Wednesday, April 28, 2010

This Film is Not Yet Rated

This Film is Not Yet Rated

"Documents a history of the MPAA ratings board. Talks to numerous directors and actors about the censorship of their movies before they could be released. Includes directors, Kevin Smith, Matt Stone, John Waters, Darren Aronosfsky, Maria Bello, Atom Egoyan. Director, Kirby Dick hires a lesbian family of private investigators to find out the names of the MPAA ratings board and see if the raters are actually parents of children 5-17 like the MPAA tells American parents they are."

DISCLAIMER: My 3 Star rating of this film is soley based on the artistic nature. It is my firm belief that everyone should see this film.

3.5 Stars

I don’t think this film is really going to SHOCK anyone. In this day and age, we have come to realize and (unfortunately) accept that many aspects of our day to day lives are controlled by large corporations, and the film industry is no different. But even though it may not shock you, the things revealed in this documentary will present you with some very sobering facts.

Filmmaker Kirby Dick tries to expose the hypocrisy and secrecy of the MPAA ratings board who assign the ratings to all movies released in the United States and he does a pretty good job. One major drawback for me was the private investigator he hires to try and gain access to (and later gather more information about) the MPAA. She is, in one word, amateur. Just from watching television and movies, I could have done a better job than this woman. And there is even a random, seemingly pointless conversation in the movie where she talks about how she thinks she may be a lesbian . . . huh? How does that relate to anything?

Regardless, she more or less gets the job done and is able to find the information that the filmmaker is looking for, most importantly the true identities of the MPAA raters. The MPAA goes to such lengths to keep their identities secret because, they claim, it prevents the people from being harassed or influenced (a fact that is contested later in the film). This was my only major disagreement with the filmmaker. I got over the fact that Kirby is a bit of a prick and that the film seemed to be a little more “dramaticized” than a documentary needs to be, but he hurts the wrong people with the information. The raters themselves are just parents making a whopping $30,000 per year. While I am not so glib to assume that the raters don’t know what’s going on or that they may not be getting other forms of compensation under the table, I really don’t think he needed to expose them. Screwing the people at the bottom of the totem pole doesn’t result in hurting the big guys, it just results in NEW people at the bottom of the totem pole.

One of the most interesting points in the movie, though, is the argument made about the way sex and violence are dealt with in the ratings. While we have all heard the arguments over and over about how American society is downright Puritanical when it comes to sex, it never really hit me how much disparity there is in dealing with sex versus violence. Case in point, the movie Saw can show dismemberment, castration, and many other acts of graphic violence and receive and R while a movie whose only offense is to show a woman’s vagina receives an NC-17. I could go off on a tangent here about what’s a bigger social problem today in America violence or nudity . . . but I won’t. The disparity in ratings of love scenes between homosexuals and heterosexuals is also glaringly obvious, but that’s almost worth an entirely different film.

As you would expect, the filmmaker eventually submits his documentary to the MPAA for a rating and (surprise, surprise) it comes back with an NC-17 rating. So, he goes through the appeals process to try and get an R rating. One of the most ironic moments in the film comes at the end where we find out the identities of this “appeals board”. While I shouldn’t have been surprised by who the people ended up being, I still had to shake my head in disbelief.

Now, you might ask what’s the big deal about an NC-17 rating? It’s just a guideline for parents and if the film is still good people will hear about it. Well, unfortunately that’s not the case. If you get the NC-17 no major studio is going to produce the movie or advertise for it or even really promote it. On top of that, Blockbuster, Movie Gallery, and all the other chain video stores won’t carry it. So, while you may not realize the importance of the MPAA ratings, after this film you will come to realize that they have the American filmmaker by the balls.

100 Girls

100 Girls

"This sexy, teen-comedy is about a freshman, Matthew, at college who meets his dream girl in a dorm elevator during a blackout. He never sees her face, but instantly falls in love. In the morning, the power is restored, but the "dream girl" has vanished. All Matthew knows is that she lives in an all-girls dorm. He sets out on a semester-long journey to find his mystery girl amongst a hundred female suspects. Could it be Wendy? Dora? Arlene? Patty? Cynthia? Or the 95 other girls, any of whom could have been in that elevator with Matthew."

1 Star

“Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God.” This is the mantra I kept repeating to myself out loud while watching this movie? Why did I do this you ask? Well, the simple answer is I had to preoccupy my mind with something so that I wouldn’t grab the ball point pen laying two feet across from me and proceed to jam it in my eye. I’m still new to Netflix but Robyn has hyped it up so much, that I finally thought I would give it a try. One of the features they offer is suggesting movies you may like based on previous movies that you have rated highly. Well, someone needs to check the algorithm that produces these suggestions because the damn thing’s broken.

It was bad, and I mean BAD bad. Some of the reviews I read afterwards said that it was a Teen movie, but should have been more geared towards adults. I’m gonna go in the exact opposite direction. It was as if the writer was a 12 year old boy, and all he really knew of college was the stereotypes he garnered from, well, other teen movies. Now, don’t get me wrong, I know that all teen movies are chocked full of stereotypes, but most of them are at least somewhat self aware of this fact. This movie tried to paint itself as penetrating and insightful. I hate to break it to the writer, but every “revelation” that he tries to convey to us through the main character is one that 99.9% of college freshmen guys have come to realize by the third month of school. Hell, most guys probably have made these revelations by their senior year in high school. It just takes some of us a little longer because we weren’t in the Ultra-kid cool clique in high school. Instead we were pretty involved in clubs and student government. And, come on, that’s just as cool in its own right. I mean, I’m not talking about me, I’m just saying hypothetically . . . shut up.

Anyway, I wish I could recommend this movie just so the guys out there could see Jaime Pressly, Larisa Oleynik (remember Alex Mack? Don’t lie, you had a rush on her too), Katherine Heigl, and Emmanuelle Chriqui in the same place at one time. Let’s be honest, when Sloan from Entourage is in ANYTHING, you suck it up and go see the movie. Alas, I still can’t bring myself to do it. If you do see this movie you will end up wanting the same thing I did . . . your hour and a half back.

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Post Grad

Post Grad
"Ryden Malby (Alexis Bledel) always assumed it would be easy to find a job with a college diploma. But when nothing materializes after graduation, she's forced to move back in with her dysfunctional family and work full-time at maintaining her sanity. The only bright spot is her steady relationship with her best friend, Adam (Zach Gilford), but even that's starting to feel a little awkward."

2.5 of stars

A pretty standard movie with a pretty standard storyline. Naive girl with big plans, forced to adapt when things don't go her way, with a 90-minute-mark revelation of true love. 

I like Alexis Bledel, but she plays the same character all the time (variations on Rory Gilmore). Michael Keaton and Carol Burnett as the father and grandmother were entertaining, though written as caricatures. Jane Lynch is seriously miscast the mother - does she strike you as maternal at all?! There's also an extraneous little brother, a sexy next-door neighbor, and a surprisingly funny scene about burying a cat in a pizza box. But that's about it. Inoffensive and unmemorable.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Run, Fatboy, Run

Run Fatboy Run
"After leaving his pregnant fiancée, Libby (Thandie Newton), at the altar five years ago, a remorseful Dennis (Simon Pegg) tries to repair the damage and win Libby away from her sleazy new boyfriend (Hank Azaria) by training for a marathon. Trouble is, he's hopelessly out of shape. Will losing the pounds and catching his breath be enough to get her back?"

3 of stars

Tonite's review is in honor of Valentine's Day (and Simon Pegg's birthday!). I didn't realize this was a romantic comedy - I figured since it was starring Simon Pegg it was going to be raunchier. But I was pleasantly surprised. It's got a Nick Hornby flavor, told from the man-boy's point of view.

Dennis (Pegg) has always regretted leaving his pregnant girlfriend (Thandie Newton) at the altar five years earlier. He's a bit of a screw-up, working as a security guard, when his ex starts dating Whit (Hank Azaria). Azaria plays the nice guy/smarmy asshole well - and after a scene in the locker room, who knew he was so ripped?! Dennis decides that anything Whit can do, he can do better, and decides to run a marathon (despite a pack-a-day habit and a three-week deadline). Typical training montages and hilarity ensue, with a heartwarming, if predictable, ending.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

In Bruges: Robyn's Response

(Todd's review here)

4 Stars

I was in love with Colin Farrell when I was younger. Three friends and I even formed the CFFC: Colin Farrell Fan Club. As I grew older and wiser, I realized that Colin is a hit-or-miss actor, with mostly misses (Miami Vice, Alexander, and The New World, just to name a few). But there are a handful of movies where he really shines: Tigerland (one of my few 5 star movies), Phone Booth, and In Bruges.

In Bruges started off slow for me, and I was just starting to lose interest when things started picking up. I originally thought this was going to be another fast-paced British crime story, but it's grittier and more realistic than that. It has it's violence and dark humor; it's got layers. I loved the interaction between Colin Farrell (Ray) and Brendan Gleeson (Ken). And while Farrell is good, Gleeson is the one who really carries the movie. Ray has baggage, but Ken is helping him shoulder it.

The ending was great, and not what I was expecting. I love it when that happens.

Monday, February 8, 2010

Amelie

Amelie

"Amélie is looking for love, and perhaps for the meaning of life in general. We see her grow up in an original if slightly dysfunctional family. Now a waitress in central Paris, she interacts curiously with her neighbors and customers, as well as a mysterious Photomaton-image collector and one of his even more mysterious photo subjects. Little by little, Amélie realizes that the way to happiness (and yet more subtle humor) requires her to take her own initiative and reach out to others."

4.5 Stars

If I had to describe this movie in two words, it would be “Wonderfully Weird” because that pretty much sums it up. I haven’t seen a movie make so much out of just the simple pleasures of life in a long time. The director really does a great job of seamlessly intertwining the simplicity of the real world to the fantasy world that Amelie has created in her head. But I think one of the best things about the movie is that it doesn’t take the daydream aspect too far. True, there are some strange fantasy sequences here or there, but they don’t overpower the story SO much that you forget what the film is really all about . . . taking chances.

Like many of us, Amelie watches television, movies, and most importantly the lives of other people. She becomes very interested in how people react to situations and, in turn, each other. She maintains a childlike curiosity of the human condition and how it perpetually defies predictability. Amelie also take on a personal mission to better the lives of those around her through both direct and indirect contact. But, as the movie goes on, we start to realize how sad she may really be inside. While she is always surrounded by people, she never truly seems to be connected to any of them. When it comes to relationships she really plays the role of observer more than participant.

This longing for contact manifests itself through the games she plays with a man whose scrapbook she has found. She is in love with him (or at least the idea of him) and decides to engage in a playfully romantic game to learn more about him and hopefully bring herself closer to actually making a true human connection. She tries to convince herself that she is being brave and taking risks that other people wouldn’t dare take, but she is really just fooling herself. I say that because when it finally comes time for the wild goose chase to meet its end, she balks. She hasn’t built up the courage to finally put herself out there and, just like the metaphorical “girl with the glass of water” that her shut-in neighbor struggles to paint, she acts cowardly.

I don’t blame her, though. The reason she acts cowardly is the same reason that most of us might act the same way, because we don’t want to be let down. While the lives of the people around her really shouldn’t be described as sad, they are (for lack of a better word) real. They aren’t like the fantasies she has. The lives are real and are subject to all the disappointments and heart breaks that are a part of life. And that is what scares her most, that when the bubble bursts, will what is left be enough? Luckily her shut-in neighbor gives one final piece of advice and makes her realize that if her heart is never subject to BOTH the joy and pain of love, then it will become just as dry and brittle as his old body.

Now, this movie is visually dazzling and the music does a lot to support the fantasyland motif, but I take something different away from the film. For me, it makes you feel good about believing in the hope of true love. Now, that’s not to say that Amelie necessarily found it. The movie ends where most romantic films do, with a picturesque montage of the happy couple. And you really hope that they ended up staying together for a long time and had a great life, but there is no way to be sure of that. Then again, that’s life and no one can ever really know. That’s why I think this film is saying that it is important to continue to have that hope. Things may not always end up the way we dreamed or planned, but if we continue to put ourselves out there, then hopefully we will eventually get what we need.


Robyn's Response
5 Stars

I love this movie. This movie provides everything the movie-going experience should: visually and musically beautiful, with a unique storytelling style and characters you can't help but fall in love with. Todd said it best when he wrote that this movie does so much with the simple pleasures in life.

In Bruges

In Bruges

"The Irish hit-men Ken and Ray are sent by the Londoner mobster Harry Waters to the medieval Belgium city of Bruges in Christmas after an awry job in a London church. Ray bungles it. While Ken enjoys the historic city, Ray feels completely bored and misses his home. Ray meets the small time drug-dealer and crook Chloë, who sells drug to the cast and crew of a movie that is filmed in Bruges, and has an incident with a Canadian tourist and later with Chloë's boyfriend. Meanwhile Harry, who has an stringent code of principles, gives Ken special orders."

4 Stars

I completely admit that I may be biased because I was actually in Bruges about a month ago, but I really like this movie. It is definitely one of those weird-in-a-good-way films. Colin Farrell plays a wet behind the ears hit man under the tutelage of Brendan McCann. The movie opens interestingly enough with them engaged in witty banter that you really have to pay attention to. Not only is the writing smart, but both actors’ accents are so thick that you sometimes wonder if they’re talking gibberish just to see if you’re paying attention. The mentor/mentee relationship is evident and amusing, especially since Ken is absolutely enamored to be in the “fairy tale” like Bruges while Ray is bored out of his mind and can’t wait to get back to the much faster pace of London.

Unfortunately, Ray can’t go back to London because he has committed a terrible mistake. In his first job as a hit man he was sent to assassinate a priest, which he did. What he didn’t plan on was one of his stray bullets killing a nearby 8 year old boy who was getting ready to take confession. This clearly haunts Ray throughout the movie. Even with the heavy subject matter of the movie it does a good job of keeping a humorous attitude that doesn’t let the inhumanity involved in the men’s work overshadow the entire movie. Plus, I don’t think I have heard the name of a movie be actually spoken in that movie more in my life.

There is also an intriguing “code of the hit man” that is explored. Even though their profession would cause a knee jerk reaction of disgust because they take human lives for a living, Ken and Ray bring an aspect of humanity to it. They justify it to themselves by saying that they have only killed bad men or only killed in self defense. And they have a strict code about when and where they kill. In essence, they treat it like an actual job and try not to let it consume them.

Chloe (Clémence Poésy) is another bright spot in the film. I really can’t put my finger on it, but there is something incredibly sexy about her. At first glance she’s not drop dead gorgeous, but something about her personality just draws you in. Plus, she has one of the coolest/sexiest moments that I have seen in a long time. When Ken initially asks her out to dinner she just laughs and walks away, leaving us to believe that she is blowing him off. But after she gets about 20 feet away she drops a card with her phone number over her shoulder without even glancing back or breaking stride. I don’t know how to explain it, but watch the scene and tell me you don’t have the same reaction that Colin Farrell does.

If you still aren’t convinced to rent this movie, then I have three words for you: Midgets, Hookers, and Cocaine. If that doesn’t get your Spidey Sense tingling, nothing will. Now, I will admit that the ending fell a little flat for me. There is a metaphor involving some miscommunication that just feels forced. And, I don’t think I’m giving anything away, the movie ends on sort of a cliff hanger. While I think the last scene is executed very well, I don’t like the fact that a movie ends on a cliff hanger. You can do that with a TV show or a movie where a sequel is inevitable, but rarely can you get away with that in a standalone movie.