But the most compelling moment in the entire film is when she tries to justify when she prostitutes herself to a wealthy Frenchman during Cannes. She remarks how she feels bad for cheating on her boyfriend, and that because she doesn't sleep around off set, that it's okay for her to sell her body for cash. But in reality that's the least of her worries, when the camera looks into her eyes as she speaks, it reveals how she probably feels embarrassed, and used. It's an interesting foreshadow of the end of her porn career. After returning from her "date" she playfully throws the seemingly meager amount of money up in the air, and rolls around it on her bed, but there doesn't seem to be any joy in her actions. In her heart she knows it looks, and feels cheap , even though after closer inspection it reveals that the bills are hundreds, and there is probably several thousand dollars on that bed.

It's a well done moment, in a film filled with painfully awkward moments. Perhaps it's because Christine Fugate, the director of the film is a woman, it seems throughout the entire film Stacy feels threatened by her unobjective eye. Lots of the movie is about half hearted justifying, even when Fugate doesn't ask or demand that from her.

Just when one thinks it can't get any lower for Stacy, rock bottom hits when Julian, her boyfriend, performs in a threesome scene with Stacy. At first they seem excited about the scene, and the opportunity to work with each other. But when the moment of the scene arrives, Julian is struck impotent by the sight of his girlfriend having sex with another male performer. It's a painful moment as we hear the sounds of seemingly pleasurable sex, and the camera focuses in on a crushed and hurt Julian inches away watching her girlfriend having sex. Two weeks later he breaks up with her, leaving her in tears. It paints a sad, and painful portrait of being a porn star. Which is probably the reason, in the year 2000, Stacy eventually quits performing in the business entirely.

It's a fascinating documentary, and a good offset to all the positive documentaries about porn out there.

The movie is available now on DVD.