Fumarama

ok, so i lied a tiny bit in my Failure to Launch post. Not really lied, but in my attempt not to go on and on pointlessly, did not present my point as well as I could. It is true that I am annoyed that many critics treat all television as being equal, when it really isn't, but there are places one can go good differentiation between shows, for example, tv gal. However, my point remains valid when it comes to romantic comedies and teen movies, the reviews make it really hard to tell the difference between an actual good movie in this genre and a bad one.

Take for example, She's the Man. (It is the movie based on Twelfth Night starring Amanda Bynes of Nickelodeon fame). It got your standard New York Times review. The movie was good enough, had I seen on like ABC Family one night I would have thought it was fabulous. But having paid to see it in the theater (it was $7.50 not 10.75 thank god, Bukola had vouchers), my reaction was "god, this is lame." This is opposed to my reaction after seeing Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants in which was "oh my god, that was so good."

See how this is annoying? There is no way upon reading reviews to differentiate between the good bad movies and the bad bad movies.

So I am thinking, maybe I can serve this clearly underserved community of people who enjoy bad movies but need to know the difference between really good ones and bad ones. (and also trust my taste, which once you accept the terms, is flawless) So here is the rubric:

Totally go see it in the theater -- Sisterhood of the traveling pants, Legally Blonde, the Princess Diaries (I had a 2 here before, that was a type, sorry), 10 Things I hate about you, In her Shoes

You can rent it -- Legally Blonde 2, Just Like Heaven, how to lose a guy in 10 days

Don't spend money on it, but definately watch it if it comes on ABC Family -- She's the Man, Maid in Manhattan, Princess Diaries 2

Maybe watch it if it happens to be on and you really have nothing better to do -- Must Love Dogs

Don't watch, seriously, you might as well spend those two hours picking your nose -- Bewitched

On yesterday's Washington Post TV chat with Lisa de Moraes, I read the following two items:

New York, N.Y.: Posting for my niece in Va., who is in school -- Is Everwood coming back next year?

Lisa de Moraes: Are you one of those middle aged people who hate to admit they love WB series, or are you the nicest parent ever? "Everwood" is on the fence, I'm sorry to report. It's in the list of shows "under consideration" according to the booklet CW suits handed out to advertisers last week, but not on anybody's "sure thing" list...

OK, this is the worst news ever. I could be ok if they cancel Everwood. (and by ok, I mean not refusing to leave my room because what kind of horrible world would cancel Everwood). I mean the show has a four season run, which is a long time for an hour long drama. And the kids are out of high school, so while still the best show on television, not quite the same. But if they do cancel the show, I want all the loose ends wrapped up. Amy and Ephram should get back together. Andy and Nina should get married. But the worst thing that can happen is that they cancel the show in like May after the season finale and we just sort of end it with some sort of terrible cliff hanger. I beg of you WB/CW, if you are going to cancel Everwood, can't you tell them now? or like two months ago? so they could wrap up the show in dignity. I would say that if they cancel Everwood with a cliffhanger I will never watch the new channel, CW, but we all know that is a lie. I will, however, be very very angry.

Morristown, N.J.: I know this has been asked by fans of the late, great Arrested Development, but there has not been a definitive answer yet: Is Arrested Development going to Showtime??

Lisa de Moraes: Showtime has reportedly made an offer -- two seasons with an option for a third is what's been said -- and it's up to the creator to decide whether he wants to keep going and under the terms Showtime has offered, as I understand it....

Um...I don't understand. Why isn't Mitch Hurwitz jumping at the opportunity to continue Arrested Development. Are the terms bad? does he think the story has been told? I am counting on several more years of AD DVDS. What is going on?

I have a childhood friend named Jamie. Her closest friend is a girl named Flo. Flo's little brother, Martin, has a girlfriend named Svetlana who is on the current, Key West season of the show. This is the closest I have ever come to knowing someone on reality TV. It may seem like a pretty tenuous connection, but let me put it differently, i know Jamie and Flo, Jamie and Flo know Svetlana. Morever, she is your standard Northeast Philly/Buck County Russian Jewish girl. Being from NE Philly myself, I have dealt with this type my whole life and know them pretty well. It is a type that has played a minor but significant role in my life. So it is really bizzare to see such a person on tv.

Besides the first episode, I have not been watching the episodes. (busy, law school, plus there will be marathons, there are always marathons). But I have been reading the television without pity recaplets, on which they are are now referring to Svet's boyfriend, who i met once when he was like 13 years old, as her Mafia BF, which I assume is making a reference to the fact that they think he is a member of the Russian mafia. Well, I saw Martin on tv again now after all these years, and he seems exactly like every other Jewish kid who grew up in my neighborhood. He is definately not all that different from Yulia's (my best friend) ex.

Daphne talks of reading television without pity as getting a second opinion on a tv show. Well, this even wierder, it is like getting a second opinion on this aspect of my life. Does every Russian guy I ever met sort of seem like he is a member of the mafia? um...maybe.

I imagine people go on reality tv in order to be the center of attention or to become famous or something. But this might a strange side effect. If you are on television, you are constantly getting second (and third and fourth...) opinions on how you live your life. Must be very very strange.

So after a little more research I discovered I was right about Seth Rogen being Jewish, but more interesting, someone sat on wikipedia and made a list of Jewish Canadians. Huh?

I saw a movie preview for this new movie called stick it. It is from the producers of Bring it On and it is about a girl who gets into some sort of trouble with the law and then is forced back into the world of competitive gymnasitcs which she has shunned for some reason that is not clear from the preview. I am so fucking excited.

Watched again the final few episodes of season 2 of the West Wing, so fucking good. But then, I watched the audio commentary. (I don't own a DVD player, so audio commentary is still kind of a new phenomenon for me). Anyway, i was really disappointed. It was not good or interesting at all, just a bunch of self-congratulatory muck.

Watched the quickly cancelled Judd Apatow (of Freaks and Geeks and 40 year old virgin) series Undeclared. really really good. Watched a bit of the commentary, and it was really funny. What I think commentary should be. Seth Rogan who writes and acts on the show did commentary on a show he did not write but did a whole bit on how he was pretending to write it. I like to imagine that Rogan is Jewish, i have no reason to believe that except that he is a. funny. b. on tv. c. not that good looking.

Finally, a cool link. From the writers of Grey's anatomy: they are writing about the episodes they write. Check it out.

Well, Oscar season is over and back to my usual fair of romantic comedies...Well, I saw Failure to Launch this weekend. I did not want to see it. But god, this is a dead time of year movie-wise. Our (Christine and Mine) only choices were Failure to Launch, a bunch of horror movies, or aquamarine, about a teen mermaid stuck in a pool. Well, we might have been better off with Aquamarine because Failure to Launch was absolutely terrible. I had the same problem with it that I have with all Matthew McConaughey movies, I simply cannot see why anyone would fall in love with him.

But here is the bigger the problem, We were fooled by the New York Times into seeing this movie. It's review is not terrible:

The director Tom Dey obviously cherishes 30's comedies, and he confidently guides a screenplay (by Tom J. Astle and Matt Ember) that has some of the sass and bite of those oldies through the screwball rapids. It's all about tone. And until the movie succumbs to sugar shock at the end, it remains brisk and tart. Mr. McConaughey and Ms. Parker (in a role not far removed from Carrie Bradshaw) make well-matched sparring partners.

Thus, fooling Christine and I into thinking that while we won't be seeing great moviemaking, at least it will be an enjoyable two hours.

I have a theory about this (surprise, surprise). It is patronizing obnoxiousness of low expectations. Movie reviewers such as Holden do not expect very much of romantic comedies and so they have serious problems seeing variations between them. Take another absurd movie that ends in sugar shock and wierd Terry Schiavo undertones, Just Like Heaven. It is like a reviewer like Holden simply can't see that Reese Witherspoon and Mark Ruffalo are far superior sparring partners.

As a lover of tv, i deal with this phenomenon all the time. People expect even less from tv than they do from romantic comedies. sigh.

A question no one has actually posed to me, but that my whole blog begs:

So was it worth it to watch all these oscar movies on the hopes that oscar night would be somewhat less boring?

Well, I think oscar night was a little less boring for me than it was for other people. As for whether it was worth it, I am pretty busy with law school stuff right now, let me reflect and get back to you.

Seriously, Crash? Seriously.

I know yesterday I put Crash as my number 2 movie and talked about how it is brave to talk about race even if you do it poorly, blah blah blah. But that is before I though Crash had an actual shot at winning. Seriously, it is terriblly made movie. Now forget for a sec, how much better Brokeback was. Capote -- much better movie. Good Night and Good Luck -- a better made, more accurate movie. And even Munich --- well, munich at least had moments that were truly spectacular. I am shocked. Seriously.

P.S.
On the overuse of the word "seriously" by Shonda Rhimes, the Showrunner for Gray's anatomy.

Why do you and the characters say "seriously" all the time?

Because Krista Vernoff, one of our valued writers, says it constantly in the Writers' Room. CONSTANTLY. Like, four hundred and fifty times a day. And it is catching. Now we all say it. Seriously. Krista says she caught the "seriously" bug from one of her friends and brought it to work and spread it to all of us. It's an awesome word. Said correctly, it can convey sarcasm, dismay, disbelief, a sense of moral and ethical superiority and gentle chastising punishment all at once. Seriously.

Yes, I steal phrases from tv.

Everything I read keeps tell me that the Oscars are not really about art or the best movies. (for an example, check out David Edelstein at his new home in New York Magazine.) Instead, the oscars are more like a pop cultural moment. Thus, I think the best picture winner should not be the best made movie of the 5 nominees (maybe that is what director is for, who knows) but rather for the movie most people are talking about, that had the biggest impact on our culture. I will ignore for the moment that this is actually a circular argument for a moment because the most talked about movie is actually the one that most people think will win the oscar. So that in 10 years when we think of the best picture winner of a given year, it can be like "yeah, that is what everyone was talking about that year." For example, Forrest Gump, remember all the lame box of chocolate jokes? or even Titanic, I hated that movie, but I do remember cutting school for the first time to see it because it was supposed to be so big.

With that in mind, here is my list.

5. Good Night and Good Luck -- I really liked this movie. But it was too small or something. It was a movie I enjoyed, but not the kind of movie I would argue about.

4. Munich -- Definately a large movie, and also the kind of movie I would talk about. But for some reason, nobody is. Maybe because the movie does all the talking for you, it does not leave anything for you to argue about in the end. The most argument worthy part of the movie is the fact that Speilberg ends the movie with a shot of the two towers and whether he is trying to say something there. But no one is discussing it. Plus, as a movie, it dragged at the end

3. Capote -- also, kind of small. But here is the thing with Capote, I think it will get bigger in time. I saw Amadeus at some point in high school, and I hated it, but my image of Mozart was very much informed by that movie. For a whole generation of us who do not remember Truman Capote from the talk show circuit, I think Philip Seymor Hoffman will become him.

2. Crash -- ok, so this movie is a giant cliche. But isn't there something kind of brave for a director to be like "this is how i see race in a LA, and whether you think it is horrible or not, I don't care, but feel free to discuss." He does not really answer the questions for you. And while these are old questions and Haggis does not answer them subtly, these are issues that have not been resolved. They are actually still out there. At the end of the day, I think Crash is bigger than its flaws.

1. Brokeback Mountain -- Well, if I am choosing on biggest cultural impact, no else was going to win. I went and saw improv last night and they did a Brokeback parody and then they tried to do ones for other movies, but Brokeback was the only one they could remember. Plus, I have had several people threaten to hurl insults at me if I said I did not like the movie. See it is divides. That is a movie with cultural impact.

5. Terrence Howard -- I was so bored by the movie, I cannot even tell you if his performance was good. Yeah, I guess it was.

4. Joaquin Phoenix -- He has become a young Johnny Cash for me.

3. David Srathairn -- I have never seen even a picture of Edward Murrow. He has become Edward Murrow for me. And man, his Murrow was so dignified and pursuasive in a way that I can only wish to be.

2. Heath Ledger -- God, he was great. Especially seeing his other stuff (10 things I hate about you is one of my favorite movies), he has completely transformed himself for the movie. I totally forgot that Ledger is actually a bit of a pretty boy. While I could not connect with him emotionally most of the movie, the last couple of scenes where he awkwardly sits in Jack's parents house and then talks to his daughter were so well done.

1. Philip Seymour Hoffman -- I connected with Ledger for like 3 scenes, while I connected with Hoffman the whole movie. I felt both dislike and amusement and sympathy for Capote all at once. Hoffman brilliantly created all these emotions in one characters at once.

Didn't see North Country. Sorry Charlize Theron.

4. Judi Dench -- god, she was so good, she literally made the movie. But the movie was not all that good, and it seems as if she could do this stiff but witty British character in her sleep.

3. Reese Witherspoon -- I loved Walk the Line. It is on my list of movies that as I was watching them, I never wanted them to end, and Witherspoon was a big reason for that. However, as I know I have explained before, good acting for me is whether I can forget that this is so and so and playing a part and I just think it is a character. I never forgot that this Reese Witherspoon, hollywood actress from the south with two kids who is usually blonde, playing her hero. It took away from the performance for me.

2. Felicity Huffman. She plays a man on the verge of surgery to change her sex. However, Stanley/Bree has been taking hormones for months now in preparation of surgery. The point is I had absolutely no preconceived notion of what a man on the verge of being a woman is supposed to act or look like. However, whether true to life or not, she created a character that was totally unique. But the scene that really got to me was when at the end, after her surgery, she is talking to her son, and she tells him that he has to keep his feet off her coffee table and she gets a little smile on her face. She just seems a little more like a woman and a little more confident. And subtle but just perfect transformation is why I think Huffman deserves all the praise she is getting. Plus, dude she was on Sports Night!

1. Keira Knightly. And yet, I think Knightly should win this. Knightly took on an impossible task. She took on Elizabeth Bennet. People adore this book. They adore the BBC mini-series version. Knightly had everything to lose. Screw up even a little and people would hate her in the movie. And instead she rocked it. She was the perfect Elizabeth. The perfect age for the part, the perfect mixture of humor and seriousness. If Jennifer Ehle had not already preempted the field of Elizabeth Bennets in my imagination, she would totally have it. But I imagine for the next generation of girls, when they read Pride and Prejudice, and they should, she will be who they will be imagining. And all the better for them/

Again, could not really make myself see Cinderella Man and so no Paul Giamatti, which totally sucks because I understand he has a real shot at winning.

4. William Hurt. He was only on screen for 10 minutes.

3. Matt Dillon. I was never that excited about his performance in this movie. I am not sure what all the hoopla is about.

2. George Clooney. I love George Clooney in this movie. But, and this is not necessarily Clooney's fault, I can never forget that he is GEORGE CLOONEY, handsome actor who used to be on the Facts of Life and is now big Hollywood star who this year is making important movies for little money.

1. Jake Gyllenhaal. So one of my big complaints about Brokeback is that they aged them really poorly. I know there were differences in facial hair, but the two main actors looked exactly the same to me the entire movie. So in the last scene of the movie where Gyllenhaal says I wish I could quit you and then Heath approaches him and hugs him, and my first thought is like, oh, they shaved Jake's wierd mustache for this scene, and then I see the look of serenity on the actor's face and I am like, "oooh flashback." Well, if a facial expression and nothing else can signal flashbach then that is good acting, no?

I never got around to seeing North Country. i meant to on Thursday night. But shit was being auctioned off and then it was late and too cold to walk to blockbuster. (it is 6 blocks away!). So Frances McDormand is out.

4. Catherine Keener. Dude, don't get me wrong, she was fantastic. Just not that memorable.

3. Rachel Wiesz. She is the predicted winner. And from profiles of her and stuff, she actually sounds really cool. A smart Jewish girl, kind of like me, except artsy and hot. But the fact that she seems really cool might actually be a reason to cheer against her. Best supporting actress winners are famous for disappearing off the face of the earth once they win their oscar. See Mira Sorvino, Marissa Tomei. But that is not the reason I don't think she should win. She is really good in her role and she holds the movie together and that is all good, but the part seems really standard or something, just nothing new or exciting.

2. Amy Adams. It was a movie filled with pretty good performances. And in 10 years from now if i have any recollection of Junebug whatsoever it will be her performance. She just created a very real, very memorable human being that I could imagine ducking behind counters to avoid if I ever knew her in real life.

1. Michelle Williams. She is the only character in the whole film with whom I could emotionally connect. Her face after she found out about her husband was absolutely heartbreaking. And then her anger was both annoying and frustrating but understandable. Her performance added an extra layer of sadness to the already intensely depressing love story. And it was not the writing, it was all her.

Ok. So back to how little I know about film making. I am not entirely sure what specifically a director does, except that I know he brings all the parts of the movie together, to make sure that they all fit together into a great coherent whole. So um...I hope that is right. So my list is in order of how spectacular everything seems put together.

5. Bennett Miller -- Capote. No idea. I liked the movie. But it was not "spectacular" or whatever.

4. George Clooney -- Good Night and Good Luck. I am telling you it is the pointless subplot again. It really felt a bit ridiculous.

3. Paul Haggis -- Crash. Dealing with several different strands of story is really hard, right?

2. Steven Spielberg -- Munich. Spielberg is fucking awesome. Seriously, the weaving together of documentary footate and his reenactment of what happened was so exciting and felt so real. The colors in the movie fit is perfectly. The last scene where they are talking with the New York Skyline in the background, whatever I think of the symbolism of it, it is a scene that I can't get out of my head, I remember it perfectly.

1. Ang Lee -- Brokeback Mountain. So I don't know what directing is exactly, but I do absolutely know that Ang Lee deserves to win this. I may not like the distance with which he handled the film, but his mark was unmistakable. Also, it was beautiful and perfectly acted and very well timed.

i think overall the original screenplays are all better than all the adapted screenplays. None of these five feel too long, and all of them are exciting and emotionally involving. So imagine the last list as being 6-10 and now we actually have 5-1.

5. Good Night and Good Luck -- there was the absolutely pointless subplot, that I am still wondering about.

4. Match Point -- the characters were entirely two dimensional. I still do not entirely understand their motivations.

3. Crash -- I know is actually the predicted winner, since people assume it will this when it does not win best picture. But come on, it was the least subtle movie ever.

2. Syriana -- I loved Syriana. But at the end of the day, all the pieces did not come together, it was confusing. Confusion without a purpose = not that great.

1. The Squid and the Whale -- This was a brilliantly written movie. I have a read a complaint somewhere about the ending. But I thought the ending was great. I mean isn't that all we can really expect, a mini-revelation that may or may not have an effect on anything.

So I guess with only two days to go, it is about time I actually fulfill the whole goal of this watching all the oscar movies thing in the first place. It is to actually have an an opinion on should win. Sadly, I am not in an oscar pool this year. So this is about who I think should win and not who I think will win. (if anyone is in an oscar pool and wants to invite me to join or wants to create one so I can join, then yay.)

Best Adapted Screenplay.

5. Munich -- really dragged at the end. And all the political discussion, some of it was really well done, but very little of it felt new or exciting

4. The Constant Gardener -- I was told it was a thriller. I was not thrilled.

3. Brokeback -- it was really well-written and yet i could not get involved emotionally. I feel that way about McMurty's books too. I just don't give a shit.

2. Capote -- very good. But feels long. Longer than its 2 hours.

1. History of Violence -- god, this movie was good. And the story was perfectly told and perfectly paced. People sounded real. Plus, this is the only category history of violence has been nominated for and i think it should win for something.