Yep, this is what happens when one is unemployed and has no discernible social life, you end up watching every Rom Com out there.
So, despite seeing the bad reviews for this film I thought, you know what Ashton Kutcher can pull it off sometimes and Natalie Portman is a rather fabulous actress, lets give it a go. I wish I hadn't.
Natalie is charming, but completely underused in her comedic capacity, she has done kooky and funny and vulnerable previously in Garden State which had a far superior plot and execution. Understandably actors like to take a breather sometimes, do the easy film that pays the rent, so this is Natalies pay-check movie. It is the usual fodder though for Ashton Kutcher's CV.
Ashton, oh Ashton, he has done films such as these so many times but done them so much better. I really like What Happens In Vegas, Ashton is buff and Cameron is gorgeous and funny, it does what it says on the tin. Just Married is a showcase for both Ashton and Brittany Murphy's comedic talents, its also quite sweet. No Strings Attached is just pure rubbish. I felt myself cringe 10 minutes in, Ashton is needy, and the writing is appalling. The generic rom-com can survive and be enjoyable if the writing is at least passable along with good actors. The script writer and director should not be proud of their achievement, it deserves the wooden spoon, or a rosette with 'For Taking Part' on.
The plot is generic, boy met girl at camp, then 10 years later at a frat party, then five years on in a misguided attempt to get over his ex hooking up with his father. Girl doesn't want a relationship other than sex, boy falls in love, girl realises too late so did she. It ends happy. YAWN. The father in this case is played by Kevin Kline, cast no doubt just in case the film turned out too banal for even the leads to rescue, Kline also fails in this task. He is marginally more funny than his on screen son, but the relationship between them, and the ex girlfriend who moves from father to son is played out really quite badly.
So this film I do not recommend, I have seen far better Rom Coms with generic plotlines whose script and direction compliments the actors trying to make the film less like a well trodden path and more like one with new and interesting twists, such as Definitely Maybe or The Proposal.
Do not discredit Portman for this movie though, her weighting in the acting world can afford a hit or two, so long as they don't come often.
Tuesday 21 June 2011
Thursday 16 June 2011
X Men First Class? maybe a 2.1
The last X-Men movie was the first in an apparent line of Origins movies, not sure what is happening there but the most charismatic and elusive character has at least been covered, that being Wolverine. I wasn't so impressed with the last movie, it was too heavy and needed to either be darker and a higher rating or lighter with the same 12a.
Happily I found this latest installment of the X-Men franchise to suit its rating, with the exception of one swear word, and this is down to the direction. Its unsurprising to learn the director of Origins also directed Rendition and Tsotsi, hardly light hearted films. Matthew Vaughn has a history of films that make the most of humour; Stardust, Layer Cake, Kick Ass. He and Jane Goldman have a great working relationship and are very much in tune with each other when it comes to the script and the screen.
I have been anticipating this movie for perhaps even longer than Thor, and after being so very pleased with how that film turned out I was a little apprehensive whether or not Vaughn could compete with Branagh. Empire had given XMFC three stars, I would add a half star on for casting. Any film based on books of any kind will always get the bonus half star from me for the characters living up to expectation, even the Golden Compass with all its flaws remains one of the best cast movies I have ever seen.
The story was originally concieved by Bryan Singer and Sheldon Turner (who wrote Up in the Air). It is set mostly in the early Sixties, but begins with footage any X-Men fan should recognise from the first film of Erik Lehnsherr (aka Magneto) as a boy in a Nazi Death camp, it then cuts to seeing Charles Xavier as a boy in decidedly nicer surroundings (the Mansion) meeting a very young Mystique raiding his fridge.
So we have been set up to know these later heroes and anti-heroes have been this way since childhood, and their experiences will mold who they will become. It suits the film to be set in the sixties as opposed to try and bring it into the present day as Marvel created the X-Men in 1963, a year after the Cuban Missile Crisis around which the film is based. These heroes were born out of the fear of what radioactivity could do to us, we know it causes cancer by mutating the cells so they try and destroy us, but writers like Stan Lee thought what if our cells mutated into something spectacular?
The main villain of the film, Sebastian Shaw, is played with aplomb by Kevin Bacon as a man who will do anything to push his point of view across to the world, and also the object of Erik's mission of revenge against his Nazi captors. He is also very much like the later Magneto, same charisma, similar lackeys, and the same idea that he and his other Mutants are better than the mere mortals and should be running this place not hiding. Shaw also makes the interesting point by saying "we are the children of the atom", the first time in X-Men it has really been said that it is the fault of radioactivity that cells have begun to mutate.
Charles Xavier is played by James McAvoy with arrogance, swagger, intelligence, and heart. You could always tell from Patrick Stewart that there was a rascal hidden inside, and Professor X's youth before being thrown into the world of the CIA and war shows a man with a high IQ and he knew it. His relationship with Erik is one of true friendship, I saw an interview with Matthew Vaughn who had said on casting that he made McAvoy go through a lot of readings until they found Michael Fassbender, when it was apparently clear within minutes they had their X and Magneto. Fassbender plays Erik with intensity, he is after all on a revenge mission, but he is also captivating as a leader and inspires Raven (aka Mystique) to accept who she is.
Jennifer Lawrence shows her worth in a blockbuster, having previously been Oscar nominated for Winters Bone, and shows the crushing hurt that such a mutation could cause, being blue is not easy even if you can change your appearance. Nicholas Hoult is another young actor proving his worth on the big screen time and again, and here he plays Dr Hank McCoy aka Beast with nervous energy, only able to truly be himself once he attempts and fails at a cure.
There are two characters that do not hold very highly in my estimation, one due to script, the other because of prior work. The first is Moira McTaggert who is supposed to be a Scottish geneticist who helps Professor X and was seen briefly in X-Men 3, yet here is an American CIA agent....humph. Okay so it does work within the story, and I don't know how they would have used her otherwise, but it rankles that such an important, albeit background, character has been so fundamentally changed. All power to Rose Byrne though she plays a CIA agent well and the character change means fluidity where there may have been some stilted dialogue or action to introduce her.
The second character is January Jones' Emma Frost, and she does live up to her name. I am almost positive she lives up to expectations from truer fans than I of X-Men but I cannot help but see Betty Draper of Mad Men, the characterisation is too similar, nevertheless I did enjoy her performance and character involvement.
These two are my only gripes, which is impressive in a film that is very important to all fans of this gang of superheroes, it could have disappointed like Wolverine but it impressed like the very first X-Men film. The action scenes are visually spectacular, but do not come at you constantly so you lose the plot which can happen, Transformers is a film that to me fails completely on story because the action is so good and happens so much. The actors fulfil their character requirements and bring an extra dimension too, I never thought I could identify with a blue Mutant but both Hoult and Lawrence brought me into their emotional world and its not disimilar to anybody with body image issues.
The X-Men movies follow a basic pattern, good guys vs bad - a good guy will become disenchanted with being such and swaps to the other side - battle ensues then comes the parting of the ways. Matthew Vaughn has followed this well, and I am glad to see has not bowed to what a studio normally wants of a blockbuster, non stop action with a love story thrown in. He references the later films with cameos for Hugh Jackman and Rebecca Romijn, and respects the vision of Bryan Singer's original story and movies.
Vaughn has impressed me with his Summer Blockbuster first try, I hope if they make any further X-Men films and Bryan Singer does not return to the helm that Vaughn will be the go to guy for the job.
Happily I found this latest installment of the X-Men franchise to suit its rating, with the exception of one swear word, and this is down to the direction. Its unsurprising to learn the director of Origins also directed Rendition and Tsotsi, hardly light hearted films. Matthew Vaughn has a history of films that make the most of humour; Stardust, Layer Cake, Kick Ass. He and Jane Goldman have a great working relationship and are very much in tune with each other when it comes to the script and the screen.
I have been anticipating this movie for perhaps even longer than Thor, and after being so very pleased with how that film turned out I was a little apprehensive whether or not Vaughn could compete with Branagh. Empire had given XMFC three stars, I would add a half star on for casting. Any film based on books of any kind will always get the bonus half star from me for the characters living up to expectation, even the Golden Compass with all its flaws remains one of the best cast movies I have ever seen.
The story was originally concieved by Bryan Singer and Sheldon Turner (who wrote Up in the Air). It is set mostly in the early Sixties, but begins with footage any X-Men fan should recognise from the first film of Erik Lehnsherr (aka Magneto) as a boy in a Nazi Death camp, it then cuts to seeing Charles Xavier as a boy in decidedly nicer surroundings (the Mansion) meeting a very young Mystique raiding his fridge.
So we have been set up to know these later heroes and anti-heroes have been this way since childhood, and their experiences will mold who they will become. It suits the film to be set in the sixties as opposed to try and bring it into the present day as Marvel created the X-Men in 1963, a year after the Cuban Missile Crisis around which the film is based. These heroes were born out of the fear of what radioactivity could do to us, we know it causes cancer by mutating the cells so they try and destroy us, but writers like Stan Lee thought what if our cells mutated into something spectacular?
The main villain of the film, Sebastian Shaw, is played with aplomb by Kevin Bacon as a man who will do anything to push his point of view across to the world, and also the object of Erik's mission of revenge against his Nazi captors. He is also very much like the later Magneto, same charisma, similar lackeys, and the same idea that he and his other Mutants are better than the mere mortals and should be running this place not hiding. Shaw also makes the interesting point by saying "we are the children of the atom", the first time in X-Men it has really been said that it is the fault of radioactivity that cells have begun to mutate.
Charles Xavier is played by James McAvoy with arrogance, swagger, intelligence, and heart. You could always tell from Patrick Stewart that there was a rascal hidden inside, and Professor X's youth before being thrown into the world of the CIA and war shows a man with a high IQ and he knew it. His relationship with Erik is one of true friendship, I saw an interview with Matthew Vaughn who had said on casting that he made McAvoy go through a lot of readings until they found Michael Fassbender, when it was apparently clear within minutes they had their X and Magneto. Fassbender plays Erik with intensity, he is after all on a revenge mission, but he is also captivating as a leader and inspires Raven (aka Mystique) to accept who she is.
Jennifer Lawrence shows her worth in a blockbuster, having previously been Oscar nominated for Winters Bone, and shows the crushing hurt that such a mutation could cause, being blue is not easy even if you can change your appearance. Nicholas Hoult is another young actor proving his worth on the big screen time and again, and here he plays Dr Hank McCoy aka Beast with nervous energy, only able to truly be himself once he attempts and fails at a cure.
There are two characters that do not hold very highly in my estimation, one due to script, the other because of prior work. The first is Moira McTaggert who is supposed to be a Scottish geneticist who helps Professor X and was seen briefly in X-Men 3, yet here is an American CIA agent....humph. Okay so it does work within the story, and I don't know how they would have used her otherwise, but it rankles that such an important, albeit background, character has been so fundamentally changed. All power to Rose Byrne though she plays a CIA agent well and the character change means fluidity where there may have been some stilted dialogue or action to introduce her.
The second character is January Jones' Emma Frost, and she does live up to her name. I am almost positive she lives up to expectations from truer fans than I of X-Men but I cannot help but see Betty Draper of Mad Men, the characterisation is too similar, nevertheless I did enjoy her performance and character involvement.
These two are my only gripes, which is impressive in a film that is very important to all fans of this gang of superheroes, it could have disappointed like Wolverine but it impressed like the very first X-Men film. The action scenes are visually spectacular, but do not come at you constantly so you lose the plot which can happen, Transformers is a film that to me fails completely on story because the action is so good and happens so much. The actors fulfil their character requirements and bring an extra dimension too, I never thought I could identify with a blue Mutant but both Hoult and Lawrence brought me into their emotional world and its not disimilar to anybody with body image issues.
The X-Men movies follow a basic pattern, good guys vs bad - a good guy will become disenchanted with being such and swaps to the other side - battle ensues then comes the parting of the ways. Matthew Vaughn has followed this well, and I am glad to see has not bowed to what a studio normally wants of a blockbuster, non stop action with a love story thrown in. He references the later films with cameos for Hugh Jackman and Rebecca Romijn, and respects the vision of Bryan Singer's original story and movies.
Vaughn has impressed me with his Summer Blockbuster first try, I hope if they make any further X-Men films and Bryan Singer does not return to the helm that Vaughn will be the go to guy for the job.
Wednesday 8 June 2011
Thor and the continuing reign of Marvel
Okay I'm just putting this out there, I am a Marvel Girl at heart, yes I enjoyed Smallville but really, who would choose Batman over Wolverine? Superman over The Hulk? Or indeed Green Lantern over Thor?
I have no interest in the latest DC output this year, Green Lantern, despite the pull of Ryan Reynolds who I have loved since he served Pizza in Boston (2 Guys and a Girl). However I was waiting with bated breath for the release of Thor. Now I have to admit that I am not a comic reader as such, I cannot claim to be such a Marvel fan as this, but always watched the cartoons as a kid and seen all the movies released, yep even Daredevil *shudder*. So the pull of Thor was not because I had read all his adventures, but because Marvel and the awesome Stan Lee created him.
Thor, if you know your Norse legends, is the God of Thunder, son of Odin the King of the gods, and perhaps the best warrior of them all. He is not reknown for his brains. Being a god of the vikings he needs to be tough, live in adverse conditions, not be soppy frankly.
Chris Hemsworth's Thor lives up to his Nordic reputation, with a touch of sentiment as well because where would a superhero be without his damsel in distress?
Said damsel is played by Natalie Portman, whose name is Jane, a very appropriate title as their relationship is very much a 'me thor you jane' type akin to Tarzan. Of course Thor can speak properly but just in a very loud, commanding, and medieval king way. This causes a lot of amusement, especially when asking for more coffee.
Hemsworth you may recognise as being James T Kirks Dad in the latest Star Trek movie, or perhaps even from Home and Away. He is a perfect Thor. Loud, muscular, slightly confused, but always with a sense of power to his actions and words. This comes down to direction as well, and Kenneth Branagh, though not a screamingly obvious choice for a superhero movie, brings with him a sense of gravitas and depth to the direction. Branagh is most famous of course for being either the director or star of a Shakespeare play, which when you look at Thor's story is so much more suitable than Ang Lee's prior history of Sense and Sensibility before making the appalling first Hulk movie.
Thor is banished by his father to Earth from Asgard for attacking a former, and supposedly neutral, enemy the Frost Giants. He is seperated from his main weapon, Mjolnir, the great Hammer, which is sent into a Sword in the Stone type scenario with the humble humans trying to prise it from the rock. Look out for Stan Lee's cameo in these scenes.
So Thor has to contend with living as a human, helped by Natalie Portmans' Jane and her fellow scientists played by Stellan Skarsgaard and Kat Dennings. I cannot fault the acting in this movie, and I realise the post-Oscar release probably meant more regular cinema goers wanted to see Natalie Portman again but this time would see a strong and focused individual, who ultimately falls for our hulk of a hero (and who could blame her?). Meanwhile back in Asgard Loki, Thor's brother, is making deals with the Frost Giants and planning to take over Asgard upon his father Odin's death. Although not in traditional Norse Legend the twist of having the trickster god as Thor's brother works well, I assume this comes from the original comics but cannot say for sure, and there is an extra twist that is rather brilliant I won't spoil for those who still have not seen the movie.
The visual effects are brilliant, Asgard and the Frost Giants realm are truly spectacular,and the idea that you are transported from each realm by lightning burst is cohesive with what we know of Thor and more spectacular than just appearing out of thin air, there is drama to it.
The stories of Earth and Asgard are blended together without a hitch, and you find yourself as much interested in the fates of the humans as the gods, who are all under attack.
The film is long in run time, but I never once felt my attention wandering as it moved from serious moment to action scene, interspersed with moments of comic relief coming not from one or two characters but everybody gets a chance with the comedy. This is the genius of Branagh to give every actor their opportunity, as Shakespeare did with his characters. I looked up the history of this film and Sam Raimi was the first to show interest in the making of Thor, I thank the gods he left the project and it took 10 years to be made or we could have had another Spiderman 3 on our hands.
Another point to make is that Marvel have had control over their comics to films since Iron Man, there is a marked difference between earlier Studio controlled creations and the recent movies, which is why we are seeing Hulk remakes and markedly a Spiderman remake.
Thor has benefited from Marvels guiding hand, a wonderful director in Branagh, and superb casting. It is possibly my favourite Marvel movie so far, and I look forward to the Avengers next year where we see the return of Thor along with Hulk, Captain America, and Iron Man - Squeal!
I have no interest in the latest DC output this year, Green Lantern, despite the pull of Ryan Reynolds who I have loved since he served Pizza in Boston (2 Guys and a Girl). However I was waiting with bated breath for the release of Thor. Now I have to admit that I am not a comic reader as such, I cannot claim to be such a Marvel fan as this, but always watched the cartoons as a kid and seen all the movies released, yep even Daredevil *shudder*. So the pull of Thor was not because I had read all his adventures, but because Marvel and the awesome Stan Lee created him.
Thor, if you know your Norse legends, is the God of Thunder, son of Odin the King of the gods, and perhaps the best warrior of them all. He is not reknown for his brains. Being a god of the vikings he needs to be tough, live in adverse conditions, not be soppy frankly.
Chris Hemsworth's Thor lives up to his Nordic reputation, with a touch of sentiment as well because where would a superhero be without his damsel in distress?
Said damsel is played by Natalie Portman, whose name is Jane, a very appropriate title as their relationship is very much a 'me thor you jane' type akin to Tarzan. Of course Thor can speak properly but just in a very loud, commanding, and medieval king way. This causes a lot of amusement, especially when asking for more coffee.
Hemsworth you may recognise as being James T Kirks Dad in the latest Star Trek movie, or perhaps even from Home and Away. He is a perfect Thor. Loud, muscular, slightly confused, but always with a sense of power to his actions and words. This comes down to direction as well, and Kenneth Branagh, though not a screamingly obvious choice for a superhero movie, brings with him a sense of gravitas and depth to the direction. Branagh is most famous of course for being either the director or star of a Shakespeare play, which when you look at Thor's story is so much more suitable than Ang Lee's prior history of Sense and Sensibility before making the appalling first Hulk movie.
Thor is banished by his father to Earth from Asgard for attacking a former, and supposedly neutral, enemy the Frost Giants. He is seperated from his main weapon, Mjolnir, the great Hammer, which is sent into a Sword in the Stone type scenario with the humble humans trying to prise it from the rock. Look out for Stan Lee's cameo in these scenes.
So Thor has to contend with living as a human, helped by Natalie Portmans' Jane and her fellow scientists played by Stellan Skarsgaard and Kat Dennings. I cannot fault the acting in this movie, and I realise the post-Oscar release probably meant more regular cinema goers wanted to see Natalie Portman again but this time would see a strong and focused individual, who ultimately falls for our hulk of a hero (and who could blame her?). Meanwhile back in Asgard Loki, Thor's brother, is making deals with the Frost Giants and planning to take over Asgard upon his father Odin's death. Although not in traditional Norse Legend the twist of having the trickster god as Thor's brother works well, I assume this comes from the original comics but cannot say for sure, and there is an extra twist that is rather brilliant I won't spoil for those who still have not seen the movie.
The visual effects are brilliant, Asgard and the Frost Giants realm are truly spectacular,and the idea that you are transported from each realm by lightning burst is cohesive with what we know of Thor and more spectacular than just appearing out of thin air, there is drama to it.
The stories of Earth and Asgard are blended together without a hitch, and you find yourself as much interested in the fates of the humans as the gods, who are all under attack.
The film is long in run time, but I never once felt my attention wandering as it moved from serious moment to action scene, interspersed with moments of comic relief coming not from one or two characters but everybody gets a chance with the comedy. This is the genius of Branagh to give every actor their opportunity, as Shakespeare did with his characters. I looked up the history of this film and Sam Raimi was the first to show interest in the making of Thor, I thank the gods he left the project and it took 10 years to be made or we could have had another Spiderman 3 on our hands.
Another point to make is that Marvel have had control over their comics to films since Iron Man, there is a marked difference between earlier Studio controlled creations and the recent movies, which is why we are seeing Hulk remakes and markedly a Spiderman remake.
Thor has benefited from Marvels guiding hand, a wonderful director in Branagh, and superb casting. It is possibly my favourite Marvel movie so far, and I look forward to the Avengers next year where we see the return of Thor along with Hulk, Captain America, and Iron Man - Squeal!
Tuesday 7 June 2011
Something Borrowed – a film concept to accept or reject?
This was written May 18 2011:
It’s 5am and I can’t sleep, more artistic people than I would write some poetry, a song, or maybe paint a picture… I am going to review a movie I saw last night.
As you may have guessed the title is ‘Something Borrowed’, a chick flick as you have also already deduced. This will be a breakdown of the film/review rift with spoilers so if you happen to want to see it I would stop reading this post about now….anybody left? Okay I’ll begin.
So the story unfolds of Darcy and Rachel, best friends since kindergarten, always there for each others big moments who could not possibly imagine a life without their soul mate. Rachel is kind hearted and lets face it a doormat who allows Darcy’s big and breezy personality to walk all over what she wants. Darcy is big on the personality, but also big on the heart when it comes to Rachel. Although her 30th Birthday seems to become a Darcy central event Rachel cannot deny the love thats there. Which is when things become decidedly tricky and awkward for the pair because as you’ve guessed a boy gets in the way!
Now comes the part I still cannot work out is good to have put out there on film, a much wider medium these days than the written word (the film is based on Emily Griffin’s book of the same title), Rachel begins an affair on her 30th with the man Darcy is supposed to marry. Hmmm. An affair? Not generally the fodder of the heroine, but here it is all the same. Okay so you need some background to this one: Dex, wealthy family, so very good looking, law student meets Rachel in class and lets her borrow his pen when all four of hers fall to the floor – its very sweet. They become study buddies, and its obvious they are into each other but Rachel is the kind of gal who cannot believe people could be attracted to her, especially once they meet the gorgeous and vivacious Darcy, which unfortunately is what happens. Not that this is Dex’s fault, this I fully blame Rachel for being a wuss for, because she lets Darcy crash her celebratory dinner with Dex, and down plays their relationship as friendship, doesn’t let him walk her home even though he says quite sincerely that he wants to, and instead allows Darcy to be the date she should have been. You cannot fault Darcy for this one.
So six years on Dex has done the right thing and proposed, Rachel has turned 30, and everyone is happy. Then Rachel and Dex sleep together after Rachel reveals she had a crush on him in law school, which evidently turns off Dex’s morality code as he pounces on her in the back of a cab. So they do the deed, feel guilty and confused, then the weekends away begin for summer in the Hamptons. These people are silly rich, gorgeous mansion like places on the beach, lovely apartments in New York with rooftop gardens, it makes me want to read the book to see if Emily Griffin imagined their living spaces to be so idyllic.
And on these weekends Dex and Rachel realise they have proper strong feelings for each other, begin an affair to ‘see what this is’ all the while Dex is engaged to Rachel’s best friend. On the outskirts of this triangle is Rachel’s other best friend and both her and Darcy’s childhood playmate Ethan, played by the always wonderful John Krasinski. Now as the confidant of Rachel I personally would have told her to get her ass out of that relationship and possibly told her off for good measure, however Ethan congratulates her for having the guts to do something about her feelings. Bad move. Yet again I am conflicted about my enjoyment of this movie – should I be rooting for Dex and Rachel and hating Darcy or the opposite? The filmmakers have been very good here because they do show positive aspects of Darcy and do not paint her as a flimsy partner for Dex, she is in it for the long haul, and thus you cannot sympathise with Rachel or Dex for their covert relationship. Not that you should ever sympathise with an affair, but times past there have been characters you can do so with, such as the lover of Lady Chatterly.
The affair goes on through the summer, Rachel and Dex fall in love for real, Ethan becomes more frustrated with the whole relationship where nobody is deciding anything, we find out later he has been harbouring some feelings for Rachel too which contribute to this, and Darcy has an affair of her own. Why doesn’t Dex just call off the wedding I imagine you crying? Well families can be influential, especially when you are Dexter the third and your mother is liable to horrific bouts of depression, so with his mother so happy and father so unhappy with his affair Dex does not choose Rachel when she gives him his ultimatum. Here I felt genuinely sorry for the guy, our very own Royal Family are awash with choosing the right partner for Mummy and Daddy not the actual person which has resulted in many affairs and divorces, we don’t live in an age where our partners are chosen for us, at least not in the UK/USA.
At this point Ethan has moved to the UK to publish his book and Rachel goes to visit one week before Darcy and Dex’s wedding, Ethan declares he in in ‘like’ with Rachel but you know no matter how funny or engaging Ethan has been throughout this film that Rachel is not meant for him. She, after spending a whopping 24 hours in the UK, decides to go back to support Darcy on her wedding day because after all they are best friends. And then we come to the dramatic conclusion of this whole affair, Dex tells Rachel he has left Darcy, Darcy comes at the same time to tell Rachel she is pregnant with another mans child (a guy called Marcus who provided much comic relief and disturbingly white teeth), realises what has been going on and refuses to speak to Rachel again, ending a friendship of over 20 years. It is really quite a sad moment, though she has the guy Rachel has lost the person who would have always been there for her, and the same for Darcy. Sometimes I feel the ending of friendships are much more tragic than the collapse of a love affair, because a friend is a love affair, but a durable and mostly stable one.
We end with Rachel and Darcy meeting in the street two months later, Rachel is with Dex, Darcy quite possibly alone except for baby, but there is little animosity toward the end, no reconciliation however. As it should be.
Ok so to actually review this movie: the acting was fine across the board, and not in the sense of ‘how are you? oh fine’ more of finesse. Each actor totally got their character, Kate Hudson is always a treat to watch because she does the big personality so well, anybody who has seen Bride Wars and enjoyed it will appreciate Hudsons performance here. I have a soft spot for Ginnifer Goodwin who plays Rachel as she always seems to be the downtrodden one and here she shows some spunk, not spunk I necessarily agree with but all the same some daring to her character. Goodwin also creates a likeable character out of a highly unlikeable situation. The gorgeous Dex is played with a lot of feeling by Colin Egglesfield (brilliant last name), you may want to punch him sometimes for his lack of spine but also want to hug him when it is clear he loves his mum. John Krasinski, as I have said I love him and he plays Ethan with a lot of fire and wit, there aren’t many who can be that good looking and pull off sarcasm and disdain so well. Steve Howey who played Marcus was very funny, and a bit creepy, but that is mainly to do with his overly bright teeth.
I did enjoy this film, and I want to read the book and its sequel Something Blue (where Darcy goes to England to annoy Ethan, magic), and I look forward to the film of the sequel because the chemistry between Hudson and Krasinski is fantastic, quite possibly in a way leading to getting together in the future. The movie made me question my morals a little, did I agree with the affair? By quietly rooting for Rachel was I automatically making her the heroine? The answers I think are no, and in a way yes. I do not hold with affairs, but I haven’t cut people out of my life who I know have had them so my judgement has never been particularly Old Testament there, and Rachel was the main protagonist of the film so its reasonable to call her the hero and I was happy she got to have the love of her life to have kids with and grow old with. Unfortunately the conclusion is that no matter how much we love our friends you don’t start families with them, don’t share every aspect of life with them, they see our good and bad but often in small doses.
Though this film is about the collapse of a friendship where the two women had shared all their big moments together, I do not blame Rachel for choosing the man who wants to be there with her through every moment.
>side note: Hudson and Goodwins Salt N Peppa dance is AMAZING!
It’s 5am and I can’t sleep, more artistic people than I would write some poetry, a song, or maybe paint a picture… I am going to review a movie I saw last night.
As you may have guessed the title is ‘Something Borrowed’, a chick flick as you have also already deduced. This will be a breakdown of the film/review rift with spoilers so if you happen to want to see it I would stop reading this post about now….anybody left? Okay I’ll begin.
So the story unfolds of Darcy and Rachel, best friends since kindergarten, always there for each others big moments who could not possibly imagine a life without their soul mate. Rachel is kind hearted and lets face it a doormat who allows Darcy’s big and breezy personality to walk all over what she wants. Darcy is big on the personality, but also big on the heart when it comes to Rachel. Although her 30th Birthday seems to become a Darcy central event Rachel cannot deny the love thats there. Which is when things become decidedly tricky and awkward for the pair because as you’ve guessed a boy gets in the way!
Now comes the part I still cannot work out is good to have put out there on film, a much wider medium these days than the written word (the film is based on Emily Griffin’s book of the same title), Rachel begins an affair on her 30th with the man Darcy is supposed to marry. Hmmm. An affair? Not generally the fodder of the heroine, but here it is all the same. Okay so you need some background to this one: Dex, wealthy family, so very good looking, law student meets Rachel in class and lets her borrow his pen when all four of hers fall to the floor – its very sweet. They become study buddies, and its obvious they are into each other but Rachel is the kind of gal who cannot believe people could be attracted to her, especially once they meet the gorgeous and vivacious Darcy, which unfortunately is what happens. Not that this is Dex’s fault, this I fully blame Rachel for being a wuss for, because she lets Darcy crash her celebratory dinner with Dex, and down plays their relationship as friendship, doesn’t let him walk her home even though he says quite sincerely that he wants to, and instead allows Darcy to be the date she should have been. You cannot fault Darcy for this one.
So six years on Dex has done the right thing and proposed, Rachel has turned 30, and everyone is happy. Then Rachel and Dex sleep together after Rachel reveals she had a crush on him in law school, which evidently turns off Dex’s morality code as he pounces on her in the back of a cab. So they do the deed, feel guilty and confused, then the weekends away begin for summer in the Hamptons. These people are silly rich, gorgeous mansion like places on the beach, lovely apartments in New York with rooftop gardens, it makes me want to read the book to see if Emily Griffin imagined their living spaces to be so idyllic.
And on these weekends Dex and Rachel realise they have proper strong feelings for each other, begin an affair to ‘see what this is’ all the while Dex is engaged to Rachel’s best friend. On the outskirts of this triangle is Rachel’s other best friend and both her and Darcy’s childhood playmate Ethan, played by the always wonderful John Krasinski. Now as the confidant of Rachel I personally would have told her to get her ass out of that relationship and possibly told her off for good measure, however Ethan congratulates her for having the guts to do something about her feelings. Bad move. Yet again I am conflicted about my enjoyment of this movie – should I be rooting for Dex and Rachel and hating Darcy or the opposite? The filmmakers have been very good here because they do show positive aspects of Darcy and do not paint her as a flimsy partner for Dex, she is in it for the long haul, and thus you cannot sympathise with Rachel or Dex for their covert relationship. Not that you should ever sympathise with an affair, but times past there have been characters you can do so with, such as the lover of Lady Chatterly.
The affair goes on through the summer, Rachel and Dex fall in love for real, Ethan becomes more frustrated with the whole relationship where nobody is deciding anything, we find out later he has been harbouring some feelings for Rachel too which contribute to this, and Darcy has an affair of her own. Why doesn’t Dex just call off the wedding I imagine you crying? Well families can be influential, especially when you are Dexter the third and your mother is liable to horrific bouts of depression, so with his mother so happy and father so unhappy with his affair Dex does not choose Rachel when she gives him his ultimatum. Here I felt genuinely sorry for the guy, our very own Royal Family are awash with choosing the right partner for Mummy and Daddy not the actual person which has resulted in many affairs and divorces, we don’t live in an age where our partners are chosen for us, at least not in the UK/USA.
At this point Ethan has moved to the UK to publish his book and Rachel goes to visit one week before Darcy and Dex’s wedding, Ethan declares he in in ‘like’ with Rachel but you know no matter how funny or engaging Ethan has been throughout this film that Rachel is not meant for him. She, after spending a whopping 24 hours in the UK, decides to go back to support Darcy on her wedding day because after all they are best friends. And then we come to the dramatic conclusion of this whole affair, Dex tells Rachel he has left Darcy, Darcy comes at the same time to tell Rachel she is pregnant with another mans child (a guy called Marcus who provided much comic relief and disturbingly white teeth), realises what has been going on and refuses to speak to Rachel again, ending a friendship of over 20 years. It is really quite a sad moment, though she has the guy Rachel has lost the person who would have always been there for her, and the same for Darcy. Sometimes I feel the ending of friendships are much more tragic than the collapse of a love affair, because a friend is a love affair, but a durable and mostly stable one.
We end with Rachel and Darcy meeting in the street two months later, Rachel is with Dex, Darcy quite possibly alone except for baby, but there is little animosity toward the end, no reconciliation however. As it should be.
Ok so to actually review this movie: the acting was fine across the board, and not in the sense of ‘how are you? oh fine’ more of finesse. Each actor totally got their character, Kate Hudson is always a treat to watch because she does the big personality so well, anybody who has seen Bride Wars and enjoyed it will appreciate Hudsons performance here. I have a soft spot for Ginnifer Goodwin who plays Rachel as she always seems to be the downtrodden one and here she shows some spunk, not spunk I necessarily agree with but all the same some daring to her character. Goodwin also creates a likeable character out of a highly unlikeable situation. The gorgeous Dex is played with a lot of feeling by Colin Egglesfield (brilliant last name), you may want to punch him sometimes for his lack of spine but also want to hug him when it is clear he loves his mum. John Krasinski, as I have said I love him and he plays Ethan with a lot of fire and wit, there aren’t many who can be that good looking and pull off sarcasm and disdain so well. Steve Howey who played Marcus was very funny, and a bit creepy, but that is mainly to do with his overly bright teeth.
I did enjoy this film, and I want to read the book and its sequel Something Blue (where Darcy goes to England to annoy Ethan, magic), and I look forward to the film of the sequel because the chemistry between Hudson and Krasinski is fantastic, quite possibly in a way leading to getting together in the future. The movie made me question my morals a little, did I agree with the affair? By quietly rooting for Rachel was I automatically making her the heroine? The answers I think are no, and in a way yes. I do not hold with affairs, but I haven’t cut people out of my life who I know have had them so my judgement has never been particularly Old Testament there, and Rachel was the main protagonist of the film so its reasonable to call her the hero and I was happy she got to have the love of her life to have kids with and grow old with. Unfortunately the conclusion is that no matter how much we love our friends you don’t start families with them, don’t share every aspect of life with them, they see our good and bad but often in small doses.
Though this film is about the collapse of a friendship where the two women had shared all their big moments together, I do not blame Rachel for choosing the man who wants to be there with her through every moment.
>side note: Hudson and Goodwins Salt N Peppa dance is AMAZING!
Love & Other Drugs – a bare all love story
This was written January 31 2011
The idea of Jake Gyllenhaal mostly naked…lets face it thats the main reason I watched this movie. A reason for straight guys and lesbians to watch is Anne Hathaway TOTALLY naked, a friend of mine I think questioned her own sexuality after seeing this movie.
So we have two exceptionally beautiful people (I don’t adhere to the idea either Gyllenhaal is offputting, I love them both) who happen to be rather good actors given a love story where they don’t have a dramatic change in personality, but do grow up. For those who do not know the basics Anne plays Maggie, a free spirited 26 year old who happens to have early onset Parkinsons. Jake plays Jamie, a drug rep with no apparent morals when it comes to women, sleeping with receptionists to get in with the doctors etc. So they meet, he is fascinated by her, she sees him for what he is and uses him accordingly. They have lots of sex, and not the normal hollywood pan away when they kiss pan back once its all over and everyone is under the covers, naked bodies a plenty.
Then things get serious, Jamie discovers he is a human, falls for Maggie, Maggie shuts him out then lets her guard down blah blah blah. Its what you expect, but the idea of Parkinsons is so scary in the real world and they translate the fustration, the hope, and the tragedy really very well in this movie that the inevitable twists and turns are not laboured, in fact you look forward so much more to the ups because the downs are very well executed.
The supporting cast are reasonable, I was never very sure of Jamie’s age as his younger (totally repulsive) brother had been with his wife for 10 years, never saying if this was the marriage or relationship as a whole.
So I was imagining Jamie to be early thirties, with Maggie already stated as 26. Hank Azaria is really good as the doctor who becomes a bit obsessed by Jamie’s free samples of wonder drug Viagra (the film is set in the mid-late nineties during the viagra boom). I wish there had been a little more of Jamie’s parents as they were really funny in the early scenes, though their absence showed a lack of sentimentality about Maggie’s condition and their attempt to be f*** buddies and not a lot else, so was appropriate.
Its very rare for me to hate a movie, I can be critical, had I been writing on a blog when Avatar was released my inner critic would have been unleashed. So unsurprisingly I really liked this movie, but I feel justified as it had enough romance to be girly, enough nudity and sex to be that bit different to your average chick flick, didn’t downplay the effects of Parkinsons but nor did it let this take over and become a complete weepy mess as it could well have done. Actually I can’t believe that hadn’t occured to me before, I didn’t cry, not once, I felt sad but that was it. I cry at adverts, and yet this wasn’t designed to make the weak bawl, I am that much more impressed.
If you like both Anne and Jake you will enjoy this movie, if you are a fan of the slightly tragic love story you will enjoy this movie, and if you just want to see naked bodies you definitely will not be disappointed.
The idea of Jake Gyllenhaal mostly naked…lets face it thats the main reason I watched this movie. A reason for straight guys and lesbians to watch is Anne Hathaway TOTALLY naked, a friend of mine I think questioned her own sexuality after seeing this movie.
So we have two exceptionally beautiful people (I don’t adhere to the idea either Gyllenhaal is offputting, I love them both) who happen to be rather good actors given a love story where they don’t have a dramatic change in personality, but do grow up. For those who do not know the basics Anne plays Maggie, a free spirited 26 year old who happens to have early onset Parkinsons. Jake plays Jamie, a drug rep with no apparent morals when it comes to women, sleeping with receptionists to get in with the doctors etc. So they meet, he is fascinated by her, she sees him for what he is and uses him accordingly. They have lots of sex, and not the normal hollywood pan away when they kiss pan back once its all over and everyone is under the covers, naked bodies a plenty.
Then things get serious, Jamie discovers he is a human, falls for Maggie, Maggie shuts him out then lets her guard down blah blah blah. Its what you expect, but the idea of Parkinsons is so scary in the real world and they translate the fustration, the hope, and the tragedy really very well in this movie that the inevitable twists and turns are not laboured, in fact you look forward so much more to the ups because the downs are very well executed.
The supporting cast are reasonable, I was never very sure of Jamie’s age as his younger (totally repulsive) brother had been with his wife for 10 years, never saying if this was the marriage or relationship as a whole.
So I was imagining Jamie to be early thirties, with Maggie already stated as 26. Hank Azaria is really good as the doctor who becomes a bit obsessed by Jamie’s free samples of wonder drug Viagra (the film is set in the mid-late nineties during the viagra boom). I wish there had been a little more of Jamie’s parents as they were really funny in the early scenes, though their absence showed a lack of sentimentality about Maggie’s condition and their attempt to be f*** buddies and not a lot else, so was appropriate.
Its very rare for me to hate a movie, I can be critical, had I been writing on a blog when Avatar was released my inner critic would have been unleashed. So unsurprisingly I really liked this movie, but I feel justified as it had enough romance to be girly, enough nudity and sex to be that bit different to your average chick flick, didn’t downplay the effects of Parkinsons but nor did it let this take over and become a complete weepy mess as it could well have done. Actually I can’t believe that hadn’t occured to me before, I didn’t cry, not once, I felt sad but that was it. I cry at adverts, and yet this wasn’t designed to make the weak bawl, I am that much more impressed.
If you like both Anne and Jake you will enjoy this movie, if you are a fan of the slightly tragic love story you will enjoy this movie, and if you just want to see naked bodies you definitely will not be disappointed.
The Intelligent Teen Movie
This was written in November 2010:
A recent Empire review gave teen flick Easy A a rare four star rating, putting it up in the heights of such films as Clueless, 10 Things I Hate About You, and Mean Girls. Now I am a self-confessed lover of these films, they display wit, sass, intelligence, innocence, and enough cheese and romance to keep it light for teenagers to understand, mostly. Easy A is no exception to this rule and it also, like Clueless and Mean Girls, has a lead actress worthy of future stardom. One can only hope Emma Stone fulfils expectation and does not fall into the obscurity of Alicia Silverstone or the drug addled and frankly bizarre world of Lindsay Lohan.
Easy A is funny, touching, incredibly intelligent, and also boasts a supporting cast of world class actors such as Stanley Tucci (a fabulous man who I place in the same category as Johnny Depp for acting ability) and Thomas Haden Church (if you haven’t seen Sideways – why not?). But it is our lead who provides focus and interest in both her demeanour and story. Emma Stone is a star in the making, not many people can be so engaging that even though she makes idiotic decisions you are rooting for her throughout. That is the fundamental difference between Stone and Lohan (Mean Girls), because although Lohan’s character gets sucked into the twisted world of cliques and high school bitch contests there is something about her that makes you want her to, at the very least, NOT get the guy. Lohan, like Stone, benefits from great support; Neil Flynn as the father, Tina Fey (also the writer) as the put upon math teacher, and not forgetting her rival Regina played by Rachel McAdams. However Emma Stone is pretty much on her own the entire movie, we hear her narration, see her talk directly to camera, and the supporting cast is just that, support. They come and go when Olive needs advice from her parents (Tucci and the brilliant Patricia Clarkson), a student to beg for her help or judge her, and a teacher to bring the source material for the film to the fore.
Said material is Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter, I have yet to read this book but it’s on its way from Amazon. The story concerns a woman who is branded an adulterer by her peers by having a red coloured ‘A’ sewn onto her clothing, which our heroine of Easy A adopts as a badge of honour for being a supposed slut. Clueless is based on the Austen classic Emma, and for a modern adaptation is incredibly accurate. 10 Things I Hate About You is loosely based on Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew, one of my favourite plays that I studied in depth at college, and although the movie is not going for accuracy it does explore the themes of sibling rivalry and courtship incredibly well. Mean Girls is an original creation by Tina Fey (who also writes and stars in 30 Rock) and Fey is wacky enough to have been able to create a teen flick that is neither mundane nor too formulaic. Of course there is the usual happy end, girl gets guy, everyone finds their place in the world as happens in all the movies in this article, but unlike the relentless Bring It On series or similar there is a convincing storyline, engaging characters you want to come out on top and not suddenly see the film become a prom slasher flick just to get rid of everyone annoying on screen.
As far as I can work out without having read the source material is that Bert V. Royal (what a name eh?) has written around the Scarlet Letter, using the ideas of persecution for a relatively harmless crime as opposed to making Olive an actual slut who gets paid to have sex rather than just to say she had it. The way the school, and even her best friend, turn on Olive is scary, yet she uses the A and a provocative new wardrobe to enhance her standing as an all-out hoe-bag, because she has been the ignored teenager her whole high school career. The film deals in its way with Christian fundamentalism, as religion appears to have been a major factor in the persecution of Hester in the Puritan world she lived, her only crime falling in love while her husband was believed to be lost at sea. Olive is faced with an actually pretty scary Christian in the shape of Amanda Byrnes, and there is no room for question or doubt in the existence of heaven or hell as Olive finds when talking to a pastor. So Olive is left without religion to guide her, just her wit and a rather attractive young man played by Penn Badgley (of Gossip Girl fame) save her from continual torment from her peers. This is a clever movie with an engaging lead that does not come across conceited, dealing with issues that will fly over the head of most of its audience, but caught by a few.
An intelligent piece of film making is a rare thing, more so in the world of teen movies. The eighties had John Hughes pioneering this world of the teenager, that they read and can speak in full sentences, often sounding pretentious beyond belief. But Hughes instilled a romance in these movies too, so when Olive cries out that she wants her life to be like an eighties movie I can totally relate, because who wouldn’t want the boy they always had a crush on to stand outside their house blasting suitably cheesy music as a declaration of love? And why can’t we all have a completely random musical number just for the sheer hell of it? Of course not everyone can sing so this idea could be potentially disastrous, but I love that teen movies now use the examples of old teen movies to show what they want their lives to be like.
Safe to say I enjoyed Easy A a great deal, I just hope that tragedy will not be a factor in the future of its stars. What I mean here is that Clueless now has the tag of being Brittany Murphy’s breakout movie, same goes for Heath Ledger in 10 Things. Both were tragic deaths, far too early in such promising careers. Heath would have won an Oscar eventually I am sure, and Brittany would have continued making the cute rom-coms intermittently with the movies that critics approved of such as 8 Mile and Girl, Interrupted. Lohan is another tragedy entirely, someone who was on the brink of being able to go for any role she wanted, but who has let drugs take over and her talent reduced to TV movies once in a blue moon (see Labour Pains, actually don’t see it, just take my word as gospel). If in 10 years’ time Emma Stone or Penn Badgley are washed up, drug addled, or even worse dead, I will be so sorry, and look at my copy of Easy A with the same regret as I look at these other movies.
Easy A is a film I want for my shelf because I firmly believe this film, like the other stand out teen movies I have mentioned, has a message that will not get old nor will I get sick of hearing it, that it’s okay to be different, more than that it’s okay to be completely and utterly normal.
A recent Empire review gave teen flick Easy A a rare four star rating, putting it up in the heights of such films as Clueless, 10 Things I Hate About You, and Mean Girls. Now I am a self-confessed lover of these films, they display wit, sass, intelligence, innocence, and enough cheese and romance to keep it light for teenagers to understand, mostly. Easy A is no exception to this rule and it also, like Clueless and Mean Girls, has a lead actress worthy of future stardom. One can only hope Emma Stone fulfils expectation and does not fall into the obscurity of Alicia Silverstone or the drug addled and frankly bizarre world of Lindsay Lohan.
Easy A is funny, touching, incredibly intelligent, and also boasts a supporting cast of world class actors such as Stanley Tucci (a fabulous man who I place in the same category as Johnny Depp for acting ability) and Thomas Haden Church (if you haven’t seen Sideways – why not?). But it is our lead who provides focus and interest in both her demeanour and story. Emma Stone is a star in the making, not many people can be so engaging that even though she makes idiotic decisions you are rooting for her throughout. That is the fundamental difference between Stone and Lohan (Mean Girls), because although Lohan’s character gets sucked into the twisted world of cliques and high school bitch contests there is something about her that makes you want her to, at the very least, NOT get the guy. Lohan, like Stone, benefits from great support; Neil Flynn as the father, Tina Fey (also the writer) as the put upon math teacher, and not forgetting her rival Regina played by Rachel McAdams. However Emma Stone is pretty much on her own the entire movie, we hear her narration, see her talk directly to camera, and the supporting cast is just that, support. They come and go when Olive needs advice from her parents (Tucci and the brilliant Patricia Clarkson), a student to beg for her help or judge her, and a teacher to bring the source material for the film to the fore.
Said material is Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter, I have yet to read this book but it’s on its way from Amazon. The story concerns a woman who is branded an adulterer by her peers by having a red coloured ‘A’ sewn onto her clothing, which our heroine of Easy A adopts as a badge of honour for being a supposed slut. Clueless is based on the Austen classic Emma, and for a modern adaptation is incredibly accurate. 10 Things I Hate About You is loosely based on Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew, one of my favourite plays that I studied in depth at college, and although the movie is not going for accuracy it does explore the themes of sibling rivalry and courtship incredibly well. Mean Girls is an original creation by Tina Fey (who also writes and stars in 30 Rock) and Fey is wacky enough to have been able to create a teen flick that is neither mundane nor too formulaic. Of course there is the usual happy end, girl gets guy, everyone finds their place in the world as happens in all the movies in this article, but unlike the relentless Bring It On series or similar there is a convincing storyline, engaging characters you want to come out on top and not suddenly see the film become a prom slasher flick just to get rid of everyone annoying on screen.
As far as I can work out without having read the source material is that Bert V. Royal (what a name eh?) has written around the Scarlet Letter, using the ideas of persecution for a relatively harmless crime as opposed to making Olive an actual slut who gets paid to have sex rather than just to say she had it. The way the school, and even her best friend, turn on Olive is scary, yet she uses the A and a provocative new wardrobe to enhance her standing as an all-out hoe-bag, because she has been the ignored teenager her whole high school career. The film deals in its way with Christian fundamentalism, as religion appears to have been a major factor in the persecution of Hester in the Puritan world she lived, her only crime falling in love while her husband was believed to be lost at sea. Olive is faced with an actually pretty scary Christian in the shape of Amanda Byrnes, and there is no room for question or doubt in the existence of heaven or hell as Olive finds when talking to a pastor. So Olive is left without religion to guide her, just her wit and a rather attractive young man played by Penn Badgley (of Gossip Girl fame) save her from continual torment from her peers. This is a clever movie with an engaging lead that does not come across conceited, dealing with issues that will fly over the head of most of its audience, but caught by a few.
An intelligent piece of film making is a rare thing, more so in the world of teen movies. The eighties had John Hughes pioneering this world of the teenager, that they read and can speak in full sentences, often sounding pretentious beyond belief. But Hughes instilled a romance in these movies too, so when Olive cries out that she wants her life to be like an eighties movie I can totally relate, because who wouldn’t want the boy they always had a crush on to stand outside their house blasting suitably cheesy music as a declaration of love? And why can’t we all have a completely random musical number just for the sheer hell of it? Of course not everyone can sing so this idea could be potentially disastrous, but I love that teen movies now use the examples of old teen movies to show what they want their lives to be like.
Safe to say I enjoyed Easy A a great deal, I just hope that tragedy will not be a factor in the future of its stars. What I mean here is that Clueless now has the tag of being Brittany Murphy’s breakout movie, same goes for Heath Ledger in 10 Things. Both were tragic deaths, far too early in such promising careers. Heath would have won an Oscar eventually I am sure, and Brittany would have continued making the cute rom-coms intermittently with the movies that critics approved of such as 8 Mile and Girl, Interrupted. Lohan is another tragedy entirely, someone who was on the brink of being able to go for any role she wanted, but who has let drugs take over and her talent reduced to TV movies once in a blue moon (see Labour Pains, actually don’t see it, just take my word as gospel). If in 10 years’ time Emma Stone or Penn Badgley are washed up, drug addled, or even worse dead, I will be so sorry, and look at my copy of Easy A with the same regret as I look at these other movies.
Easy A is a film I want for my shelf because I firmly believe this film, like the other stand out teen movies I have mentioned, has a message that will not get old nor will I get sick of hearing it, that it’s okay to be different, more than that it’s okay to be completely and utterly normal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)