As Good As It Gets

Starring Jack Nicholson, Helen Hunt, and Greg Kinnear
Directed by James L. Brooks
Year: 1997
IMDB / Wikipedia

I have a hard time with this film. Not because it is complex, not because it is mundane or unapproachable, but because the reasons I have for loving this movie also make me hate it so much. The story of a writer struggling with OCD (Nicholson), his favorite waitress (Hunt), and his gay next-door neighbor (Kinnear) takes place in a reality that resembles our own but is almost too fantastic and too perfect to be real.

This film has wonderful moments, real emotion, and some of the best dialogue I have heard in a film. But that’s the problem: it’s too wonderful, too real, and the dialogue is too good. Who the fuck talks like this? It’s one thing to suspend disbelief because you find a plot hole or a character makes a decision that is contrary to your own belief system, but this film is filled with characters (every character, in fact) that seems to say the exact right thing at the exact right time (or wrong time, in the case of Melvin). It’s too much but, at the same time, it is so good, so real, and so funny that I can get past most of the soliloquy-esque lines and enjoy the movie for what it is: a dramatic and passionate look at how we can spot the flaws in others but not often times ourselves.

Most Valuable Actor: It’s easy to plop Nicholson in this slot again after his amazing performance (which garnered him an Oscar) but it was Helen Hunt that deserves the nod here (she also won an Oscar for this film) as she brought a character to life with more than just dialogue delivery. Hunt has amazing facial range that can tell stories with a flutter of an eye or an awkward smile. Though not a classic beauty, she is pretty enough for the role but not a Hollywood glamour girl who would seem out of place in the same role.

Trailer:

Friends With Kids

Starring Adam Scott and Jennifer Westfeldt
Directed by Westfeldt
Year: 2011
IMDB / Wikipedia

Every now and then, I will find it necessary to break protocol to tend to my extremely large Netflix queue. This is one of those times.

Whenever  I see a film that bills itself as a unique take at a typical situation or a typical situation turned on its ear I get curious and I get cautious. I’m curious because perspective is something that intrigues me and playing off different perspectives in a story can give it a unique twist. I’m cautious because most of the time it’s a really fucking stupid idea.

With Friends With Kids there is validation for both my curiosity and my caution. My curiosity is rewarded with a unique plot–two friends (Scott and Westfeldt) after seeing how having children has put a strain on the relationships of two sets of friends (Jon Hamm/Kristen Wiig and Maya Rudolph/Chris O’Dowd) they decide to forgo the relationship and have a child as platonic friends. The story is well structured, the characters are developed nicely, and even the dialogue is honest to a fault.

My caution, however, is rewarded by the fact that, though it is well-thought out, the story is not able to save itself from being horribly predictable and riddled with cliches. After about 20 minutes into the film I knew how it was going to end. Westfeldt tried to avoid the traditional ending by making it more of a question-mark at the end than a definitive answer, but even that was kind of contrived. Despite its best efforts, the characters were not strong enough at the end to make that kind of “will they or won’t they” ending work.

I do have to compliment the dialogue for most of the film because it almost seemed like lines straight from real-life. At times, my wife and I looked at one another thinking the same thing: this is a window into our potential future. There are scenes that would probably resonate better with people who have children, but it’s a fairly accessible story for just about everyone.

Most Valuable Actor: Chris O’Dowd does not have a large role in the film, but he is the every-man character that grounds this film in reality. Playing a husband to Maya Rudolph’s character, he is unashamed of his opinions (unpopular as they might be) and his role is to put things into proper perspective. No one ever said having children was glamorous and that’s what he conveys. I see a lot of myself in the character and that may be why he got the nod. Tell me if I’m wrong.

Trailer:

The Five-Year Engagement

Starring Jason Segel, Emily Blunt, and Chris Pratt
Directed by Nicholas Stoller
Year: 2012
IMDB / Wikipedia

Every now and then, I will find it necessary to break protocol to tend to my extremely large Netflix queue. This is one of those times. 

I want to start off being very blunt: this movie is exactly what you think it will be. It’s formulaic, it’s trite, it borrows plot devices, dialogue, and entire scenes from other romantic comedies and uses them to cobble together a movie where you know the ending just as the opening credits are rolling. Of course, if you want to take a very Shakespearean look at it, there can be no comedy without an ending that promises a blissful future. Sorry for the mild spoiler but, seriously, if you couldn’t see the ending of this movie coming a mile off you have bigger issues to work through than being butthurt at me.

The story is about Tom (Segel) and Violet (Blunt), two people who seem very much in love with one another, and what happens after Tom proposes to Violet. Multiple events and situations test their relationship early and often and play out in very honest ways. The two end up resenting one another for multiple reasons, and conclude they are very different people who may not be right for one another after all. But however will this film find it’s satisfying resolution?

Though I kid a bit about how formulaic this film is, I have to admit that it is also very amusing and immensely entertaining. I guess just because something has been done before doesn’t mean it’s bad. The dialogue between the two lovers, though at times labored, is pretty spot-on, and tries to take some chances not often seen in a film like this. The casting is a tad unrealistic because it perpetuates the idea that an insanely beautiful woman would ever be interested in a schlubby-looking guy no matter how good his personality is, but the two make it work somehow and I tip my cap once again.

My wife enjoyed the film and that’s definitely a positive thing. The film was funny, warm, and almost too familiar in its delivery, but it still managed to satisfy and not make me regret the two hours spent watching. Anymore, that’s an achievement for a romantic comedy.

Most Valuable Actor: This is a tough one, but I think the nod has to go to Chris Pratt who plays Tom’s best friend Alex who meets and couples with Violet’s sister Suzie (played by Alison Brie and the worst British accent I’ve ever heard). He is the comic relief but also the voice of simple reason throughout the film. His message is one that’s sound and true: relationships are only as hard as you make them and you need to be true to yourself. Add some swear words in there and it could almost be direct dialogue from the film.

Trailer:

Annie Hall

Annie Hall

Starring Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, and Tony Roberts
Directed by Woody Allen
Year: 1977
IMDB / Wikipedia

There is a fine line between genius and self-absorbed narcissism and Woody Allen has built his career with camping on both sides of the line and calling it art. His Oscar-winning comedy, Annie Hall is an example of how a film with a great premise, wonderful lines, and some of the best wit a movie can offer can also feel like a trip through the mind of a self-indulgent person you probably would never want to hang out with.

Despite the opening graf, I actually enjoy this film. There’s many redeeming qualities to it such as the supporting cast (Diane Keaton is adorable and Tony Roberts is a subtle comic genius), it’s use of non-sequitors (avid Family Guy fans will see some bits from the show were straight from this film), and the structure of the story. In fact, the only thing holding this film back was Woody Allen.

When you watch a movie or read a book or look at a painting you are forced to look at it from the perspective of the author who usually places him or herself into the shoes of the main focal point. This allows the author to do or say whatever they want and present the world as they want to. The problem is that Woody Allen does it in a way that makes you hate him as much as you hate yourself by the end. He’s a negative person who goes out of his way to be miserable and people believe he’s charming for his kind of sardonic outlook on life. However, as someone who tries to see something good even in bad situations, it’s hard for me to sit and watch a film where everything that happens and everything anyone says is stupid, phony, and pedantic. There’s no way out. This film is a labyrinth without an exit and Allen drags you into a world where there is no excape from the gloomy web he has spun and called home.

While I enjoy the film and much of Allen’s points, the Alvy Singer character is just a bit much for me. I may be alone in my final assertion that this movie would have been much more palpable if Allen had removed himself from the lead role and cast someone else. But that’s probably just me.

Most Valuable Actor: Diane Keaton is an actress that has never stood out to me but her turn as the eponymous character in this film was delightful. She reminded me of why I am (happily) not with any of my exes and why I was glad to move on. It’s really something to make a cute character into someone you end up loathing for being nothing except themselves.

Trailer:

America’s Sweethearts

Starring: Catherine Zeta-Jones, Julia Roberts, and John Cusack
Directed by Joe Roth
Year: 2001
IMDB / Wikipedia

In America, we like to think that our life experiences are as unique as the fact that we are human (spoiler alert: they’re/we’re not). However, this has not stopped Hollywood from making the distinction in the titles of many of our movies. This is one of those movies. 

We start off with a bang: a romantic-comedy that makes fun of romantic-comedies, the people who star in them, and the people who make them. Though not the first movie to take on the industry that made it, it does have some teeth and some sense of honesty despite the fact it is, without a doubt, just another Hollywood RomCom.

Catherine Zeta-Jones and John Cusack star as an estranged husband and wife who were the darlings of the movie world but, as their marriage dissolved so did their box office appeal. In an attempt to boost the hype for the last film project they are ever to do together, they are whisked away to a press junket by the studio’s movie publicist played by Billy Crystal. Hilarity ensues.

Though I mock this film I do keep coming back to it because, in a way, it’s different to see stars lampoon themselves so brashly since both CZJ and Cusack are both very entrenched in the romantic-comedy genre. Even the supporting cast, which includes the insanely bankable Julia Roberts, is also one of the face of the romantic-comedy genre and takes her shots at it as well. I think that many people forget how fickle the film industry can be and that stories like these are not just plausible, but are probably biographical.

But, more than that, it’s a funny movie. On the surface it’s a RomCom (a term I hate because it’s trendy but I love because it keeps me from writing “romantic-comedy” over and over again), on the next layer down it’s a biting satire on the film industry, but on a deeper level it’s a story about the interpersonal relationships that happen when you either need to work with someone or have to work with someone. Think about it: is there someone at your office or at school you despise but have to work with to get something done or move ahead? Of course there is, and this film shows how people use one another to their own ends in the hopes they will get ahead and look good whilst doing it.

So, what does this have to do with America? Besides the fact that we  throw so much attention at actors that their egos become larger and more fragile each and every day? Aside from the fact that we, as citizens, idolize these people to the point where their opinions matter more to us than our legislative leaders? This movie is a sad reminder that we derive too much esteem from the accomplishments and downfalls of others and it’s horribly frustrating and humbling to admit that it is 100% true. So, look upon this film and weep, for it is as much truth we can attach to a comedy before it becomes a tragedy.

Most Valuable Actor: Billy Crystal as Lee Phillips, the movie publicist who tries to keep everything on the rails. You know, it took me over 10 years to notice this but it’s fitting he is in this movie because he is one-half the starring cast in the most revered romantic-comedy of all time. To see him lampoon this would be like seeing Orson Welle’s shilling for Rosebud Frozen Peas. (HA!)

Trailer:

About a Boy

Starring Hugh Grant, Toni Collette, and Nicholas Hoult          
Directed by Chris Weitz and Paul Weitz
Year: 2002
IMDB / Wikipedia

This is the movie that made me like Hugh Grant. Before, I thought he was a cliche, being the charmingly befuddled guy who makes all the ladies swoon and is always the hero. In About a Boy, the film adaptation of Nick Hornby’s excellent novel, Grant is still the protagonist, but he’s more the anti-hero. He’s a self-absorbed ass who thinks only of himself until he befriends a 12 year-old boy named Marcus (Hoult). Though the movie takes a cliche look at Hornby’s source content (which plays out in a much different fashion than the movie) Grant’s character is pretty true.

There is this idea that most young men have in thinking that “every man is an island,” or someone who only needs himself to get by in this world. Men who never abandon this are trapped in what is known as a Peter Pan Complex where they never really mature. This movie (and, in many respects, the book) challenge one such man to face his shortcomings and realize that without a support system his life is pretty meaningless. But, is this true?

I prescribe to the Hilary Clinton doctrine that “it takes a village” to raise a child and support a person throughout his or her life. Not a novel or unique idea, but I find it to be true. I like to think that I am the sum parts of everyone I have ever known, to bastardize a quote from another wonderful author, Chuck Palhinuik. This film shows Will (Grant) and the impact he has on others just through his actions to fulfill his own selfish needs. It is the chain of events in the film that teaches him that you cannot be a member of society without making some sort of impact on everyone else. You cannot interact with someone on a one-sided level and that is what Will’s character comes to realize by the end.

To digress from my point, I have to admit that, every time I watch a movie with predominantly UK actors, I find myself speaking with that accent for a day or two. I also catch myself saying things like lift when I mean elevator, and pronouncing garage much like I would pronounce the word carriage. It’s a side effect of the immersion, albeit very brief, and it’s not very troubling to me. It does, however, disconcert my wife who is now hearing her Omaha-born husband speaking as if he’s auditioning for Monty Python’s Flying Circus. I’m trying to temper it but it doesn’t always work.

Now, where was I? Oh yes … this movie is wonderful though it doesn’t explore the deeper relationships forged by the characters as it does in the book. It does, however, fulfill the spirit of the book by confirming that, not all men are islands; some are island chains.

Most Valuable Actor: Nicholas Hoult as Marcus. In his breakout performance, Hoult captures the character of Marcus brilliantly and delivers the best performance on screen. It was essential to find a dynamic young actor to play the role as so many of the interpersonal relationships stem from him. They found a great young actor who has made a name for himself in some great films in a little less than a decade in the business.

(500) Days of Summer

Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel, and Geoffery Arend           
Directed by Marc Webb
Year: 2009
IMDB / Wikipedia

There’s a reason why creating a plot around the male-female relationship dynamic will never grow old: because it is so unique. There is no quintessential romantic comedy, there is no RomCom where everything that happens is just like something that happened to you. Good romantic comedies should focus on the good and the bad, just like a real relationship. I have a hard time grouping this with all of the other insipid movies that share the “romantic comedy” label, but it is as good as I can get without breaking some new ground. But, I’m so emotionally wiped out from watching this movie to do that, so it will stay what it is.

Though not everything that happened here happened in my life. I never dated a good looking woman I worked with, but I did meet someone who turned my entire perspective on the world on its ear. I never enchanted anyone with my choice of music, but I did date a girl who swore she would never get married only to not only get married but have a kids as well. I never was as devilishly handsome as JGL, but I did try to use what I had to make myself stand out and attract someone, anyone. To compare and contrast my love life and the events of this film is a needlessly masturbatory exercise I will spare you, but let’s just say that much of this movie hits close to my heart.

It’s hard to watch a movie and not put yourself in the shoes of at least one of the characters. In (500) Days of Summer, we see a young man (JGL) fall for an attractive co-worker (Deschanel) and, though they both have different wants out of the relationship, they make it last for a while. The film inter-splices the beginning, middle, and end of the relationship so you know where things are going. As a film-making  tool, using this kind of method can be done very well or very poorly, and director Marc Webb does a great job to to tell the story outright. He shows what needs to be shown, he takes the brilliant screenplay and transforms it into a movie of a haunting memory of lost, unrequited love.

Every time I watch it, I try my hardest not to cry during several point in the film, but I always have to wipe away some mist from my glasses. It is so heartbreaking because, on whatever levels you as the viewer can identify with, it is true. No relationship is perfect. There will always come a point where, as a couple, you will need to decide to move forward or move on. It’s harder for some more than others. I can speak for myself that, in every relationship I had that ended poorly, I was the one on the receiving end of the gut-punch. This movie is that gut-punch that reminds us that love is sweeter when you have to go though a lot of misery to find it.

Most Valuable Actor: Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Tom, the lovable but severely flawed protagonist. JGL is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors and I’m dying to see him in this summer’s The Dark Knight Rises. He has a tendency to throw himself in th part to make it all the more believable and real whereas Zooey just seemed to be playing herself. There are plenty of other titles coming that feature JGL and I’m looking forward to every single one of them.

40 Days and 40 Nights

Starring Josh Hartnett, Shannyn Sossamon, and Paulo Costanzo          
Directed by Michael Lehmann
Year: 2002
IMDB / Wikipedia

There may be those out there thatbelieve deriving any sort of fiction from the solemness that is religion is immoral and a one-way ticket to hell. But, since art, in all its mediums, takes its lead from life, and religion is a major part of so many people’s lives, it is hard to keep the two apart. If everyone that took religion allusions and put them into fictioon or works of art then everyone from Michelangelo to Flannery O’Connor to Gutenberg would be rotting in the pit of Hell or all eternity.

Most people think about movies like this one that make light of the sacrifice that Catholics (and most Christians) make during lent when, in fact, it is showing how hard it is to be without something. In this world we live in where everyone is so quick to make a hyperbolic statement (“this is the worst thing ever,” you are the best person ever, ” etc.) this shows that genuine sacrifice is something that is not easy and can lead to self-growth and self-exploration. Oddly enough, it also makes for a great story as well.

The plot of this movie, a good looking guy (Hartnett) takes a vow to avoid sex and everything sexual for the duration of Lent, sounds like fodder for just another predictable movie and, for the most part, you’re right. The story and the events that unfold are pretty generic and predictable while the ending is too Hollywood to believe, but it’s the small things that make this movie work.

Though it is not dwelled pon much in the movie, there is mention of the power struggle that men and women have when it comes to sex. One of the female characters allude to Hartnett’s character taking the power of sexual denial that woman weilded over the centuries and is (inadvertently) turning it around on them. His roommate, aptly played by Costanzo, even says that the power shift is going against God and nature which, at a purely biological level, makes a lot of sense, The power motif is established and becomes the background for all the events that play out. It may only give the story an additional level with which to play, but there are good points to be made.

Gentlemen, think about this: if you are courting a woman you may be direct and forward about your intentions and your wants. Despite what you think you are giving up power by being so open. The ball is now in the woman’s court as she now has the power to deny you, to accept you, or to string you along as so many do so well. That dynamic is repetitive and probably not going to change in the next hundred years or so. The vow Hartnett’s character takes is not an attempt to tunr the tables. He is doing it for personal reasons but , to the rest of the world, it becomes about everyone else. Motives are questioned and bets are placed to see how long he can last. It becomes a “mind over matter” situation with the power of each side struggling against one another.

Despite the movie being pedestrian it’s pretty enjoyable to watch on a purely mindless level as well. There’s boobs for the guys, good looking guys for the women, and some laughs thrown in. However, as much as we, the audience, may laugh at the situation in the movie, in the back of my mind I’m wondering if I could ever do something like this. Sacrifice is something I’m not good at doing which is why I haven’t actively participated in Lent in quite a few years. But do I believe that using this religious rite as a vehicle for a comedic movie sacrilegious? No. If anything, it shows that people who take this kind of sacrificial vow do so seriously and (sometimes) become better people at the end.

Most Valuable Actor:  Adam Trese as the priest-in-training/brother that is the spiritual advisor to Hartnett. Probably the most interesting character in the movie as he is burdened with wearing two hats: brother and Father to Hartnett who is struggling with his decision as the days go by. The role calls for a combination of love, admonishment, sarcasm, and honesty that must be in balance in order to work. Most actors would take one over the others but Trese does a great job with the balancing act making his character believable and three-dimensional.

Friends With Benefits

Starring Justin Timberlake, Mila Kunis, and Patricia Clarkson         
Directed by Will Gluck
Year: 2011
IMDB / Wikipedia

Every now and then, I will find it necessary to break protocol to tend to my extremely large Netflix queue. This is one of those times. 

Last year, the general American consciousness decided to embrace the long-tabooed secret that some male-female friendships have certain … perks. Friends with benefits is a term that popped up several years ago and seemed to become the newest and most exciting euphemism to hit the lexicon in some time. It was the talk of a lot of daytime girl cavalcades and the growing public acceptance of it led to many genuine friendships ruined. Before I met my wife I, too, ruined a great friendship like this. Not something I’m proud of, but it happened.

Within a few months of one another, this film and its counterpart, No Strings Attached, burst into the cinema and probably led to some uncomfortable family dinner conversation with parents struggling to ask their children if their lab partner is just their lab partner.

But I’m not here to talk about the societal impact of this kind of relationship–I’m here to talk movies. This movie tried its best and, without a doubt, was more fun to watch than the Ashton Kutcher–Natalie Portman version simply because it didn’t hold back. Though the setting and the circumstances were hard to believe, the dialogue between Timberlake and Kunis, the two characters embroiled in this “friendship” was pretty honest and rather refreshing. That, and only that, puts it above the other movie. In fact, it followed the same romantic comedy formula (even though they poked fun at it relentlessly) it just ended up being another Rom-Com. I thought, maybe with an R-rating we may see Mila Kunis in a way I had been dreaming of since the later days of That 70’s Show, but alas it was not to be. Close a few times (side-boob, some tush) but no cigar. though her swearing and telling people off is pretty hot … wait, what was I saying?

Anyway, there are the obligatory big laughs in the movie, the gaffes, the innuendo, the awkward moments, the misunderstandings, and the eventual resolution (I would have said SPOILER ALERT but it wouldn’t have mattered). I was hoping this movie might be honest to the end, showing that these types of relationships don’t always have a happy (or even amicable) ending, but Hollywood fucked it up again. I should have known by the looks of that movie poster. Want a brutally fierce movie that deals with a similar situation, try the Jake Gyllenhaal–Anne Hathaway vehicle Love and Other Drugs. Better use of time in every way.

Most Valuable Actor: Richard Jenkins as Justin Timberlake’s father suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease. More and more this disease is used as an emotional crutch or trigger with too many scripts, but Jenkins plays it so well. You feel sorry for his character but, at the same time, you admire him. It’s not a pure pity move and his character is one of the few things done right in this movie.