In A World...(2013)

Director: Lake Bell

This was a rewatch, and it was well worth it. Liked this movie when I saw it in the theater back in 2013, and I still like it.

The movie follows Carol Solomon (Lake Bell), a voice coach and voice actor in Hollywood who is trying to break into a larger role. The daughter of a highly successful movie trailer narrator, Carol faces an uphill battle in the male-dominated, chauvinistic world of movie-trailer voice-overs. A little stroke of luck opens a small door for Carol, which she then parlays into ever-better voice-over gigs, eventually landing a chance to voice the trailer for a massive, blockbuster upcoming movie franchise. However, there is some very stiff competition for the job, including her self-important, chauvinist father. Carol tries to keep her eye on this occupational prize, all while juggling several rough hiccups in her personal and family lives. 

In a World... is a really fun look into a part of the movie business that many of us don't ever see and probably never think much about. And it's a world that writer, director, and star Lake Bell, a highly accomplished voice-over artist, knows plenty about. Despite seeming to be a minor, almost inconsequential part of a visual medium, she offers us a look at a cut-throat world filled with massively outsized egos and comically competitive scrambling. Once the dash for the coveted movie voice-over job is on, it's hard not to be invested in Carol's prospects of winning the gig. Unlike many of the "behind the scenes, movies about movies" shows that we've seen over the years, the stakes here are smaller on one level, but they also carry plenty of weight for the authentic characters we get here. In addition to Lake Bell, her father is played by longtime voice-over master Fred Melamed, who brings a ton of comic acting chops to the movie. These two and others help make a "small" world carry some actual weight for the people who dwell in it. 

The voice- and sound-obsessed Carol (left) 
surreptitiously records her unwitting sister. Plenty
of humor in the movie comes from Carol trying
to get various recordings for her work.

More importantly, though, is the humor. While there is some effective drama in the movie, this movie is mostly a comedy, and it is hilarious at times. Whether it's Carol helping star Eva Longoria not sound like "a retarded pirate," her egomaniacal father waxing machismo, or awkward coworkers played by comedians Dmitri Martin, Tig Notaro, and others going about their lives and jobs, the laughs come steadily. I've seen two of Bells' dramedy/rom-coms (the other being the hilarious Man Up), and I've been impressed with just how well she balances the humor with the emotion. I'm not much of a rom-com guy, and In a World...isn't strictly a rom-com, but it has some of the elements and executes them extremely well. 

I highly recommend this one to anybody who enjoys movies about movies or smart comedies about people trying to break through barriers to flex their talent. 

Retro Duo: 50 First Dates (2004); Kick-Ass (2010)

Though no great Sandler fan, I found this
"oldie" of his fairly charming.

50 First Dates (2004)

Director: Peter Segal

A pretty decent rom-com, and one that serves to further remind us of Adam Sandler's oft-abandoned potential.

Set in Hawai'i, Sandler plays animal veterinarian and womanizer Dr. Henry Roth. Roth's modus operandi is to lie about his identity in fantastic ways in order to bed vacationing single women, which allows him to make no serious relationship commitments. This changes when Henry comes across Lucy (Drew Barrymore). At first, Henry sees Lucy as another potential conquest. That is, until he is made aware that Lucy suffers from short-term memory loss, which causes her to forget everything she has experienced that day once she goes to sleep that night. Despite her condition, Henry quickly falls in love with her, going to great lengths to re-introduce himself to Lucy each day, despite the fact that she never remembers him once the day is over.

Like many people, my history with Adam Sandler has been very mixed, and I have almost completely avoided the dreck comedies that he's been putting out for many years now. Still, I loved a few of his earlier comedies, especially Happy Gilmore, and I found him especially effective in the against-type dramatic role he played in Punch-Drunk Love. 50 First Dates was his second teaming with Drew Barrymore, after the also-entertaining The Wedding Singer in 1998, and it is arguably a deeper, more touching movie than that earlier pairing.

The general appeal of Adam Sandler has always been the comedy of his Jekyl/Hyde "lovable dope/furious buffoon" balancing act. In 50 First Dates, he drops the rage monster persona and swaps it out for the part of a womanizer - a move that was a refreshing change of pace and allowed the more charismatic aspects of his on-screen persona to shine through. He and the also-sweet Drew Berrymore have a very strong chemistry, which is no doubt why they've done several rom-coms together spanning two decades. This was still very much the case in this movie, in which the love story is spun out nicely, with some fun, light-hearted comic contrivances. It was actually effective enough to pull one's attention away from the moronic character Ula, played by the always over-the-top Rob Schneider (one of several Sandler buddies who show up and add plenty of ham to nearly all of his movies).

While the movie isn't to be taken too seriously, the romance elements are endearing enough. It's one that I could see myself going back to at some point, as it's one that my wife quite enjoys. We can both share some good laughs while I don't feel my intelligence is being completely insulted. That's really about all I need from a romantic comedy, and 50 First Dates provides that in the beautifully lush setting of Hawai'i.

Kick-Ass (2010)

Director: Matthew Vaughn

How on earth I - a fairly devoted fan of comic book superhero movies - had never seen this movie is a bit of a mystery. It received a fair amount of buzz and was a solid commercial success when it was released back in 2010. Still, I somehow completely missed it. And even when I watched and thoroughly enjoyed Kingsmen: The Secret Service, by the same writer and director, and saw that he was also responsible for Kick-Ass, I still went a few more years without seeing it. Well, that is now remedied.

The movie is merely alright, which was a bit of a surprise, given its reputation.

The movie follows Dave Lizewski, a run-of-the-mill high school senior deeply enamored of costumed, comic book superheroes. So enamored, in fact, that he decides to become one after witnessing more than a few brutal crimes in his neighborhood. While not having any supernatural abilities (nobody does, in this film's world), Lizewski trains to fight, dubs himself "Kick-Ass," and even manages to be just successful enough to start building something of a fan following. It also captures the attention of a powerful local crime boss and a father-daughter costumed vigilante duo in the area. Things grow ever more treacherous for Lizewski as the stakes get higher for him and his crime-fighting alter ego.

Given the context of its time, I can guess that I would have loved this movie far more had I seen it back in 2010 or even within a year or two of its release. It's harder to recall now, but back then, the big-budget, comic book superhero movie trend was only just beginning to get into full swing. Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins and The Dark Knight had come out a few years before, sure. But the Marvel Cinematic Universe was still barely nascent. What is now a 23-movies-and-counting global movie juggernaut was then only a two-movie dream, with Iron Man and the relatively forgotten The Incredible Hulk being the only movies released up to then. And the X-Men movie franchise was in a bit of a rut, having released the laughably messy X-Men Origins: Wolverine the year before. In the face of these rather straightforward superhero tales came Kick-Ass, an R-rated, darkly funny and extremely violent costumed hero story of a very different ilk. It must have felt like a real treat to watch something that turned the cinematic genre on its ear a little bit.

Seeing it for the first time in 2019, though? It just doesn't pack as much of a punch. By now, comic book superhero movies and (now) TV shows have gotten at least as funny, dark, and quirky as Kick-Ass was nearly a decade ago. It's still entertaining enough, but if you're looking for smart, mature "super-hero" stories, there are just too many better options on TV and film now. 

New Release: Long Shot (2019)

Director: Jonathan Levine

A flawed but funny comedy very much in keeping with Seth Rogen's comedy film career trajectory.

Long Shot tells the story of Secretary of State Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) – a bright and rising political star whose intelligence, political savvy, and photogenic image all suggest that she is poised to take the next great step into the presidency. During a charity dinner, Field comes across Fred Flarsky (Rogen), whom Field grew up around and even babysat for a time when she was in high school and Flarsky was in junior high. Flarsky has since become a highly independent journalist with a strong liberal bent, and one who has just quit his job at a small media outlet because it has been bought out by a massive, right-leaning media conglomerate. After their awkward reunion, Field brings Flarsky onto her team as a speech writer. The two, as different as they are in diplomacy and polish, start to reconnect and grow closer as they travel the world and try to put Field in a position to raise her political stock.

The movie is certainly entertaining enough. Like nearly every other Seth Rogen movie I’ve seen, he almost can’t help but be funny. He has always had a knack for selecting writers with whom he works well, and Long Shot has more than a few gags and lines that had me laughing out loud. It helps that the supporting cast all keep up admirably. Theron once again shows off her comic chops, though she does mostly play the "straight woman" to Rogen's typically goofy character. And others like O’Shea Jackson as Flarsky’s best friend and June Diane Raphael as Fields’s primary strategist only enhance the humor.

O'Shea Jackson Jr., left, as Flarsky's best friend, Lance.
Jackson's is one of several excellent supporting performances
that leave you wanting to see a bit more of him.

The story itself is fun enough, though lacking in a completely consistent tone. The humor is often fairly grounded, though it will take little flights into the more fantastic at times. This would normally be fine, but when one of the themes of the movie is the very real battle for women to be taken seriously and granted political power for more than just their looks, then sillier humor can feel a bit out of place. It still made me laugh, but it also dilutes what could have been a deeper message. Related is the rather obvious trope of the “dumpy, scruffy, average-looking guy hooks up with insanely beautiful woman” that is at the center of the movie. At first glance, this can be a bit off-putting. Once I thought about it, though, I actually appreciate it as a gender-reversal of sorts. In this movie, the male really has none of the obvious power here. Charlotte Field is more powerful, more beautiful, and at least as intelligent as the disheveled but principled Flarsky. For the most part, their established emotional connection feels organic enough without the woman serving the purpose of filling a powerful man’s needs. Quite the opposite – Flarsky is arguably there to fill one of the few needs that the immensely-successful Fields has – the need to rediscover what she truly loves in life, after so many years playing the game of optics in the high-stakes world of global politics.

I will offer the brief caveat that the humor in the movie can run into the raunchier end of things at times, which is par for the course in a Seth Rogen-headed film. The language is the primary source, but there are a handful of sex and body function gags in there, as well. I’m personally not bothered by such things, but it bears mentioning for those who may be put off by them.

My basic litmus test of a comedy is whether I would watch it again. With Long Shot, my answer is yes. It might not be right away, but it’s a fun rom-com that I can easily see my wife and I surfing across at night and staying to get some good laughs, along with a dash of depth.

New Release! Juliet, Naked (2018) [No spoilers]

No Spoilers! Read Away!!

Director: Jesse Peretz

Another well-done and more unique rom-com based on a novel by British writer Nick Hornby.

Juliet, Naked focuses on Annie Platt (Rose Byrne), a semi-reluctant museum curator in a small town on the coast of England. Annie's longtime boyfriend Duncan (Chris O'Dowd) is an local college professor who has a strong obsession with obscure 1990s rock musician Tucker Crowe. Crowe had one particularly critical hit album 25 years prior but vanished into obscurity for unknown reasons. Duncan is part of a small group of obsessive fans who pore over the minutiae of Tucker's life and rather small body of musical work with almost every spare moment. After a previously-unheard demo copy of Tucker's hit album mysteriously appears, Rose accidentally finds herself in contact with Crowe himself (Ethan Hawke). This forces her to begin rethinking her own life, from her relationship with Duncan to her job and continuing to live in her sleepy hometown.

I'm not a particular fan of romantic comedies, but I can enjoy ones that don't fall into the sappier tropes of the genre. Fortunately, Juliet, Naked avoids nearly all of them. There are certainly a few familiar elements to fans of rom-coms: a woman dissatisfied with her love life. A connection with a new man that forces her to reexamine her own life. Cute and humorously awkward moments. This movie contains all of those. Where it exceeds most of its brethren is in the execution, which is pleasantly organic and genuinely funny most of the time. I truly knew nothing about the plot going into this movie, so I can't speak to how someone might feel if they've read Nick Hornby's novel first, but the movie went in a few directions which I honestly didn't see coming. Though it didn't take any massive risks with the ending, it also avoided many of the tropes and familiar beats popularized by earlier romantic comedies.

A big reason the movie rises above other rom-coms is that it does focus on slightly older people. Crazy Rich Asians, as different as it was in many ways, still focused on a woman in her late-twenties/early thirties and just on the cusp of taking the first big step of getting engaged. Juliet, Naked looks at a woman and peers who are further along in life. Annie is much closer to forty and has been in a relationship so settled that she's barely noticed how stale it's become. The "new man" in her life, Tucker, is not some dashing knight in shining armor but rather a faded musician who clearly has serious problems with relationships, and not just with women. He also has multiple children from multiple mothers, each of whom he has complicated histories with. And for most of the movie, it's not even clear if Annie looks at Tucker as a potential love interest, but perhaps simply as an unexpected sympathetic ear - the stranger to whom she feels comfortable airing her discontent with her life. It all makes for a story that is a bit tougher to predict.

In quite a turn from his role in the hard-hitting First Reformed,
Ethan Hawke expertly plays the overly laid back, messy former
star musician Tucker Crowe. His emergence into Annie's (left)
life sends them both into reexamining their lives.

The movie also uses as one of its themes a topic that Hornby has always incorporated well in many of his stories - the topic of obsessions. Whether obsessions with music in High Fidelity, with a sports team in Fever Pitch, and now with a particular musician in Juliet, Naked, it is a subject that has stronger and stronger resonance in a time when the pool of information at our disposal deepens and creates the potential to drown in our own recreational hobbies. This movie runs with the amusing question, "What if the object of one's unhealthy obsession quite literally shows up on their doorstep?"

The cast helps things immensely. The three main actors, Byrne, O'Dowd, and Hawke, couldn't have been cast more perfectly. All three - especially Byrne and O'Dowd - have serious comedic chops to go along with their solid acting skills, which the script demands. They feel very much as authentic as such characters can, and the little seaside town is a perfectly quaint setting for such a tale.

My wife and I saw this movie only a few days after this summer's monster rom-com hit Crazy Rich Asians. I certainly enjoyed that movie, but I honestly thought Juliet, Naked to be an overall more touching and consistently strong film. This is likely because its characters are much closer to my own age in my early forties, versus the relative freshness and youth of Crazy Rich Asians. For anyone who likes the genre but wasn't aware of this under-the-radar gem, I highly recommend it. 

New Release! Crazy Rich Asians [No spoilers]

No Spoilers (for what that's worth on a rom-com review)

Director: Jon M. Chu

A solid rom-com, though one that does the "rom" far better than the "com."

Based on the novel of the same name by Singaporean-American Kevin Kwan, Crazy Rich Asians offers the familiar romantic comedy formula presented with the welcome change of focusing completely on Asian characters and in the setting of Singapore. It follows Rachel Chu (Constance Wu), a Chinese-American professor of game theory who decides to join her boyfriend of several years, Nick Young (Henry Golding), for a family wedding in Nick's native Singapore. While Rachel has been seeing Nick for a while, and the two clearly love each other, what Rachel doesn't know is that Nick is from a long-established Singaporean family of fabulous financial resources. After arriving in Singapore, Rachel begins to realize that Nick is viewed there in much the same way that an unmarried prince would be in an incredibly wealthy monarchy: as the heir apparent by his family members and as the hands-down most eligible bachelor in the entire country and beyond. This fact thrusts Rachel into a world of opulence but also rather treacherous machinations on the parts of family members wary of outsiders, as well as of highly jealous bachelorettes with their own eyes on Nick.

In several ways, Crazy Rich Asians is refreshing. One is simply the fact that the characters and settings are Asian. While the broad strokes of many romantic comedies are there - the search for a fairy tale marriage; the tension between the young woman and the man's friends, family, etc.; the fish-out-of-water theme - the details make everything feel much more unique. And the Asian aspects go beyond the surface. The story does dig a bit into the cultural and historical aspects of East and Southeast Asian peoples and how those rich social networks affect Rachel and Nick. The dazzling settings in Singapore are also a nice break from the oh-so-familiar big city settings of western rom-coms, usually New York, L.A., London, or Paris.

In terms of characters, the movie does well with the primary players. Rachel and Nick are more than just a couple of pretty faces wrapped around thinly-developed characters. It's not hard to see the struggles they're dealing with, the tensions feel fairly organic, and they are conveyed well by actors Wu and Golding. Perhaps even more notable, though, is the performance of Michelle Yeoh as Nick's mother, Eleanor. Eleanor is the current and stern matriarch of the vast Young business empire, and Yeoh plays her with intimidating strength. Hers is the deepest and most complex character in the film, and it is through her that the most engaging issues and tensions emanate, and the most memorable scenes nearly all involve the gravitas of Yeoh's performance.

Michelle Yeoh as the imposing Eleanor Young. Hers is
probably the most unique and compelling character in the
film, with a welcome depth for rom-com movies.

While the movie is certainly a wonderful new entry into the canon of great rom-coms, there were several weaknesses that I couldn't help but notice. Perhaps the most disappointing was that I didn't find it overly funny. Yes, there are some good laughs provided by the "quirky friends" (a standard archetype in rom-coms) played by Awkwafina and Nico Santos. But there were far more moments where you could tell that the movie was trying to be funny but simply fell flat. Most notable to me was the use of Jimmy O. Yang - typically a very funny person - as the stereotypically self-absorbed, hedonistic playboy cousin, Bernard. I've enjoyed Yang in shows in the past, but the writing for his character in this movie was just the most obvious one of several stabs at humor which just didn't land for me.

I must also admit that, like some other rom-coms, there is a general, broader focus on the ultra-wealthy that I can only be so interested in. It's also why I have never enjoyed the vast majority of classic "screwball comedies" from the 1930s and 1940s. I understand that setting these stories in lavish homes, gardens, and parties is part of the entire "Fantasyland" appeal of such movies, but I can't help but be constantly reminded that disgusting wealth is just that - disgusting in certain ways. When I think just a little bit about the wealth discrepancies in the world, I can only get so empathetic over the plight of someone like Nick Young, whose primary dilemma is between marrying the brilliant young woman he loves and taking over the multi-billion dollar family business - a business which has clearly funded more than a few family members' basest and least-admirable qualities. I know, I know - "It's a rom-com, man. Lighten up!" I try, but it can only go so far. For me to completely detach from reality like that, I need the fantasy elements to be a bit more, well, fantastic. This is probably why I enjoy well-done superhero and high fantasy movies so much. They offer a purer form of escapism for me than romantic comedies do.

Crazy Rich Asians has, I feel, been a bit overhyped, but for good reasons. The freshness of the all-Asian production make it well worth the attention its received, and it is certainly a rom-com worth watching. Just don't expect it to nail all aspects of the genre quite as well as some of its predecessors.

Retro-Trio: Two Days, One Night (2014); Kong: Skull Island (2017); In Her Shoes (2005)

Two Days, One Night (2014)

Directors: Jean-Pierre Dardenne, Luc Dardenne

Very well-done, human drama that relies on genuine distress to remain engaging.

The story is that of Sandra (Marion Cotillard), a woman in Belgium has just gotten over the hump of a horrible depressive episode. However, she just learns that she has lost her job due to a vote held behind her back. Her coworkers were forced to choose to either keep Sandra on the staff or to accept their sizable annual bonuses. She and a friend quickly appeal to the manager to hold a re-vote the following Monday, a mere two days away. Sanda much now frantically track down as many coworkers as possible and convince them to forego their bonuses so that she can return to her job - a job that she desperately needs.

This movie is certainly not an "upper" by any means. While there is just enough humor and levity to prevent things from getting overly grim, there is a very real sense of panic as Sandra rushes about on her desperate mission. This is, of course, what makes the film strong. As she speaks with each of her coworkers, we become invested in how they will respond. Some are sympathetic and offer to vote in Sandra's favor. Others try to be understanding but admit that they need their bonus money. Still others grow angry at Sandra for even asking them to give up their bonus for her sake. It is a very human drama where the stakes feel all too real, and the excellent acting sells its reality.

My wife, who tends to enjoy this kind of movie a bit more than me, even admitted that Sandra could get a bit much at times. Her husband, a rather kindly fellow who stays by her side through the particularly rough patches, becomes a quietly sympathetic character in the movie, as he offers no end of support. By film's end, one may grow a bit tired of the emotional ups and downs. Still, the ride is pretty well worth it, as it offers genuinely touching moments of the sort that can be tough to find in movies these days.

A few nights after watching this one, I felt the urge to go for nearly the completely opposite genre...

Kong: Skull Island (2017)

Director: Jordan Vogt-Roberts

Somewhat to my surprise, I enjoyed this movie, even though I'm not particularly a fan of monster movies.

The second in the newly-created "Monsterverse" franchise (the first being 2014's Godzilla), Kong:Skull Island takes place in the 1970s, as the U.S. begins to pull out of Vietnam. A tiny government agency (two guys, really) convinces a congressman to fund an expedition to a mysterious island in the South Pacific. The official Bill Randa (John Goodman) and the geologist Houston Brooks (Corey Brooks) believe that the unexplored island may contain bizarre lifeforms which the U.S. would do well to obtain before any of their Cold War enemies do. With funding, they round up a team including a tracker, several scientists and observers, and an Army platoon who has just been decommissioned from the Vietnam War. But when the crew arrive on the island, known as Skull Island, they very soon come across a massive, 100-foot ape which attacks them and wipes out several of their helicopters and soldiers. Now scattered, the team must try to regroup and find their way off of the treacherous Skull Island. As they wander, they discover more dangers and wonders about the home of Kong.

This movie is solid fun. Yes, it does attempt to get a tad serious in a few spots, but it never overdoes it. Mostly, it's a well-done action romp. The cast is great, with a ton of screen veterans like the aforementioned Goodman, and also Samuel L. Jackson as the warmonger platoon captain, Tom Hiddleston as the capable tracker, and slightly lesser characters played by vets like Brie Larsen and John C. Reilly. They don't always have super sharp dialogue to work with, but they almost always sell it well.

The action is mostly great. I'm not a particular fan of monster movies, but this one did a really nice job of keeping some surprises up its sleeve as the story went along. Mostly, the fun came when a seemingly serene part of Skull Island would suddenly turn into some sort of lethal monster. There is an entertainment in realizing that literally anything in the lush landscape could come to life and start killing the humans who have encroached here. Helping keep the vibe up-tempo and heart rates racing, this movie has one of the more kick-ass soundtracks I've heard in a while, with heavy metal and rock 'n roll greats from the early '70s like Black Sabbath, The Stooges, and Credence. Pretty hard to miss with such titans of great rock music enhancing the on-screen action.

So as of now, I'm on board with the Monsterverse. It's two-for-two in my book, which was much more than I could say for the big-budget DC Extended Universe after its first two movies, Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman. I may even go check out Godzilla: King of Monsters when it comes out in 2019, if I'm in the mood for a fun popcorn flick.

And then Valentine's Day came along, which swings me back in the complete opposite direction again with...

In Her Shoes (2005)

Director: Curtis Hanson

An enjoyable chick flick, even for a dude like me.

This is one of my wife's favorite movies, and Valentine's Day seemed like an appropriate time to watch it with her. It tells the story of two sisters, Maggie (Cameron Diaz) and Rose (Toni Collette), living in Manhattan. Maggie is a consummately irresponsible "party girl" and almost pathological liar, while here sister Rose is a highly responsible though rather uptight lawyer of no small means. The sisters have an established routine of Maggie getting herself into trouble, often through her drinking and/or lying, and running to seek shelter with Rose. This mildly codependent bond is shredded when Maggie is caught sleeping with Rose's current boyfriend and boss. Kicked out of Rose's apartment and with no other idea of where to go, Maggie hops a train down to Florida to find her and Rose's estranged grandmother, Ella (Shirley MacLaine). There, Maggie begins to learn more about their hidden family issues, while back up in Philadelphia, her sister deals with the fallout of her boyfriend having cheated on her.

It's easy to see why this movie is considered a pinnacle of "chick flick"-dom. It focuses on female characters, and it hits virtually every emotional mark that the genre is known for hitting; namely, relationships of several types. Relationships with one's sister. Relationships with potential boyfriends and husbands. Relationships with one's grandmother. Relationships with the family members who've gone missing. These are all handled very well in this movie, with a solid balance of humor and gravity that even a less sensitive fellow like myself can appreciate. The dynamics between the primary characters all feel quite genuine, and the parts are written and acted very well by the stars.

I also appreciate the tone of the movie. Many films in this genre are a bit too "light and fluffy" for me. I remember watching a chunk of My Best Friend's Wedding years ago, and being unable to stomach the contrivances and so-obviously cutesy nature of much of the story and gags. In Her Shoes keeps the stakes just high enough that there is some weight to the characters' thoughts and actions, while never getting too bogged down into any sort of darkness. This was not easy, as the movie does deal with learning disorder, mental instability in a parent, the need for Maggie to change her self-absorption, and similarly deeper topics. Screenwriter Susannah Grant did a really nice job adapting Jennifer Weiner's successful novel of the same name.

So I have to give this movie the highest compliment I possibly can for this type of movie: not only did I enjoy watching it, but I wouldn't mind watching it again should the wife suggest it. It's made the shortlist!

New Release! The Big Sick (2017) [Spoiler-Free]

Director: Michael Showalter

A great movie, regardless of genre. Yes, technically it's a rom-com, but it is one with vastly slyer humor and more depth than much of that genre's fare.

Based much on the real-life experience of Kumail Nanjiani, who stars in the movie and co-wrote it with his wife Emily V. Gordon, The Big Sick charts Kumail's initial meeting, relationship, and massive tribulations with the woman who would eventually become his wife. Kumail, whose family emigrated from Pakistan, is an aspiring standup comic in Chicago. When a young American woman, Emily (Zoe Kazan) good-naturedly heckles him during a performance, a romantic relationship begins between the two. What initially seems to be a low-committal relationship of convenience grows over several months into a genuine love. The problem, however, is that Kumail's conservative parents plan for him to marry a Pakistani woman, in keeping with their traditions. Things are much further complicated when Emily falls horribly ill and is put into a medically-induced coma. This forces Kuwail to reckon with his feelings for Emily while he also deals with Emily's parents.

The movie hits every mark that one would expect from a rom-com. The meet-cute. The adorably budding romance. The massive bumps in the road to mutual happiness. The development of understanding of others through shared difficulties. The reconciliation and happy ending. Nothing about the broad plot strokes is particularly surprising or original. Rather, it is in the details and execution that this movie stands out. While my wife is something of a rom-com connoisseur, I count only a handful of them as enjoyable enough to watch more than once. In recent years, Man Up is one that comes to mind. The Big Sick, however, may be the best one that I've ever seen. The comic writing is as good as any I've seen in such romantic movies, which is no surprise when you remember that Nanjiani and Gordon are a seasoned standup comic and comedy writer, respectively. The gags, which are often hilariously profane, almost always hit. This is true even during uncomfortable moments such as in the hospital while Emily is in her coma. Wringing humor out of such grave situations is no easy task, but Nanjiani and Gordon do it time and time again.

But there are certainly other rom-coms that have featured solid comic writing. What sets The Big Sick apart are the larger and very real themes at play. The primary one is the clash of cultures between Kumail, Emily, and their sets of parents. Without oversimplifying or coming off as judgmental, we get to see the very real anguish that is caused when children rebel against their parents' wishes. It is mostly through Kumail's parents that we see this, as they repeatedly try to set him up with one potential bride after another, only to have Kumail deflect and delay the inevitable decision - coming clean to his parents about his real desires or submitting to their vision of his future. It would have been far too easy to cast these parents as oppressing villains, but the movie does no such thing. Though Kumail's parents are the butt of more than a few jokes, it eventually becomes clear that their sacrifices and hopes for their son arise from genuine concern for not only him but also their value of their own culture. Romantic comedies rarely take on larger themes such as these or have the courage to completely humanize the forces obstructing romantic love, but The Big Sick does it expertly.

Kumail at the dinner table with his family, almost certainly
a mere couple of minutes before yet another "surprise"
Pakistani bachelorette drops by for a little visit.

Rounding out this excellent movie is the supporting cast, which is perfect. All of the actors who portray Kumail and Emily's family members are spot-on. The most recognizable to American viewers will be Ray Romano and Holly Hunter, who play Emily's parents, and are brilliant. Just as good, though, are Indian acting legend Anupam Kher and Zenobia Schroff as Kumail's immigrant parents. Each of these four bring the comic and human aspects of their characters very much to life.

I highly recommend this movie to nearly everyone. As long as a fair amount of blue language and some frank and honest exploration of sexuality doesn't bother you, you are bound to enjoy a lot of what The Big Sick has to offer. 

Retro Trio: My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002); The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007); Mud (2012)

My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002)

Director: Joel Zwick

No, rom-com fans, I had never actually seen this one before now. While I won't say that I regret letting all these years pass without seeing it, I can certainly see why it was such a sleeper hit 15 years ago.

For those unfamiliar, the story follows Toula, a 30-year old, single Greek-American woman whose massive, boisterous family shares a stifling concern over her state of being a bachelorette. When Toula does find a man whom she loves, Ian, things get no easier due to the fact that he is not of Greek descent, a situation which Toula's grecophile family can hardly wrap their minds around. The rest of the movie is mostly a comedy of errors and culture clashes between Ian and Toula's smothering but warm family. Ian comes from a laughably quiet, poised family composed of only himself and his overly stoic WASP parents, whereas Toula's family is a virtual army of caring and passionate but nosy and noisy siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, and family friends.

The movie is certainly fun enough, and I was pleasantly surprised at how efficiently the story is told. While it hits the standard marks expected of a rom-com, it often comes at them from different angles and never really belabors the more familiar points. One example is the self-improvement montage, where Toula decides to "go from drab to fab" by redoing her wardrobe, hair, and makeup. I feel that other movies emphasize these types of makeovers and scenes too much, but Greek Wedding offers it to us in a crisp, less-than-60 seconds sequence that makes its point and then moves on. This is one of several examples of strong pacing which keep things moving along, an essential element of good comedies.

The cast is a great asset, as well. The script is decent enough, and all of the actors get to show off their comic timing to great effect. Not every gag or line hits, but enough of them do to keep the movie worthwhile. I'll probably never be a person who goes out of my way to watch a rom-com like this, but I enjoyed this one, and I could see myself watching it again with my wife.

Side Note: My wife recently tried to watch the sequel which came out last year, and she barely made it to the 5-minute mark. She said it was that bad. Apparently it was just trotting out the same, 14-year old gags and was generally annoying to her. This begs the question, if the film makers wanted to just do a stale, unoriginal sequel as a cash grab, why wait 14 years to do it?

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)

Director: Andrew Dominik

A rather novel entry into the list of American Western movies, and one whose box office draw fell far short of its merits.

As the lengthy title suggests, the film focuses on the final few years and ultimate slaying of notorious 19th century outlaw Jesse James. Unlike most Westerns, though, this one eschews glamorizing the best-known characters or relying on fast-paced, action-based thrills. Instead, the movie is a slow meditation on the eerie expansiveness of the West, the warped and often despicable character of Jesse James, and the gradual erosion of Robert Ford's romanticization of the infamous thief and killer.

Using the source novel of the same name, the  movie tells of the relationship between the two title characters. Around the late 1870s, Jesse James (Brad Pitt) and his gang have all but ceased the robberies which made them known throughout the U.S. and even the world, but they still hold a mythical appeal in many places. Robert Ford (Casey Affleck) is a young Missourian who has long idolized James, and he finally gets his chance to be a member of his gang during one, mostly-unsuccessful, train robbery. James has family ties in the area, and he uses them to wrangle cousins and other hangers-on into his schemes, even if nearly all of them come to nothing. Ford, as one of these hopefuls, begins to see James for what he is - a mentally unstable, volatile, and sometimes murderous fiend. James is still able to be charming and charismatic at times, but they do not always cover up the far darker aspects of his nature. Over several years of acquaintance, Robert Ford eventually volunteers to kill James on behalf of the governor of Missouri, hoping that he will be hailed as a hero. Such is not necessarily the case, however, as many still incorrectly viewed James as a Robin Hood of the West. This leads many to see Ford as an underhanded scoundrel who merely killed a righteous outlaw for his own personal gain.

In several ways, this movie is not unlike Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven, in that it strips away the glamour often associated with the brutality and violence of the 19th century U.S. "Wild" West. The film does a brilliant job in depicting Jesse James as a charmer who can put his good looks and articulateness to his own selfish uses, while at the same time showing just how brutal and paranoid he is. The movie also takes the bold and effective mood of focusing more on Robert Ford and his growing disillusionment at James. Not relying on simple, pat turns of plot, the story is subtle and gradual with the erosion of Ford's romanticism of his boyhood hero. Ford is never vilified or hailed, per se, but is shown as a man who is almost helplessly swept up by powers and individuals who are simply stronger than he. When he does decide to take action for himself, seeing how it unfolds is a borderline tragedy.

The Wyeth-esque landscapes are often just as eerie as the
murderous outlaws that roam them.

The acting is outstanding. This was Casey Affleck's true breakout role as the confused Robert Ford, and it's no surprise that he has since garnered more praise for his leading roles in movies like Gone, Baby, Gone and Manchester by the Sea. Brad Pitt also turns in one of his more understated yet highly effective performances as the infamous Jesse James. The supporting cast is also stocked with strong actors, some easily recognizable such as Jeremy Renner and Sam Rockwell, and others less known.

As much as the story and acting, though, is the setting and cinematography. Like some of the greatest westerns, The Assassination of Jesse James uses the openness and quiet of the time and place to build an often eerie sense of loneliness. Compared to later and modern eras, time and space seemed to have a near-eternal quality that can be imposing, to say the least. When you consider how friends and neighbors in the area would routinely go weeks and months without seeing or hearing from each other, the isolation is daunting. When you add in the fact that an unpredictable, homicidal killer is stalking the plains, then you have the stuff of nightmares. Director Andrew Dominik uses this to great effect, along with the cinematography. Certain shots use grainy or fuzzy peripherals that enhance a sense of blurred perspective, which is in keeping with the distorted and shifting views of Robert Ford, a fractured character whose warped feelings towards James are at the heart of the film.

I may not feel the need to watch this movie again, but I now consider it among some of the very best Western films of all time. Highly recommended for those who enjoy creative film-making, and especially the Western genre.

Ellis and Mud figuring each other out on the island. The
relationship between the two is the crux of the movie, although
their feelings towards others is just as important.

Mud (2012)

Director: Jeff Nichols

While it didn't meet my lofty expectations, Mud is a solid and compelling movie.

Taking place on a river in Arkansas, the movie follows two 14-year old local boys who discover an odd man (Matthew McConaughey) squatting on a small nearby island where the boys are looking to scavenge any flotsam and jetsam which the river has washed up. The man gives his name only as "Mud," and the boys take to running odd little errands for him on the Arkansas mainland, getting him food and bringing messages to a young woman to whom Mud has some mysterious dedication. The boys soon learn that local police are searching for Mud in connection with a murder in Texas. One of the boys, Ellis (Tye Sheridan), is a budding romantic who desperately wants to see Mud as a kindred spirit who has done unsavory things in the name of love. This becomes more and more difficult, however, as facts about Mud's past emerge. The tension cranks up wildly when a group of bounty hunters arrive in the area, looking to kill Mud on the orders of the murdered man's powerful and vindictive father.

This is now the third movie of director Jeff Nichols which I've seen, and it was his third film after his debut Shotgun Stories and the incredible follow-up Take Shelter. Mud is much more like the former, as it uses the setting of rural/suburban Arkansas to great effect, offering a very authentic sense of place and the people in it and telling a fairly straightforward story. Whereas Shotgun Stories was more toned-down, humanist drama, however, Mud uses elements from more popular genres like mystery, suspense, and action. The latter two elements actually weaken the film just a bit, in my view, mostly because they stand in rather stark contrast to the more genuine, emotional story of Ellis. Ellis's attempts to find love with an older girl in the area are the most touching and organic aspect of the entire movie. While it wouldn't have been enough to carry this film, it bears a genuineness that makes the more sensational and plot-driven elements feel a tad cheap.

Woven into the tale is the general sense of a childhood and youth being lost before our eyes. At the beginning of the movie, we learn that Ellis's parents are having marital difficulties. Though hardly the only reason, a major issue is that the family is almost certain to lose their house boat, which doubles as the source of his father's income as a fisherman. Ellis's desperation to flee from the disintegration of his parents' marriage, as well as their life on the river, plays a major part in why he becomes drawn to Mud. While not always completely subtle about these connections, the movie doesn't beat you over the head with it, and it does build some worthy cohesion between what could otherwise have been a very fragmented tale. This sort of cohesive storytelling seems to be a strength of Jeff Nichols, based on the three movies of his which I've seen.

I think that the only reason that I was slightly underwhelmed by this movie is that I saw it too long after it came out over four years ago. It was a well-received movie, to be sure, but it was also the true beginning of the "McConaughssaince," during which Matthew McConaughey reinvented himself as more than just an easy-going Texas dude with six-pack abs and a pretty face, cashing checks from rom-cam royalties. Within the next two years, he would receive tons of acclaim for his roles in Dallas Buyers' Club and especially True Detective, and even a few smaller cameo roles here and there. By the time I saw Mud, I had built this movie up in my mind to be an all-time great, which is unfair to expect of any film. Though it didn't (and perhaps couldn't) meet my unreasonable expectations, this is one that I can easily recommend to nearly anyone. There are a few flaws to be fussed over, but it is another solid effort from one of the U.S.'s best young filmmakers today. 

New(ish) Releases (2015): Creed & Man Up

Creed

Director: Ryan Coogler

Very well-done chapter that lives up to its classic, original forebear.

One of the reasons I enjoyed Creed so much is that I knew very little about it going in. In that spirit, I won't reveal more than the basics. Michael B. Jordan plays Adonis Johnson, son of Apollo Creed, one of the greatest boxers in this fictional world, before he was killed in the ring. Adonis has rather atypical motivations for fighting, and he seeks out his father's former rival and friend, Rocky Balboa, in an attempt to find a trainer.

The story is presented and plays out with enough surprises to feel fresh. Yes, it hits many of the marks that you expect in a Rocky movie, but nothing comes off as stale. Thanks to some crisp writing and excellent direction, nothing feels overdone or sentimental. Director Ryan Coogler clearly has such a love and respect for Stallone's original film that he was able to draw inspiration from the very best parts of that iconic movie. The stakes to the title character feel very high on a personal, emotional level, and this carries through right until the end.

The fight scenes are done extremely well. In fact, I'm willing to say that they are the best of any Rocky movie, and among some of the best in boxing movie history. It's a sport that can be beautiful and brutal, in turns, and this is exhibited with great skill in the several fights carried out in the narrative.

Apparently there is a Creed 2 in the works, which might be a complete mess. Whatever happens with it, Creed is a great sports movie that I think even non-sports fans can appreciate.

Man Up

Director: Ben Palmer

Rom-coms are certainly not me genre. Man Up, however, is among the most enjoyable that I've ever seen.

This was an easier sell to me than most rom-coms, thanks to the presence of Simon Pegg and Lake Bell. Pegg is a well-known and highly respected quantity in the nerd world, where I often dwell. I also know Bell from her sly, hilarious writing and star role in 2013's In A World..., which looked at the odd and male-dominated niche world of movie trailer voice-over narrators. Man Up quickly repaid my faith, as Bell's character Nancy, a professional journalist, is very quickly established as a woman looking to overcome her reticence and skepticism to find romance. Her impish nature takes over when she decides to steal a blind date from a mildly pestering, overly cheerful young lady she meets on a train. When Nancy is mistaken for the young woman by Jack (Simon Pegg) at the train station, Nancy decides to roll with it. This is perhaps not the most imaginative of comic setups, but it more than suffices for this tale, which gets stronger as it unfolds.

As Jack starts to reveal more about his life, Nancy keeps up her charade, wavering between distaste and attraction towards Jack. Unlike most rom-coms, which tend to take place over several days, weeks, or even months, Man Up hits all of the genre's marks in an unhurried tale which covers about 4 or 5 hours. And it does it by taking some amusing left turns, as it reveals traits in both aspiring singles which are both admirable and off-putting, while sometimes quite dark. Both Nancy and Jack come off feeling more genuine than most rom-com characters I've seen, lending a mature tone I often find lacking. There is an exploration of the romantic versus the practical notions of companionship which, while not novel, is handled deftly enough to remain engaging. What I appreciated as much as as anything is that neither Jack nor Nancy is pigeonholed as "the woman" or "the man". Yes, each one exhibits a few of the traits ascribed to their sex by stereotypes, but each one also contradicts them in several ways through their words and actions.

Of course, what is a rom-com without the "com"? The humor in Man Up is steady and solid, running the gamut from effective sight gags to dry sarcasm, with a healthy dose of blue, R-rated dialogue for spice. In keeping with the theme of breaking certain stereotypes, each of the main pair give as good as they get. This is a balance that is very welcome in a class of movie which often plays things rather safe, in terms of breaking out of preexisting character types.

There is certainly not an abundance of romantic comedies which I would gladly watch again. Man Up just made that short list of mine.

Retro Trio: Bridget Jones's Diary (2001); Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011); First Blood (1982)

Bridget Jones's Diary (2001)

Director: Sharon MaGuire

One of the stronger, more accessible rom coms that I've seen, if not exactly a movie that I'll put on my all-time favorites list.

The title character (Renee Zellweger) is a hard-drinking, chain-smoking, unlucky-in-love, 30-something bachelorette who works at a publishing company. She makes a resolution to cut down on her vices and make every effort to find a decent man. Unfortunately, she soon falls for Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant), a handsome, funny, womanizing rogue who is a manager at her company. Bridget engages in a fun, sexually satisfying affair with Cleaver, though she does remain curious about another man on the periphery of her life, Marc Darcy (Colin Firth). Darcy is a much dryer, serious lawyer whom Bridget knows through family friends. Bridget's feelings become even more confused when more details emerge about Cleaver's past friendship with Darcy, and the former's unwillingness to fully commit to Bridget.

This is a more singular rom com, as its protagonist is unusually degenerative. Jones's loneliness is fairly standard fare for the rom com genre, but her humorously chronic attempts to drown her sadness with booze and cigarettes make her much more accessible than similar, more poised and innocent protagonists. She is a nervous type who has "diarrhea of the mouth," which results in her embarrassing herself more than any other person possibly could. It all makes for solid comedy.

The two most appealing aspects of the movie are the acting and the adult nature of it. I can appreciate the foul-mouthed exchanges, mostly between Bridget and Cleaver, which make the characters more enjoyably earthy. The actors are all perfect in their roles, with Hugh Grant especially standing out as the attractively hedonistic and sleazy Cleaver. Colin Firth plays the stuffy Darcy masterfully, and these two polar opposites offer plenty of opportunity for Renee Zellweger to show off her comedy acting chops.

My viewing partner for this one was my wife, who has seen the movie more times that she can count. It was nice to be informed that the movie, just as the source novel, drew from Jane Austen's classic Pride and Prejudice (I suppose Colin Firth playing a character named Darcy should have given it away). I can appreciate such updates, and it gives the tale some welcome intelligence and literary heft.

While the Bridget Jones character may come off as an incompetant clown a little more than her creator, author Helen Fielding, might have liked (my wife assures me that this is the case), it hardly spoils anything in a light-hearted film like this one. This is never going to be a movie that I'll go out of my way to watch, but I'll be happy to put it into the holiday rotation to see every year or two.

Don't lie - you know you enjoy the cuteness.

Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011)

Director: Jennifer Yuh

A fun enough sequel, though not as enjoyable as the original (which I reviewed here).

The tale picks up some time after the first movie. Po (voiced by Jack Black) is now a legitimate kung-fu master, working with the Furious Five, defending locals from evil-doers. Not far away, the exiled son of a powerful family - Shen (Gary Oldman) - plots to return and overthrow the country. Shen also has an obsession with avoiding a prophecy which states that a black and white warrior will utterly defeat him. This is about all there is to the main story, which is far less interesting than the story of Tai Lien in the first movie.

The other story elements include learning much more about Po's past, and it also follows Po's quest to further master kung fu by "embracing inner peace," as his master Shifu puts it. These parts to the story are fine, but the tale isn't quite as engaging as the previous movie. This is the general theme of every aspect of this sequel: decent enough, but a weaker version of the original.

From the dialogue to the visual action, all aspect of this movie are slightly less clever or entertaining versions of the themes and gags set up in the first movie. Plenty of the lines are funny, but not quite as funny. Some of the action is a visual treat, but not as much of a treat as the original, as this movie relies more on overly long fighting sequences. You get the picture.

Unlike the first movie, which was a complete story in and of itself, this second movie clearly had an eye on an assumed third film. Panda 2 plants seeds the for a plot which will obviously bear fruit in the next film (released earlier this year, in fact). This is fine, but it leaves more dangling plot threads by its end, which can make for a slightly less satisfying narrative.

This is still a good series, and I'll check out the third film. I do hope, though, that it can be a little more like the original.

First Blood (1982)

Director: Ted Kotcheff

Somehow, some way, I had never watched First Blood at any point in my meat-eating, suburban-living, red-blooded, all-American Gen-X'er male life. I finally decided to fill in this glaring blank on my dance card of '80s tough guy movies, and it was well worth it.

Based on a short novel of the same name, First Blood follows several brutal days in the post-war life of Vietnam veteran John Rambo. Rambo is a drifter of sorts, and he wanders into a small town in Michigan after finding out that one of his platoon buddies had died from complications of exposure to Agent Orange. In the town, the local police officers try to bully the somewhat ragged-looking Rambo out of town. The quiet veteran, however, civilly refuses. He is then promptly put in jail.

In the jail, while being physically abused, Rambo suffers a severe PTSD flashback and lashes out, badly beating several police officers and escaping into the nearby woods. Over the next few days, the police refuse to back down, hounding Rambo to the point that he accidentally kills one of them in self-defense. The situation escalates to the point that more troops arrive, along with Rambo's former commanding officer, Colonel Troutman. It becomes clear that Rambo was not only a war hero but also one of the fiercest and most capable soldiers he had ever trained. What unfolds is a showdown between an ignorant local law enforcement team and a man who has been trained into a lethal killer but who also suffers from untreated psychological trauma.

It's easy to see why this movie obtained such respected status. Yes, it is a survival story and a case of one-versus-many, which both have a certain macho appeal. On these fronts, the movie still hits its marks. Beyond this, though, the movie taps into some very dark psychological territory that standard action movies were rarely exploring in the early 1980s. Rambo is presented as a tragic figure, rather than simply as the "wrong man to mess with" which so many imitation characters tried to emulate.

Some of of the scenes and sequences are a bit overlong, and a few points are belabored a bit much. Still, this was a really good movie that I wish I had seen long ago. It does further beg the question, too, of what if Sylvester Stallone had managed to keep his narcissism and ego in better check? The guy was in some outstanding movies early in his career, with First Blood being of particular note. If he had aspired a little more towards artistic integrity over fame and cash, he probably could have many, many more excellent movies on his resume, and far fewer movies like Rambo III, Cobra, and Rocky 5.

Retro Trio: Sunshine (2007); The Big Lebowski (1998); Shall We Dance? (2004)

Sunshine (2007)

Director: Danny Boyle

Smart, intriguing sci-fi that goes a bit off the rails in the third act.

Sunshine is set in a future where our sun is slowly dying, leading to a gradual cooling of Earth and the impending, subsequent death of all living things on it. To prevent such a complete devastation, a crew of astronauts is piloting a ship, the Icarus II, towards the sun in order to deliver a nuclear payload to the star's center. This will trigger a rebirth of the sun's energy and allow life to continue on our planet. A similar mission had been sent a few years prior, on the original Icarus craft, but it failed with no word from the crew, who have been presumed dead.

Of course, the Icarus II's trip does not go as planned. Once they get close enough to the sun, they receive some form of message from the original Icarus. The crew make the risky decision to investigate. Technical problems start to emerge after the detour is taken, and lives are lost. Matters go from bad to worse when one of the original Icarus's crew members, Pinbacker, is discovered to be alive and completely insane. Pinbacker sneaks aboard the Icarus II and, convinced that humanity deserves to die, does everything he can to sabotage their mission to deliver the payload.

Sunshine boasts a great many strengths as a film. Written by Alex Garland (28 Days Later, Dredd, Ex Machina), the story is wonderfully smart science fiction. Beyond the mere adventure of the Icarus II's mission, there is plenty of character conflict and psychological probing. The crew must repeatedly make extremely difficult decisions, similar to what is seen in the predecessor film Alien, and also later space travel movies like Europa Report and Interstellar. Such films are all the stronger due to the stakes on every level.

The acting is also top-notch. There are many actors who either were already well-established, like Michelle Yeoh, or have since become so, such as Cillian Murphy, Chris Evans, Rose Byre, and others. Every one of them displays their characters' stengths and weaknesses phenomenally well, which is essential for such science fiction movies to ascend beyond a mere genre piece.

My only real issue with the movie comes from its third act. When the tension is at its absolute peak, the visuals and editing become extemely trippy and herky-jerky, which is a technique that director Danny Boyle has put to good use several times in his career. For Sunshine, however, I found it unnecessary and disorienting. Simply, I lost my sense of spatial orientation bewteen characters and actions. I realize that this might have been Boyle's intent, but this knowledge didn't make it any easier to watch.

This aesthetic gripe aside, I thought that Sunshine was a great piece of science fiction cinema. Along with other Alex Garland-written movies like Dredd and Ex Machina, I've found that rare, reliable sci-fi writer whom I plan to follow faithfully for at least the next several years.

The Big Lebowski (1998)

Directors: Joel and Ethan Coen

Like many fans of this film, I could probably write a doctoral thesis on what I love about it. For the purposes of this blog, I'll keep it relatively short and sweet. I think this movie is an absolute classic, and I can't imagine it ever getting old.

The entire concept has "Coen Brothers" written all over it. What if we tell an LA noir crime story, a la Dashiell Hammett or Raymond Chandler, only instead of a weary but capable PI in the middle of it all, we thrust a burnt-out stoner into the role of protagonist? It's a great starting concept, though it was one which required a lot more spice to make a memorable movie. The Coen brothers were up to the challenge.

If you read a bare-bones, general plot synopsis of the tale, it would bear a striking similarity to film noir - an unsuspecting citizen is mistaken for a wealthy local by a shady and powerful figure. The young wife of this shady and powerful figure is soon after kidnapped, at which point, the protagonist is soon thrown into the machinations of various parties who are interested in the million-dollar ransom put up for her release. The path to resolution is a winding one, along which the protagonist meets many strange characters, each with his or her own motivations.

That blueprint could just as easily have been some lesser-known Hammett or Chandler novel. Instead of Sam Spade trying to navigate the troubled waters of the tale, though, we get "The Dude," a loveable but interminably lazy stoner whose sensibilities never escaped the hippie movement of the 1960s. The powerful figures he meets include the self-aggrandizing Jeoffrey Lebowski, porn producer Jackie Treehorn, and the son of Arthur Digby Sellers ("you ever hear of a little show called 'Branded,' Dude?!"), among many others. Each and every appearance is hilariously memorable, all done in a style that only the Coen brothers would even attempt to pull off.

One of the countless moments of hilarious banter between
oddballs in the movie. This one involves nihilists, marmots,
and the Dude possibly getting castrated. Where else
would you possibly find such a thing?

While the Coen brothers have made snappy, memorable dialogue a regular feature in their movies, none is as highly quotable as The Big Lebowski (Raising Arizona is a contender, but it falls short). Thanks to sharp and quirky comedic writing and brilliant comic acting on the parts of over a dozen actors, nearly every line humorously expresses something about the oddball character who delivers it. From "It really tied the room together," to "The bums will always lose," to "Nobody fucks with the Jesus," and endless others, fans of this movie can send themselves into a tantric frenzy when they get into a room and start firing off line after memorable line.

It is arguable that The Big Lebowski is not "great cinema," and that it is not the Coen Brothers' best movie. However, it is certainly their most beloved. Being such a strange fusion of their unusual, and ususually effective, comic sensibilties and their passion for classic noir cinema, this movie is such a singular work that its cult classic status is more than well-deserved.

Shall We Dance? (2004)

Director: Peter Chelsom

Certainly not my cup of tea, but it's easy to see the appeal for many.

Shall We Dance is the story of John Clark (Richard Gere), a family man in New York City who seems a bit discontent with his normal, though very enviable, life. On his normal bus ride home, he spies a beautiful young woman staring forelornly out of a window to a dance school. He eventually and reluctantly enrolls in dance classes there, albeit without telling his wife, Beverly (Susan Sarandon). He even gets a bit of instruction from the sad muse from the window, Paulina (Jennifer Lopez), an exceptional dancer and teacher.

The movie is almost pure fluff. There is very little that is dangerous or challenging. A few of the characters do experience a tribulation or two here and there, but none of them is so great that it can't be overcome with some laughter and a touch of attitude. The main comic relief comes from the characters Bobbie and Link (Lisa Anne Walter and Stanley Tucci), two oddballs with great passion for dancing. Along with the mere presence of these two, there is plenty of light humor sprinkled regularly through the film, in the form of slapstick on the dance floor or airy dialogue.

The movie accomplishes its goals, thanks mostly to its incredibly talented cast. Supporting members like the aforementioned Walter and Tucci, along with Bobby Cannavale, often sell some rather tepid gags through sheer force of acting talent. Also, having Richard Jenkins give a great deadpan performance in a small role is a welcome element. These things were just enough to hold my attention. They help buoy the primary husband/wife/hot dance instructor relationship drama that takes very few risks and I found only slightly interesting.

Shall We Dance is probably not a movie that I'll need to watch again. It was certainly a good enough movie for those in a rom-com kind of mood.

Before I Die #549: Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)

This is the 549th film of the 1,160 films on the "Before You Die" list that I'm gradually working my way through.

Director: Mike Newell

 This one has not held up at all well. If you saw this movie back in the 1990s and fell in love with it, as many did, then you probably still love it. If, like me, you never saw it, then I suggest that you not even bother.

From the title, you can imagine the general settings of Four Weddings and a Funeral. Traipsing about all of these services is a gaggle of friends, most in their late twenties or early thirties. The protagonist is Charles (Hugh Grant), a handsome fellow who has been somewhat unlucky in love, though occasionally by his own fumbling and immaturity. At the first wedding we witness, where Charles is the best man, he falls for Carrie, a beautiful American with a reputation for being "easy" with men. Charles does, indeed, sleep with Carrie. This sets up an on-again/off-again affair over the course of the next several months and titular weddings and funeral.

My introduction surely makes it clear that I did not care for this movie. However, I was quite glad to have watched it with my wife, who was one of this film's many original fans. Even she, after this recent viewing, had to admit that the movie has some obvious weaknesses. All the same, she confirmed my suspicions about the monumental impact it had on dozens of romantic comedies that followed in its wake. It is a classic case of something becoming so influential and imitated, that it almost becomes a parody of itself, through no fault of its own. There are almost too many aped elements to count: the charming but insecure lead man, played in definitive form by a nascent and ever-stuttering Hugh Grant and his magic eyebrows; the group of quirky friends from various walks of life; the one or two moments of touching gravity (the funeral, in this case); the gregarious gay friend who makes inappropriate comments. It goes on. This movie is to romantic comedies what Alien is to science-fiction horror.

All of that being recognized, the movie had lost much of its luster. Admittedly, I am not a tremendous fan of rom coms. However, there are certain ones which I have found entertaining enough: When Harry Met Sally; Love, Actually; Bridesmaids. Though the overt sentimentality does nothing for me, the humor and tone are consistent enough that I enjoyed these movies. With Four Weddings and a Funeral, the jokes were, quite frankly, flat. I recall chuckling a few times, and perhaps my mouth broke into a wry grin a handful of times as well. Maybe my tepid response is because gags and ideas that were fresh in 1994 have lost their punch from over-emulation. Either way, I simply didn't find it all that funny.

I found only one of this troop genuinely likable. The others
inspired less admirable emotions. 

The bigger problems are things that, no matter when you were looking at them, simply exhibit bad execution. The character Carrie is horrible. Whether from poor writing, poor acting, or both, she comes off as an enigmatic sex android which occasionally shows some imperfect facsimile of human emotion. It's impossible to see exactly what Charles finds so entrancing about her. Aside from Carrie, other characters make some pretty horrendous decisions. The one which comes to mind is when the boisterous Gareth passes away at one of the weddings, Charles makes the baffling decision to march right up to Gareth's life partner, Matthew, and inform him of his partner's death right in the middle of the wedding toast. Both my wife and I went cross-eyed at that, asking "What the hell are you doing, man?! Take the poor bastard to a side room, for Chrissakes!!" There are other examples of such choppy writing and editing, all of which amount to a weaker film.

An interesting aside which my wife and I agreed on: the scene at Gareth's funeral when Matthew reads the W.H. Auden poem "Funeral Blues" is by far the greatest moment in the movie. It has a sincerity and depth that is timeless. My wife put it best when she said that it felt as if the far more interesting story was Gareth and Matthew's. All of the other stuff should have been pushed to the periphery, and a better movie could have been the result.

My guess is that, when it was released, the weaknesses of the film were made less obvious by the innovations the movie made to the genre. Now that those innovations have become the norm, though, the blemishes are far more glaring. Hugh Grant and his Charlie character aren't as charming anymore. Nearly every rom com since has featured a group of friends who seem to be in a sort of arms race of "quirk" with every rom com that came before it. The tragic moment which is meant to add poignancy feels more forced these days.

Like many seminal movies, Four Weddings will probably always be endearing to those who enjoyed it back in the 1990's. It is not likely, however, to win over anyone unfamiliar or uninterested in the romantic comedy genre.

That's 549 films down. Only 611 to go before I can die...

Before I Die # 545: Clueless (1995)

This is the 545th movie I've watched from the 1,169 movies to "See Before You Die" list that I'm gradually working my way through.

Director: Amy Heckerling

A fairly pleasant little surprise, and certainly a slice of pop culture from my formative years in the 1990s.

This is one of my wife's favorite movies, so she was able to fill me in on the interesting fact that this is a modern comedic adaptation of Jane Austen's Emma. This alone piqued my interest a little more, and I was rewarded with a pretty clever and entertaining movie that I somehow had never previously seen.

The movie follows several months in the life of high school senior Cher, an obliviously wealthy and priveleged teen whose primary concerns are fashion trends, having her way, and occasionally helping those she deems "in need." The film unabashedly wears its place and time on its sleeve, from the fashion aesthetic to the soundtrack to the quirky slang. And few things say "mid-1990s" like Alicia Silverstone, the "It Girl" for a brief period. Fortunately, these dated elements do nothing to diminish the basic story and the humor of the film.

My wife informs me that the story is, indeed, a reasonable facsimile of Jane Austen's classic novel. Cher, like that book's protagonist, is a priveleged rich girl who actually does have a sense of goodness, though it takes her some time to get any kind of true sense of herself and the world around her. Her fumbling ditsiness still makes for some solid humor, even these 20 years after the film's initial release. The script holds up surprisingly well, with plenty of the supporting characters rounding out the  movie nicely. The cast has more than a little to do with this; a young Paul Rudd and Brittney Murphy feature, and veteran Dan Hedaya are just a few of the actors who nail their roles and lines.

Admittedly, I found some of the elements a tad sappy here and there, which is unsurprising for what amounts to a romantic teen comedy. Still, the movie never takes itself seriously enough to invite harsh criticism. The tale is amusing, if slightly familiar.

I have to confer the highest compliment that I can for a movie like this: I enjoyed it. Considering what it is, and the fact that I was expecting to find it a chore to watch, this is high praise.

That's 545 movies seen. Only 624 to go before I can die...

Before I Die #514: Say Anything... (1989)

This film is the 514th of the 1,149 "Films to See Before You Die" list that I'm working my way through.

Director: Cameron Crowe

I know that I probably was supposed to have my credentials as an "80s kid" revoked for this, but I had actually never seen this movie. Chalk it up to being more interested in Arnold Schwarzenegger movies at the time. Say Anything... was one of a few of those staple, "coming of age" movies that so defined U.S. pop film culture at that time and that I flat-out didn't see. I didn't see The Breakfast Club until well into the 90s, and I have still never seen Pretty In Pink (probably never will). Really, though, these movies are rather dated to me, and they smack of what some social commentators and comedians have referred to as "white people problems." As an adult, how much can I really care about some well-to-do suburban kid whining about not getting the attention of their dream girl or guy? Not much, actually.

I don't mean to completely hate on the genre. John Hughes was a funny guy, no doubt, and the dialogue actually helps most of his and "brat pack" copycat films hold up over time. But the cliches become more painful to see with every passing year, so I never really go out of my way to watch them these days.

While I can't say much for Ione Skye's character or
performance, John Cusack certainly brought the effortless
charm, quirkiness, and vulnerability needed to make
Lloyd one of the most well-rounded of the archetypal
80s "coming of age" protagonists. 

All that being said, Say Anything... was a nice little surprise. No, I probably wouldn't watch it again any time soon, but I enjoyed how it avoided so many of the cliches that the Hughes movies from previous years had created. While teen love is still at the heart of the film, the characters are not the typical set. John Cusack does an excellent job playing the enthusiastic, quirky, and charmingly confident Lloyd Dobler. It's a character that threatens to be a cliche of the genre, but somehow avoids it by being well-rounded. He's definitely the high point, character-wise.

The story itself is also a relatively novel take on the familiar theme of the charismatic, semi-odd fellow who sets his sights on his "It Girl." In Say Anything..., though, his "It Girl" is not the drop-dead gorgeous, overdeveloped prom queen, but rather the quiet, overachieving valedictorian, Diane Court. The path of their relationship feels genuine, organic, and special. When you add in the complications of Diane's father, who suggests but never becomes the overbearing, nay-saying, protective father, then the tale becomes even more unique.

I can't say that I loved every character. Actually, Ione Skye as Diane Court didn't do much for me. I find something bordering on flighty about her performance. And flighty is a quality that some find charming, but I find mildly annoying. In similar fashion, I found Lloyd's gal pal Corey (Lili Taylor) a nuisance. She was clearly meant to be a comedic parody of an emotional musician, but I found her mostly an irritant.

So Cameron Crowe put together a solid film that, in retrospect, bridged the gap between the teen movies of the 80s and 90s. It's not hard to see why so many of my fellow Generation X-ers still have an affinity for it. Take it from a guy who wasn't terribly enthusiastic about watching it - it's worth seeing if you haven't.

635 more films to see "before I die."