State of Play

:)

The Thin Man

:)

Star Trek

:)

Together

:)

The Gay Divorcee

:|

Drag Me To Hell

:)

Manic Pixie Dream Girl: NOT the scourge of modern cinema

I'm going to go out on a limb here and venture to say that the Manic Pixie Dream Girl is not, in and of itself, going to result in the downfall of cinema. Nathan Rabin from A.V. Club defines it best; the Manic Pixie Dream Girl "exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures."

The modern inclusions are, in fact, countless. Think the most beloved example, Garden State. Think Elizabethtown. Think as far back as Annie Hall. Their sole purpose in the movie is to be the catalyst to the male protagonist's big maturing/awakening/realization of some sort. This is problem number one. The role is limiting. Her background is unknown and unimportant. She has no character development herself. She is strangely attracted to these shlubs (unlikely, but to be generous, not impossible), whose existence in HER life adds nothing quite as significant.

The thing is, the MPDG is an evolution of the out-and-out dream girl. Think Phoebe Cates in Fast Times at Ridgemont High. What's changed is that the dream girl has become more personalized. Instead of THE dream girl, she's HIS dream girl; tailor-made for his needs, not the needs of all men in general. Pretty idealistic, at best.

The MPDG is supposed to be that girl who's a little odd, but still pretty. In fact, for a character whose personality is at the center of her entire raison d'etre, she is always gorgeous. And yet, she's portrayed as the little weirdo who no one else knows about, who's perfect for only the protagonist. Quite a well-kept secret, don't you think?

The MPDG can be done well (though, if done well, one has to ask if she ceases to be a MPDG). Amelie is magnificent. Manic, pixie, and sure as hell the audience's dream girl. The difference is that the entire film is from her perspective. She has a background, emotions that we care about, and seems to be as effected by the final relationship as her male counterpart.

Another example is Happy-Go-Lucky, where Poppy's relationship is secondary to the other events in the movie. Manic pixie dream girl who can hold the audience's interest by herself.

Of course, these are all very very controlled versions of weird. Any weirder and the audience would be alienated. So the challenge to filmmakers (and to myself) is to craft a Manic Pixie Dream Girl who can make us all proud with her depth.

I Recommend: Let the Right One In

GREAT THINGS ABOUT THIS MOVIE:

• Vampires.
  
• The fact that it's from Sweden, a country that produces few international movies (but from the looks of this one, that should change).
  
• The focus of the film is almost exclusively on children.
• The relationships between twelve year olds are portrayed with utmost reality; they're not particularly complex, but they're as real as any between adults.
  
• There is humor in sadness.
• There is sadness in humor.
• There are significant questions left unanswered by the end of the movie...not in a way that frustrates the audience, but in a way that allows them to draw their own conclusions. It's the kind where you think you know exactly what they were implying, only to discover someone else felt the same way with an entirely different opinion.
• The cinematography; mostly shot at night in illuminated snow-covered streets.
• The distinct balance between computer effects and straight shots.
• The distinct balance between "vampire movie" and "coming-of-age movie."
• The distinct balance between quiet moments and jolting action.
• The unapologetic (but never heavy-handed) usage of blood.
  

Review: The Soloist

(originally published in The California Aggie at UC Davis, 4/30/09)



The Soloist's debut underwhelms
Great acting, shoddy directing make The Soloist mediocre

The lithe talents of Robert Downey, Jr. and Jamie Foxx are the most tangible aspects of The Soloist, a film full of heart but haplessly misguided.

A chance encounter with a violin-playing homeless man named Nathaniel Ayers (Foxx) provides Los Angeles Times writer Steve Lopez (Downey, Jr.) with some fresh material. The starved for ideas writer is compelled to continue a friendship with Ayers, but soon discovers that Ayers' remarkable musical genius had been cut short by his lifelong struggle with mental illness.

Midway through, the movie changes from a personal story of an unlikely friendship to a larger commentary about urban homelessness, which is a lofty theme that the film cannot sustain.

The interaction between the two develops in full predictable fashion: Lopez treads the line between assisting needy Ayers and exploiting him for Lopez's own gain. Though The Soloist treads on slightly grittier, less contrived soil than would be expected, the familiar archetype is alive and well in the undertones.

The film seemed a bit inconsistent in its storytelling perspective. The story unfolds primarily from the point of view of Lopez; Downey, Jr. is in nearly every scene while Foxx acts as second fiddle. However, flashbacks from Ayers' standpoint are interjected every so often, which serves to elucidate his descent into schizophrenia.

The above oddity is particularly painful to observe, since director Joe Wright has received acclaim from audiences, critics and awards ceremonies for his beautifully paced and aesthetically pleasing movies like Pride and Prejudice and Atonement.

However, the film shines at the same points that the character Nathaniel Ayers does: with music. Foxx's acting is at its best while he's performing (or miming a performance), drawing in the audience to his character's immense passion. Even a lengthy interlude of music represented as moving colors (a la Fantasia) cannot alienate the viewers from the innate human connection between themselves and the character.

The film, as advertised and reiterated before the credits roll, is based on a true story. Though it may seem to imply innovation, this true story just happens to fill the pre-established Hollywood feel-good film conventions, which can account for its popularity.

Then again, perhaps it is presumptuous to assume that its adherence to formula is a bad thing. Maybe a film with a little bit of newness and a lot of tugging at heartstrings is desirable once in a while, even cathartic. And if that's what you're looking for, The Soloist does not disappoint.

I Recommend: The Fall

I feel like I could talk for ages about this movie, but I'll keep it as brief as possible, since this is decidedly not a review. The Fall, according to IMDb, was originally released in 2006 but either could not find a large enough audience or ran into distribution issues. Now The Fall comes to DVD in 2009 and hopefully to much wider acclaim.

In the film, a young foreign girl meets a paralyzed film stuntman in the hospital where they are both being treated in early 20th century California. A friendship grows between the two as the man begins to spin a fantastical tale for her. The camera weaves the story being told with the events happening in the film's present day, with extreme expertise; characters and story elements cross over and see the light of day in both threads.

But what's truly worthwhile about The Fall is its setting, and more specifically, its color. While the small California hospital is made up of muted beiges and tans, the story's heroes are radiant in jewel tones. Their travels take them across sweeping deserts, lush meadows, and sparkling seas. The architecture is some of the most ornate ever featured in a film. The colors and designs leap off the screen, making you feel as if you've never seen a greener shade of green than, for example, when the Mystic treads through the oasis grass. The camera shot length, angles, and cinematography features these aspects to their best advantage.

The most amazing part is that the director claims that no special effects were used in attaining the incredible shots used in the movie. The film is a complete treat, full of vibrancy and electricity that I've not seen on film anywhere else.

Review: Sunshine Cleaning

(originally published in The California Aggie at UC Davis, 4/16/09)



Sunshine Cleaning highlights young talent
Familiar but enjoyable comedy leaves little to be desired



It's almost too easy to draw comparisons between Sunshine Cleaning and recent entries to the newly minted category of, for lack of an official name, "quirky indie films." They all have in common a quiet, quaint sense of humor that sets them apart from boisterous big-budget comedies. Sunshine Cleaning, directed by New Zealand-born Christine Jeffs, follows in this vein in its own way.

The fun subgenre has not yet worn out its welcome, since it hasn't been around long enough to form its own clichés. Though Sunshine Cleaning isn't breaking any boundaries or challenging the status quo, it has frequent small moments of originality that make it shine.

The film follows sisters Rose and Norah, played with charisma by Amy Adams and Emily Blunt respectively. They both lament their monotonous blue-collar work until they suddenly find themselves without it. They concoct a plan to turn their manual labor skills into a lucrative business of the diplomatically phrased "crime scene cleanup."

The two women unavoidably become entangled in the lives of their clients, most of which have recently lost a loved one in a violent way. Rose thrives at helping this kind of situation; she is the type of fixer who can't fix her own life, remaining in a stagnant affair while trying to raise a kid. Norah is less emotionally accessible and more likely to compartmentalize than face troubles, but she finds ways to reach these unexplored caverns with the help of a new friend she meets through the job.

The film manages to deftly bring to the forefront the talents of its two leads. Adams, with her comfortable established pattern of cheerful characters, presents Rose as distinctly both a realist and an optimist. Blunt's opposing nihilism creates a stark contrast. Together the actresses are more than the sum of their parts. What results is the brightest part of the movie: a believable sister relationship that refrains from stooping to uncomfortable confessions of love, need and mutual dependence. The love is there, but it's all in the subtleties.

Feature: Observe and Report

(originally published in The California Aggie at UC Davis, 4/9/09)

Chatting about Observe and Report

Stars and filmmaker describe their latest film

Observe and Report isn't your typical big budget Hollywood comedy. The audience remains in constant struggle with the film's humor, unsure of whether or not laughter is intended or appropriate.

However, writer and director Jody Hill says he designed it that way, describing the film as "sad and weird."

"I was interested in driving a character insane, taking him to the edge of insanity," Hill said in an interview during a recent college conference call.

Observe and Report follows the sad story of mall security guard Ronnie Barnhardt (Seth Rogen), a young man who takes himself and his job extremely seriously. When a flasher begins indiscriminately assaulting women in the mall parking lot, Ronnie sees the opportunity to impress make-up counter employee Brandi (Anna Faris) with his strong commitment to justice.

Through his determination, the audience sees his struggles with a meddling police officer, his alcoholic mother, his unreliable security team, his mental disorders and his inner battles with right and wrong. Yet, shockingly, most of the movie is hilarious.

"I really tried to use the model of the character piece from the '70s," Hill said. He said he loved the themes of isolation and loneliness he saw in these films and tried to mimic "characters trying to come up with a code [and] feel in place in their time."

Hill said that when toying with ideas for a script, he tries to focus on a world. For Observe and Report, this world is the mall, a location Hill claims to hate ever since his days as a boy watching his coffee vendor father fight with mall security guards over parking.

The role of Ronnie is different from the role of the likable, carefree boy-man that originally gave Rogen acclaim. As a fan of Rogen since his early work on the show "Freaks and Geeks," Hill said that he wrote the film's delusional hero Barnhardt with Rogen in mind for the role. Rogen's involvement and faith in Observe and Report was the main reason the movie studio agreed to produce a film that defies genre or categorization, Hill added.

"It was a really small, thrown together independent movie - and those are exactly the kind of movies I don't like," Rogen said.

When asked why he signed onto the film, Rogen answered, "It was just really funny." He said he approaches making movies as a movie fan, and Observe and Report appealed to that side of him.

Co-star Anna Faris, however, plays a role that many fans of hers will recognize. Brandi, the Ronnie-using, bad decision-making melodramatic love interest of Observe and Report, is "the kind of girl we all know a little bit," Faris described.

"It was so fun to be so bad," Faris said.

Though Hill had a very specific vision for each of the characters, Faris was responsible for Brandi's memorable look of long nails and black clothes "because she thinks it's sophisticated," Faris said.

When looking at scripts, Faris said that she looks for "a whole new interesting wave of comedy" and whether or not she "gets to stretch [her] legs a little bit."

Hill said he hopes the audience thinks about the movie after they leave the theater.

"We praise [Ronnie] certainly in the movie, but how real is that praise and what exactly are we praising? I hope that's the issue the audience grapples with and kind of talks about," he said.

"Whatever people take from the movie is what they take from it. I don't have a certain agenda," Hill added.

Feature: Beauty Mark

(originally published in The California Aggie at UC Davis, 4/2/09)



How do we define beauty?
Screening of film Beauty Mark begins Davis Film Festival



For the last five years, the Davis Film Festival has brought cinematic expressions of exploration and worldliness to the city of Davis.

Tonight, the festival kicks off its sixth annual event at the Varsity Theater on Second Street with the screening of Beauty Mark, a film designed to speak to people of all backgrounds.

Beauty Mark will be screened tonight at the Varsity at 6:30 p.m. Following the film will be a question and answer session with the filmmakers and a presentation by Elizabeth Applegate, UC

Davis senior lecturer in the nutrition department and director of sports nutrition for intercollegiate athletics. Tickets are on sale at the door for $7.50 for students and $10 for non-students.

"I was on a quest to understand what is genuine beauty," said Diane Israel, producer of the film. Israel, along with directors Carla Precht and Kathleen Man, created a movie designed to address the body issues dealt with by everyone.

She described her frustration with American culture's definition of beauty and unattainable standards, calling the images of beauty society promotes "the impetus for [her] rage."

Israel's work with the fitness camp Women's Quest was the beginning of Beauty Mark's realization. Many women expressed the desire to be good role models to the next generation, said Israel, but at the same time these women possessed significant body image issues themselves.

She united with Man and Precht (Israel's childhood friend) and the process began. They interviewed a broad range of people from athletes to burn victims, psychotherapists to employees of mannequin companies.

During this interview process, it became apparent to Precht and others that Israel would have to come to terms with her own personal self-esteem and body issues. As a professional runner and triathlete in the '80s, Israel also dealt with issues of body dissatisfaction. She summed up her experience as "being a great athlete but also dying inside."

Precht said that she learned a great deal about body issues from Israel's personal story; she supported Israel's eventual decision to address her struggles in front of the camera.

"These are people who were striving for perfection; a lot of it was striving for … filling a hole in their life," Precht said about athletes with body issues. "There really weren't a lot of people around at the height of their athleticism to support them and help them see that this was a real illness."

In addition to the film screening, the Davis Film Festival's opening night will include a guest appearance by Applegate.

Applegate, also a former triathlete, said that she works with many athletes who experience the same feelings of striving for perfection that Israel did."Exercise [can be] … the means by which athletes are trying to heal or submerge the issues from their backgrounds," she said.

She noted in particular the uncommon discussion of the kinds body issues plaguing men.

"Because they're men, you're automatically in awe," Applegate said. "You fail to think that they have their own demons and are compelled to excel much in the same way as women."

Though Israel's story comes from a very personal place, the film's broad range of interviews is designed to reach all people and all types of body issues. Applegate called Beauty Mark "a movie about internal struggle that I think will transcend to individuals in many different ways."

"People think that people with eating disorders have a choice. That's just not true," Precht said.

For more information about Beauty Mark, visit beautymarkmovie.com. For a full schedule of the Davis Film Festival, visit davisfilmfest.org.

Feature: Milk

(originally printed in The California Aggie at UC Davis, 12/4/08)



Milk, in their own words
Actors, filmmakers, and UCD students discuss the potential impact of this controversial movie



“When people stand up, things change.”

In six words, Sean Penn managed to sum up the entire movie of Milk. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t still see it.

Released in theaters tomorrow, Milk is a biographical film from director Gus Van Sant about Harvey Milk, the United States’ first openly gay elected official. The film spans eight years in the life of Milk, played by Penn, from the mere conception of his first campaign for San Francisco city supervisor to his assassination at the hands of colleague Dan White.

A panel of actors and filmmakers from Milk sat down with reporters in San Francisco on Oct. 29 to talk about its upcoming release. While they made it clear that the film was enjoyable to make, all were aware that the film they made had a gravitas that existed beyond its run time.

“I don’t think most students know who Harvey Milk is,” said Emile Hirsch, who plays Cleve Jones, one of the youngest activists in Milk’s campaign. “For me, what the film really was about was about human rights and equality and democracy and just some of the core principles that I think America’s about and America stands for. And I think it’s important for college students to learn those things.”

Sean Penn stressed that understanding who Milk was as a person in addition to as a political figure is a large step toward understanding why his message continues to be meaningful.

“What struck me really was that Harvey Milk, whether he had been in politics or not, he would have been a political figure simply because he had been one of these people who had come up against the obvious obstacles in life,” Penn said. “And he greeted it with such courage and warmth and was politically kind. He was a kind spirit, and that was going to be strong whatever he did.”

Though the film that muses on the subject takes place around thirty years ago, the dearth of young people in local politics is a topic applicable to today’s political sphere. The inertia that propelled young voters to participate in this year’s election has created a lingering, now aimless passion among young adults. With four years until the next presidential election, many feel that energy should be channeled into community involvement.

“Students don’t feel that local issues in particular affect them… but it’s actually the opposite,” said sophomore international relations major and ASUCD senator Jack Zwald.

“In Davis city politics, we don’t have enough student involvement, and that’s why city council can get away with passing a lot of ordinances that aren’t fair to us.”

Despite the high voter turnout for the presidential election, screenwriter Dustin Lance Black expressed his frustration at the current climate of political activism outside the realm of elected officials.

“The folks who I know who are even political and supposedly activists are so passive… Actually getting up and doing something about it, organizing physically and making some sort of change, it just doesn’t seem to happen so much.”

“Being apathetic to politics is acceptable and normal,” agreed Zwald. “We can wean people off of that apathy [and] really start working for that change…But we’re going to fall short if we only go this far.

Zwald’s sentiments echo the feelings of many gay rights supporters today. One month after the passage of anti-gay marriage laws and amendments in three states, a film about a prominent and capable gay civil rights leader will be released. The actors and filmmakers know that the movie is going to add fuel to the flames of the debate over civil liberties. The film, had it been released earlier, might have played a part in the Prop 8 dialogue, since the film explores the struggle against a similarly themed 1978 proposition.

Penn commented on how watching the film in particular relates to approaching gay rights in general.

“There’s something in the movie where Harvey Milk is emphasizing what an impact it makes if people know that they know just one of us,” he said.

“You’re watching a lot of good-hearted human beings, and where and how they decide to fuck is irrelevant. And so I think that alone can be strong, to get in there and feel more familiar, less stigmatized and confused by it, less afraid of it. … The more the pure heart of people is in the face of [disapproval], the less breathing room there is for that kind of thinking.”

Third year international relations and women and gender studies double major and Gender and Sexualities Commission Chair Laura Brown said that the release of Milk may increase visibility for the LGBT community, but it’s important to stay focused on the bigger picture.

“I think it’s interesting to see how the queer community has galvanized after the Prop 8 passing…[but it is important] to recognize that gay rights issues existing separately aren’t as important as broader issues that incorporate the queer community as well as other marginalized communities.”

On a more universal level, this movie shines as a different kind of beacon of hope. The connections to today’s struggle for gay rights will obviously reignite deeply rooted positions on the subject, but the film’s forte is delving into the importance for activism and public participation on local, state, and national levels.

When Zwald was asked what it will take to get more students involved in politics on all levels of government, his answer was decisive.

“It’ll take major crisis. It’ll take something that really reaches down in to the core of every student… that pulls them out and compels them to get involved. It may be the draft, it may be an economic collapse, it may be the threat of a new war … It’ll really take something big to get us involved on all levels.”

Musing on: The Ruins

(WARNING: spoilers abound)

This movie fascinates me. What a graphic, disturbing piece of film. My personal genre leanings rarely take me toward horror, mainly because it's so often equated with slasher. Here lies an under appreciated movie with enough gore to satisfy the most jaded of horror junkies.

Typically a review uses its length to argue an opinion of whether the movie is good or bad, should be seen or left alone. I'll skip the foreplay and just come out with it: the movie, in my opinion, is good and is worth seeing (although perhaps this advice should not be applied to everyone, depending on preferences and level of gore tolerance). But the quality of the film is not what I want to focus on.

The Ruins follows a handful of young people vacationing in Cancun who fall victim to a truly heinous plant growing among the Mayan ruins. I'm fascinated by the aspects of the movie that have nothing to do with the plant or its demonic powers (although that in and of itself is fascinating as well).

Imagine what this story would be like if it took place in present day, maybe an urban environment. Same youths, same relationships and interactions, different setting. Instead of dying off, the characters just leave or move away. Instead of an actual set of vines carnivorously and parasitically picking off their victims, the characters are strangled by an abstract concept. But what is it? My best guess is the pressures of their transition to adulthood.

First, let's explore some of the topics touched on, and see if they don't appear elsewhere in the movie in a more subtle manner. Near the beginning of their entrapment atop the Mayan pyramid, Jeff rationalizes to the rest of the group that they will get rescues. He says, with some certainty, "Four Americans on vacation don't just disappear." His sense of entitlement comes through quite clearly: they're not meant to be in this situation. They're Americans. This doesn't happen to them. Just like magical realism. That doesn't happen, in real life. Plants that eat humans don't really exist. Plants that can mimic sounds don't really exist. But they do. They do exist, just like Americans can get trapped on the top of an old Mayan temple and get picked off, one by one, with no retribution. No law applies, nothing can save them.

Another thing that leaps out in the film is that Mathias, paralyzed early on, is rarely spoken to. They do not include him in discussions or decisions. They do not check on him to make sure he's not uncomfortable or lonely. When they make the decision to amputate his legs, the people who don't want to only seem to not want to look at the carnage. It's too dirty of a deed, nevermind he might die otherwise. Mathias, it seems, is merely a catalyst in the story. Though he is a conscious character he has no development or interaction. There is no one pining after their love Mathias, or mourning their good friend Mathias. Mathias is a burden, representative of the responsibility they inherit in their transition to the reality of adulthood. Woken up from their feelings of entitlement (as discussed before), they now have to face the hard decisions that come with life.

And with this transition to adulthood comes reinforcement of gender roles. Though the film makes no overarching statement about this, it does touch on the topic every so often. The women (Stacy and Amy) can't work the crank, can't watch the amputation. One of these women, Amy, is the only one to live through the ordeal, per Carol Clover's final girl theory. But she's not a tomboy, supposedly not a virgin, and furthermore, it is implied that she's been unfaithful to the boyfriend that eventually sacrifices himself for her survival. Not keeping with the theory in its totality, but an interesting deviation.

The way Jeff distracts the Mayans from Amy's "dead" body is to talk to them about his identity. They don't understand him; he could be reading the phone book for all he knows. And yet, he chooses to tell them about his name, his life, his hopes and dreams. What does it matter? In this sea of sameness that he sees in front of him, the world of adulthood, his individual identity is threatened. His last act of individuality is to sacrifice his life, choosing not to move forward into the next level of maturity that comes with such assimilation.

What struck me about this movie is the relatively short amount of time spend within the pyramid; most of the run time is spent on top, out in the open. Horror movies have the tendency to use confined spaces to enhance claustrophobia: the secluded hotel, the boarded up school gym, the spaceship (I was thinking Psycho, Carrie, and Alien respectively, but there are hundreds more that use these settings). The characters in The Ruins are forced to spend most of their time outside the pyramid. Expectations would lead to an exploration of the ruins, perhaps unearthing some sort of sordid history that long ago set the events of the movie into place. But there is no such exposition; neither the characters nor the audience are aware of how the vines came to be so abnormal.

And yet there is always a sense of confinement present. They are surrounded by the vines on most sides, and by the Mayan villagers at the bottom. The only way out is straight up. Why does this atypical setting work so well to create terror in much the same way its opposite does? It's because what is surrounding them so entirely is nature. Nature and its aspects suffocate in their own way, from the side, just as well as a full claustrophobic area would.

There are some questions left after viewing: Why did the vines not suffocate them from the beginning? Why did they wait for the characters to attack each other? Why did they leave the steps open for them to walk down?

Leave further questions, answers, arguments, refutations, or complaints in the comments. I love debating movies.

The Oscars in Review

(originally published in The California Aggie at UC Davis, 2/26/09)


Best Supporting Actress: Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Sharing the screen with such attention-grabbing actors and Javier Bardem and Scarlett Johansson can’t be easy, but it was Cruz as the garrulous and passionate artist that stole the show.

The other nominees held little hope of winning. Little-known Viola Davis’s role in Doubt received critical praise but lacked commercial success and audience receptivity, and Amy Adams in the same film fell by the wayside. Marisa Tomei, though an underrated Oscar darling, played the overdone role of “hooker with a heart of gold” in The Wrestler. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button’s Taraji P. Henson, a newcomer onto the scene, hasn’t yet paid her dues as an actress.


Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight

In the year since Ledger’s death, the entertainment industry has been abuzz with awe of his final farewell to acting. His untimely passing surely didn’t hurt his chances at winning, but few would contest that Ledger’s nuanced, harrowing interpretation of the psychotic comic book villain truly stood out from the pack.

Though Ledger delivered hands-down superior performance, it is unfortunate that The Dark Knight was released in a year with so many worthy supporting actors. Josh Brolin as Milk’s city supervisor, murderer and (in some ways) catalyst very nearly stole the show from Best Actor winner Sean Penn. In Revolutionary Road, Michael Shannon displayed another type of psychosis that acted as more of a catharsis for the stifled audience. Philip Seymour Hoffman and Robert Downey, Jr. (in Doubt and Tropic Thunder respectively) are both talented actors who will no doubt get their day at the Oscars, but this was not the year for them.


Best Actress: Kate Winslet, The Reader

Before Sunday night, Winslet had been nominated five times without winning, all before the age of 32. This is a severe lack of appreciation for the rare and gifted actress she’s touted to be. The Academy chose to honor her body of work, whether or not the mediocre role of Hanna Schmitz was the worthiest portrayal.

Midyear Anne Hathaway seemed a shoe-in for the award with her moving portrayal of a rehabilitated drug addict in the family drama Rachel Getting Married, shocking those who had her pigeon-holed. A win for her would have been well deserved. Angelina Jolie, stony-faced off-screen but heart-wrenchingly expressive in Changeling, would have also been a welcome alternative.

Sadly, Meryl Streep’s record fifteen nominations has resulted in her competing against all her previous stellar roles instead of the other women in the category; this year her role in Doubt was not up to her own set par. And poor Melissa Leo’s film Frozen River was simply too obscure even for Oscar voters.


Best Actor: Sean Penn, Milk

Sean Penn has the uncanny ability to bypass amateurish impressions and completely inhabit his character. Especially in comparison to historical footage of Harvey Milk, Penn’s portrayal is a real tribute to the man himself. His meticulous acting is enough to dispel (or at least make negligible) any allegations of a liberal Hollywood merely rewarding a politically leftist movie.

Penn probably was the most deserving lead actor this year. Penn’s main competition was Mickey Rourke’s celebrated return to form in The Wrestler. The least deserving nominee was arguably Brad Pitt, whose performance in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button amounted to little more than excellent make-up and special effects.


Best Directing: Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire

Danny Boyle tends to create a world of intrigue and optimism in his movies, whether that world exists on a spaceship in the future, in post-Apocalyptic zombie-ridden London, in the drug dens and sketchy nightclub haunts of addicts, or most recently in the slums of Mumbai.

Danny Boyle had this category all locked up. All four of the other directors possess some of the most impressive resumes in the industry, but none can match Boyle’s films’ effortless charm.


Best Picture: Slumdog Millionaire

There’s something about this movie that people love, and even movie executives can’t seem to put their finger on what it is; the film almost went straight to DVD. The film is highly courageous and rarely condescending. The movie holds up both to scrutiny of formal aspects as well as to the critical eye of general public, which is quite the impressive feat.

Slumdog Millionaire, for the above-mentioned reasons, blew the competition out of the water.

Review: He's Just Not That Into You

(originally published in The California Aggie at UC Davis, 2/12/09)


You might just be into He's Just Not That Into You
Comedy with commentary is hit and miss


The good thing about going into movies with low expectations is that you are rarely disappointed.

Since it is inspired by the ever-popular self-help guide by Greg Behrendt and Liz Tuccillo (which was itself inspired by a single line of dialogue on "Sex and the City"), He's Just Not That Into You automatically has hurdles of preconceptions to overcome. Thankfully, common aspects from each are only recognizable if the audience member is very familiar with both media; the film does a respectable job at standing on its own.

The movie operates on the premise that there are various myths and misinterpretations in the dating arena begging to be dispelled, and it employs a handful of intertwining stories to attempt to conquer all of them at once.

Depending on individual perspective, the movie may be insulting or flattering. In the pessimistic vein, the movie portrays nearly all women to be desperate and delusional. But from another viewpoint, they are also painted as hopeful, earnest and determined.

It is the unfortunate fact that when dealing with generalizations, reinforcement of stereotypes tends to be inevitable. The individual plotlines are well-worn tales of women waiting for a guy to call, hoping for a marriage proposal and obliviously trusting a cheating man. Though these inevitably do occur in the real world, the familiarity of witnessing them in character form is exhausting.

The movie's tone is hard to pin down; as soon as one character says something unbelievably dense and cliché, another swoops in with a witty burst of humor.

The logic of the movie is at war with bigger ideologies regarding behavior and gender roles, but the main assertion seems simple. If a guy is interested in a girl (or "into" her, as the title colloquially phrases it), he will ask her out, he will call when he says he will, he will sleep with her, he will want to marry her and he will never cheat.

The events of the movie make this theory seem like common sense (and consequently, the women like blundering fools); however, a return to the real world brings the concept into further question.

The whole movie is spent emphasizing the inexplicable way women rationalize obvious signs of rejection. With the brief introduction of the under-explained "exception to the rule" in the last few minutes, it effectively backtracks upon itself and negates its entire intended message.

Review: Taken

(originally published in The California Aggie at UC Davis, 2/5/09)


Taken for a ride
Fun action flick has dark undertones


Taken has all the key aspects of a typical action movie. It starts with the basics: trustworthy main character, dire situation and linear storyline.

Then come the fun but still familiar aspects. The movie is peppered with realistic, claustrophobic fight sequences reminiscent of the Bourne series. The protagonist has implausible but forgettable means of gathering information. The villains of the movie are identified by their nationality (instead of “the Russians” or “the Germans,” Taken’s resident baddies are “the Albanians”).

Finally, there’s the twist. Its existence is necessary to distinguish Taken from every other action movie out there, especially because most of the film’s aspects, though well done and entertaining, aren’t terribly original. This twist is one that could make or break the film.

The impetus for the action is familial love. Liam Neeson plays our righteous protagonist Bryan Mills, a retired government agent who now exists solely to rebuild the fractured relationship he has with his daughter.

The film dwells on this foundation for a good portion of the first half. This awkward, stagnant lingering is designed to indicate the pivotal role that the relationship is destined to play, but the filmmakers’ tragic overemphasis risks seeming condescending to the audience.

When Mills’ teenage daughter is kidnapped upon arriving in France for an unsupervised summer vacation, he snaps into action to find her. The kidnapping itself, however, isn’t the scary part; Mills’ sources reveal a fate in store for her much more terrifying and harrowing than a quick death.

People will have to decide for themselves if this is a positive or negative aspect of the movie. On one hand, the tortuous future looming for her is enough for fatherly love to justify any of Mills’ morally questionable actions. It also brings something new to the table, choosing to go where action films tend to avoid in favor of lighter, obviously fictional fare.

On the other hand, the sight of the gritty European underbelly of crime and abuse toes the line between entertainment and "Dateline" exposé. The brutality may be distracting at best, but could be completely off-putting at worst.

Review: Revolutionary Road

(originally published in The California Aggie at UC Davis, 1/29/09)


Revolutionary Road not that revolutionary
Conventional themes sink film, buoyed only by strong performances


Revolutionary Road is essentially a reworking of 1998's The Truman Show, instead using themes of abstract (rather than literal) confinement.

The film's lack of linear plot renders it rather difficult to describe. It spends very little time with back-story, instead choosing to jump directly into what might be termed the conflict. This permeates every part of the film, never allowing the characters or the audience a chance to catch their breath.

Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio play '50s suburban couple April and Frank Wheeler, who are surrounded by a contrived world that offers them only enough individuality to foster complacency. Their existence in this white-bread life revolves around their own perceived superiority.

When they realize they are in danger of surrendering the rest of their lives to a mind-numbing humdrum existence, they make spontaneous plans to move to Paris.

It is probably a stretch to call this the plot of the movie, but it is the best that can be done. The majority of the scenes occur independently of this thread-thin plot line, and many seemingly act as redundant filler scenes. For the most part, the film is simply an uninvolved observer to their sepia-toned suffering.

Director Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Road to Perdition) obviously expected the film's themes to be significant, but instead they come across as dull, familiar and unimpressive. The typical representation of overwrought emotions results in a rather unsympathetic audience. The film is saved by dedicated performances by Winslet and DiCaprio, who are a credit to their profession with the electricity they bring to the roles.

Revolutionary Road uses futile displays of anger to question the subjectivity of love, happiness and contentedness, but falls flat on all counts. All in all, it's not a very accessible film. It's simply an exploration of the stifled desperation and permeating ineffectuality of people.

Review: Slumdog Millionaire

(originally printed in The California Aggie at UC Davis, 1/8/09)


New breed Slumdog steals the show
The charming and gritty story is a triumph


Slumdog Millionaire doesn’t just “have heart,” as some people say; this movie runs on heart. Heart is all it knows, its entire raison d’être, its focus and emphasis at the same time.

It’s a classic story with enough creativity to avoid feeling stale. The plot follows Jamal Malik through his childhood in the abject poverty of Bombay slums, eventually leading to his fateful appearance on India’s version of the game show “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?” and his attempts to reconnect with the girl he loves.

During the story, the city changes from Bombay to Mumbai, Jamal changes from boy to man, and being chased by the police changes from an exciting childhood adventure to a terrifying game of chance. But Jamal is someone who knows who he is through and through, even when the world around him is constantly in flux.

The parts of the story come together like two hands interlocking fingers. The expert execution of flashback storytelling is a testament to director Danny Boyle’s adherence to form. His organic approach to directing, allowing the genre to lead his filmmaking process, has brought Boyle critical success dabbling in genres like zombie movies (28 Days Later), science fiction (Sunshine) and drama (Trainspotting).

It may be an optimistic story, but there is a reason it is rated R. This movie with heart is not for the faint of heart and some parts are downright hard to watch. There are no warm fuzzies in this one, but it does showcase one person’s pervasive, enduring and unadulterated faith in love. And in that way, one can’t help but think that the determined protagonist is on the right track.

Though the general feeling walking out of the theater is positive, calling it a feel-good film would be a misnomer. The point is not that the movie makes you feel happy or feel hopeful or feel sympathetic; the most important part is that it simply makes you feel. And experiencing that through film is relatively rare.