Nothing is what it seems

Some movies can surprise you. The one thing you learn about Hollywood after years of watching is that when you come in with high expectations, you’re more likely to be disappointed than to be wowed. Take for instance, The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. I had made an event of this premiere and was about ready to crawl out of my skin from utter excitement. If you’ve been reading my blog, you know how I feel about this film, so I won’t bother with the gory details. The short story: I absolutely hated it. I felt so robbed of my 1o dollars and faith in the movie that I felt like crying. No joke. I know it seems melodramatic to the lot of you, but when you’ve been a fan of the Narnia books since when you were a kid, you would understand how important a movie adaptation is.

And then there’s a film like The Go-Getter. I like Lou Taylor Pucci; most of his films I’ve enjoyed, like Fifty Pills and Thumbsucker. So I came in expecting a good time. What I got in the first ten minutes of the film was absolute drivel. I remember thinking, at the time I watched the movie, what pretentious garbage it was. The beginning was catchy; a hipster quote about Huckleberry Finn. Can’t go wrong with that. But as the movie progressed, it came off like a group of fresh-out-of-film-school students decided to come together, apply all their knowledge about the indie movie, and make a film about a guy who goes on a road trip for some random reason. Don’t get me wrong; I love indie films. I do, however, from my frequent watching of them, know exactly what is an indie film and what isn’t. A good old indie film doesn’t feel like it has to have all the elements of an indie film. An indie film doesn’t classify itself as an indie film. An indie film becomes an indie film because the story is small but the message is big and most often insightful. An indie film is a small package with a memorable surprise. In The Go-Getter, whatever genius message it was that was being communicated by the scriptwriters was lost amid the pretentious crap they were trying to pull. From the empty, fluffy language of the film up to the over-the-top indie music that was being played all throughout the film, I felt like I was about to throw up any second as I was watching it. What irks me more than any other film in the world is a film that tries too hard to be something. I appreciate films that are at least honest about how stupid they are, like Paul Blart: Mall Cop, for instance. I would take that film over The Go-Getter anytime, only because the former is filmed with a clear view of what it wants to be: a mindless comedy with people flying around in the screens. The Go-Getter aspired to be this one transcendent film, filled with clever anecdotes that no one in real life really says, and filled with music that would give the impression of coolness. It was like watching a fucking Chuck Klosterman book unfold.

So like I said before, some movies disappoint you when you least expect it to. On the other hand, if you come in with no expectations, you’re most likely to be pleasantly surprised. Like for instance, the movie Happy-Go-Lucky, starring award-winning actress Sally Hawkins. I had come in not expecting much from the movie, because I had seen the previews and didn’t think it was anything more than a glorified Bridget Jones’s Diary. It was quirkier than I expected, and not in a good way. I found myself in awe of how silly of a character Poppy Montgomery is, but at the same time, found her lack of self-consciousness quite fascinating and bordering on the endearing. She grows on you, this Poppy Montogomery. I thought the film started out a bit slow, but picked up towards the end. The best parts were the ones involving the driving lessons she was having with a complete psycho who referred to the rearview mirror as “Enraha”, the “all-seeing eye”. Absolutely ridiculous. Anyway, I see why Sally Hawkins won the award for Best Actress in a Comedy, and it is well-deserved. The film will probably not be liked by everybody, but it’s an endearing film, and Poppy’s happy-go-lucky attitude does rub off on you a little bit.

And then there’s 17 Again. I admit that even a toxic movie nitpicker like me has some weaknesses. That weakness would be a deliriously cute boy like Zac Efron. I don’t care if I’m made fun of, YES, I went to see 17 Again because Zac Efron is cute as a button and I had nothing better to do on a Saturday night. So sue me. I had expected nothing but fluffy drivel, but it wasn’t at all. It was entertaining fluffy drivel, with a cute boy in the midst of it. Zac Efron was his usual charismatic, gorgeous self, and although he was pretty much playing the self-assured heartbreaker he usually plays in all of his films, he did however surprise me towards the end, when he has a dramatic scene in a court room as his character tries to win back his wife, who is filing for divorce. So I still have hope for him that he will someday break out of his teen heartthrob status and become a more refined actor. The movie had its unfunny, cliched parts, but it also had its moments, such as a painfully gush-worthy scene involving Efron, a leather jacket, a hot car, and Spoon’s “The Underdog” playing in the background. Speaking of which, this movie had some pretty good songs in its soundtrack; songs from Cat Power and The Kooks among some of them.

Soldiering on

I’m a big fan of Rachel McAdams, and I think she’s a terrific actress and could be the next Jodi Foster, if she plays her cards right. So when I heard about The Lucky Ones, I immediately rented it from Netflix. The Lucky Ones is a story about three soldiers who get back home from doing tours in the US army, and they’ve gotten so used to being in the military that they don’t seem to know what to do with themselves when they get back out into the real world.

 The story starts when Tim Robbins’ character, Fred Cheaver, is the only one with the rental car and Rachel McAdams and Michael Peña’s characters tag along for the ride. T.K. Poole (Peñ) wants to go to Las Vegas because he was sent home from Iraq after some shrapnel got into his thigh, resulting in him having erection problems. The trip to Vegas is to see if a bunch of strippers can get him aroused enough to remedy the situation. Rachel McAdams plays Colee Dunn, a Southern sweetheart whose earnest demeanor can charm, but also irritate. Her character goes on a road trip with T.K. and Cheaver in order for her to return a guitar to the family of a fallen comrade in Iraq.

The story seems comedic at first, but it’s really emotional too. The writing is funny, and the message is very clever. It’s sort of like recidivism for the military, is what is being explored in this movie.  So the three soldiers get out of war expecting all these things from the world they come back to, thinking that because they fought for America they expect the world to be a little bit different, a little bit better, and instead, it’s not so much. And they don’t know how to function in this strange society, so they go back into the army even if they vowed they would never go back. This movie is a pretty good watch. It’s not a stellar movie, but it’s one of those movies that makes you go “huh.”

If Jason Bourne had a daughter…

…and she was kidnapped while on vacation in France by an Albanian organization that specializes in human trafficking, drugs and murder, it would pretty much be the movie Taken, starring Liam Neeson as an ex-government operative/spy/CIA agent who stops at nothing to get his daughter back.

The movie was awesome. Being than I’m a big fan of the Jason Bourne series, I felt like the film was on the same par, even though it’s not related to the series. I had doubts on whether Liam Neeson would be able to pull off playing a badass, but he did it effortlessly. The movie was hard-hitting, intense, fast-paced and definitely action-packed, and it’s one of those films where you’re on the edge of your seat for pretty much the entire duration of the movie.

It was nice to see Maggie Grace again, who played Shannon on Lost. Maggie Grace plays Liam Neeson’s daughter in the movie and she gets kidnapped while in France with a friend. The film demonstrates just how easy it is to be in the middle of a dangerous situation when traveling abroad and what tactics these underground organizations use to lure unsuspecting teenagers.

Taken is one of the best films I’ve seen this year, and it was believable, dramatic and had great performances. I learned some pretty valuable stuff, too. I highly recommend watching Taken.

5 shows you should be watching

SOUTHLAND

I always knew Ben McKenzie was better than the OC. His new show Southland, which has replaced E.R. on NBC’s Thursday night 10pm time slot, gives him an opportunity to showcase the acting that he wasn’t really able to get credit for in The O.C. Southland is like a cross between Sons of Anarchy, The Wire and NYPD Blue – with the gritty backdrop of South Central L.A. and the diverse cast of actors who can deliver the hard-hitting performances that are required of such riveting drama. Ben McKenzie plays Ben Sherman, a rookie cop who joins the ranks of L.A.’s finest. His first adventures include finding a dead body in an abandoned home filled with rabid dogs (you get the picture), observing a prostitution sting, arresting someone for marijuana possession, and of course, a good ol’ gang bust. All in a day’s work.

If The Wire made Baltimore, Maryland seem like the most dangerous place to be in, Southland is basically painting L.A. to be one seriously fucked up town to live in. Not only is it home to a turbulent gang war between Latino gangs and African-American gangs, but home to pedophiles, murderers, drug addicts…Oh wait, that’s just everywhere else in America. The good thing about a cop drama is that regardless of how many times you tell the tales, there are so many ways to capitalize on shock and awe, and Southland is a show that seems to know the balance between delivering some drama while at the same time introducing potential character development.

Ben McKenzie does a great job as the rookie cop Ben Sherman. His character isn’t exactly a far cry from The O.C. character he played before. It’s like Ryan grew up and became a cop, is all. I think this will be his big break as an actor, and good for him. He is surrounded by very good actors on this show, including Regina King [Jerry Maguire], Tom Everett Scott [That Thing You Do!], Shawn Hatosy [The Faculty] and Michael Cudlitz [Prison Break]. The thing I like most about this show is that it’s surprising, it’s got some intriguing characters (like Michael Cudlitz’s character, who is Ben Sherman’s superior officer/partner) as well as small scene that really grab you. I look forward to watching more of this show and I’m excited to see what will happen next. Oh, and did I mention I just think Ben McKenzie is adorable?

LIE TO ME

This show had me at hello. Tim Roth? I’m in. Kelli Williams [who was great on The Practice]? I’m so there. A show with a lot of psychology? Sweet. New eye candy in the form of Brendan Hines? SOLD. This show is so clever, and even though there were some less than interesting “liars of the week” episodes, I find myself getting more and more intrigued by the characters, as well as the methods used in this show. Tim Roth plays a character, Dr. Cal Lightman, who is based on a real-life scientist who specializes in microexpressions – which are essentially concealed emotions that are uncontrollable and involuntary. He runs a company full of “deception experts” who basically take on assignments in which it is their primary job to figure out who’s not telling the truth.

Tim Roth is one of my favorite actors, and I was thrilled when I found out he was going to be playing the lead character on this show. His character, Dr Lightman, is pretty much a carbon copy of Dr House – with his unorthodox methods and dry sense of humor. Kelli Williams plays Dr. Foster, who is like the Cuddy of Lie to Me. She’s more optimistic, cheery and breezy than Lightman is, and she is essentially the yin to his yang. Although there isn’t yet a clear romantic relationship between them, you can sense that they have a history and that they have been close friends for a while.

The best thing about this show is that it’s current. Not only were they able to discuss events like the current recession with the use of a Bernie Madoff-inspired villain in one of the episodes, but they make use of footage of actual, real people caught in lies, like they show phots of Bill Clinton, OJ Simpson, Ted Bundy, etc all with microexpressions on their faces indicating deception. It’s really interesting stuff, and I like the different approach it brings to the serialized cop drama.

THE UNUSUALS

If anyone was still fuzzy about Harold Perrineau’s character Michael being dead on Lost, here is your confirmation. Perrineau now stars in the new ABC show The Unusuals, which is essentially yet another cop show but with quirky mysteries and offbeat characters. Starring Amber Tamblyn, Adam Goldberg, Jeremy Renner and Perrineau, the show is like Monk meets The Wire meets Arrested Development. At first I thought it was trying too hard with the quirky, but as I got into it, I liked that it was able to take the dramatic aspect of the show seriously, with conspiracies and personal character dramas and pretty darn good cast of characters, actually. Oh, and LOST fans will wanna tune in, because Perrineau’s character has a bit of paranoia about the number 42 (nudge nudge).

Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles

This isn’t a new show; in fact, rumors are swirling that it may not return for a third season. However, if you haven’t been watching the show, now’s the time to pick it up. The first season was absolutely flawless. The storytelling flowed really well. The episodes were nothing short of action-packed, and for those who thought Lena Headey wouldn’t make a good Sarah Connor, you are dead wrong. The show has smart writing, great action and Brian Austin freakin’ Green in it as a badass resistance member from the future. If that’s not a comeback, I don’t know what is.

The show got into a slump in the second season because of writing that sort of lost its way. There were characters who were introduced who the audience wasn’t really able to get into, like Riley and Jesse. And then there were the standalone episodes, such as that of Sarah and the weird guy she shot in the desert warehouse, that didn’t really do anything for the major story. But then there were the awesome parts, which completely and utterly compensated for the bad decisions. The Mexico adventure was exciting, well-filmed and really action-packed. Summer Glau, as per usual, steals the show as John’s cyborg sidekick Cameron. And the addition of ex-Garbage frontwoman Shirley Manson as the deceptively devious Sharon Weaver is a two thumbs up in terms of casting. I was absoutely blown away by how awesome Miss Manson was this season. She was part of the reason I stayed tuned in.

Tonight was the season 2 finale, and although rumors were that this would be the final season, I absolutely refuse to believe it. Not only did tonight’s season finale have an awesome twist, but it leaves the show open for a third season with new twists and turns, new stories and interesting storylines. If the show comes back for a third season, I might forgive Fox for cancelling that other awesome TV show, Firefly.

Oh, wait. There’s no forgiveness for cancelling Firefly.

KINGS

And last, but certaintly not least, the new NBC drama Kings. Honestly, there’s really nothing like it. It’s like a modern-day Rome or a Shakespearean play. It’s got the majesty of The Tudors with the conspiratorial twists and turns of The Sopranos. And for fuck’s sake, Ian McShane is in it, what more can you ask for? Kings presents a really cool and interesting hypothesis: What if monarchies existed in the world we live in today? Sure, we have jolly old England with the Queen and the Dukes and Duchesses and whatnot, but what if you had a kingdom with all the conspiracy and scheming that comes along with it, set in the real world, where people do talk in sentences we understand, and they don’t dress like stuffy old kings and queens. Such is the backdrop of Kings – a drama about a political family, headed by Ian McShane (who plays King Silas) trying to maintain power in a world where power is lusted for by many. Chris Egan (David Shepherd) is an earnest, idealistic soldier who unknowingly risks his life to save the king’s son, Prince Jack (played to perfection by Gossip Girl’s Sebastian Stan). What awaits him is a world full of lies, deceit, scheming and plotting.

Honestly, I have not been so excited for a show than I am for this one. It feels like a period drama, but neither dwells in the period nor goes overboard with the drama. The writing is clever, smart and just right – not at all overindulgent. The music and score is amazing and plays appropriately like ones drawn up for an epic movie. The look of this TV show is absolutely stunning.

This show could be on the same lines as Mad Men and Band of Brothers, and I see it going really far. The acting is amazing, the writing sharp, the costumes vibrant and unique, and it’s like nothing else on television right now. Kings is exactly the breath of fresh air TV needs; giving the cop show a rest, and chucking the traditional romantic comedy route. Kings is intense, riveting, and definitely easy to obsess over.

In a few words: I’m hooked.

Twilight will suck the sanity out of you

Like any good film critic, I try to watch films that, despite my personal dislike of the subject matter and/or plot in general, have derived a public consensus of its awesomeness in order for me to deliver an objective criticism. Twilight was my project last night; I was curious to find out why this was one of the best-selling movies in the past year, and why it warranted a second installment. Basically, I just wanted to see what all the fuss was about. Critics hailed it as “the next Harry Potter”; Meyer was showered with praise for her “brilliant prose”. I was confused. Not to toot my own horn, but usually when it comes to films and books, I’m usually on the up and up on the breakthrough films and writers, especially books that would be considered comparable to the Harry Potter books. I was astounded – why, if the Twilight series was such an awesome read, had I never attempted to pick it up?

Curious as to why the books were being hailed as the second coming of a J K Rowling wannabe, I decided to see what all the fuss was about. I picked up a copy of Twilight (no, I did not pay for it) and skimmed through the first couple of pages. My initial reaction? There wasn’t anything new about this story. Meyer’s tale is annoyingly common, and her take on vampires was stereotypical (pale, brooding, see: The Lost Boys), other than the fact that they happen to be  sparkly [literally]. Not only do the books suffer from mediocrity and even border on plagiarism (with its borrowed themes from Charlaine Harris’ Southern Vampire Mystery books as well as the more well-known Buffy the Vampire Slayer), but the storyline was so amazingly silly that I did not even bother finishing the book. In my opinion, the book reads like teenage erotica. I find it hilarious that parents around the country are actually pushing their prepubescent little girls to read this book, when all it is is really just some teenage girl’s sex dream about a vampire she’s obsessed with. At least in True Blood, Sookie Stackhouse is more open and honest about the fact that she wants to get it on with Bill Compton. And that’s at least more forgivable because the show is on HBO and is R-Rated, whereas Twilight is recommended as reading material in middle schools around the US.

I can’t say I had higher hopes for the film. When I heard about all the buzz surrounding instant stars Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart, I thought, “well that’s great, another batch of young stars get a chance to make their names.” Unfortunately, the film was even worse than the book. I can’t even begin to describe how awful the movie was. The only other film I have said was completely awful was Max Payne, and you all know how terrible that movie was. Anyway, so let me tell you what I really thought about the movie.

Kristen Stewart, as Bella, the heroine of the story, was genuine, but incredibly boring and lackluster. I feel like Stewart isn’t a very good actress because she lets her own personality overtake the characters she plays. if you watch her previous films, like In the Land of Women, Into the Wild and Adventureland, you’ll see that she’s playing the same characters over and over again, except in different settings. I have seen her in person, at the Comic-Con Twilight panel, and believe me, she definitely injects her own personality into her characters. Good acting is supposed to be about immersing yourself into a role and engaging in such a transformation that you are barely even recognizable as a separate person from your character. I will give her credit for the effort, because I feel like as an actor she, along with the rest of the cast, was burdened by the lack of depth in the characters as well as a poorly written script.

The storyline was painfully cheesy. I rolled my eyes so many times I think I was thisclose to having a seizure because of it. To be honest, I didn’t finish the movie (in fact, I only sat through 30 minutes of it) so I can’t really say that it gets better, but from the length of time I watched it, I felt like I was in movie hell. It was movie hell in the sense that the acting was so shoddy, that it felt like I was watching a high school play performed by amateurs at the school auditorium.  The script was so stupid, there were whole conversations between characters that absolutely made no sense. The storyline was so painfully cheesy – it was essentially a teenage girl worshiping a vampire.

The difference between this film, and shows like True Blood and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, is that in the shows mentioned, the female characters were strong, independent women who had their own personalities and did not take crap when it was given to them. In Twilight, Bella is basically just a schmuck who follows Edward around like a lovesick puppy. She does not challenge him at all. The thing about Bella as a character in the film is that she was not allowed to progress; by this I mean that we don’t see an investment in the character from the audience. Now, I know that the director and producers were probably just expecting that the moviegoing audience would be comprised of existing Twilight fans already who have read the books, but what of us non-fans? We need to be coaxed into rooting for a character, and to do this, we need ample build up in order to fall in love with each character. In the film, there is nothing of the sort.

Robert Pattinson, who played Edward…Wow, I can’t even begin to describe how sorry I felt for him when he was acting. But then again, if he had better lines I think it would probably have been a little better. I feel like he was treated like more of an object, than as a person, which is hilarious because I never would have expected such a turnaround of stereotypes in a film like this. Edward waltzes into a room, with his brooding glare and pale face, and there’s some godawful rock song in the background. I swear, it felt like I was watching one of those old school classic rock music videos, like Guns N Roses’ “November Rain” or something. Silly, indulgent and cheesy. Apparently this guy is supposed to be the sexiest vampire around, and to me they [the actor, and the entire crew, including make-up and special effects] tried way too hard to make him the it guy.

Really, I just have absolutely no idea how these books were even remotely compared to Harry Potter. I mean, it is nowhere near as good as the Harry Potter series; nowhere near as imaginative or as gripping. I would say it’s not even worth picking up in the first place, just from the sheer lack of good writing in it. Overall, I see absolutely no pros in this movie. Bad acting, bad writing, bad direction, horrible make-up and special effects. Like I said before, MOVIE HELL. Every scene in the movie was like torture, having to endure the terrible acting on top of the lousy script. And whoever the director is needs to find another job. I shudder now, when I look back at the 30 minutes I wasted watching Twilight, and I maintain that it was one of the most terrible films I’ve ever seen. I gotta say, it’s like I have a sixth sense when it comes to being able to tell if a movie is gonna be shit. I could tell it was going to be shit from the previews I saw at Comic-Con, and lo and behold: Twilight may have epic failed in the vampire department (even the story department, in general), but it definitely succeeded in sucking the sanity out of me.