Paragraph Movie Reviews: Revolutionary Road

Forget Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm St; if you're a 20-something looking to get married anytime soon, this is the scariest horror movie you'll ever see. That aside, it's one heckuva film and I was thoroughly engrossed for its two hour duration. I've never bought too heavy into the Leonardo DiCaprio hype and have truthfully always found him a bit wooden, even in stuff I enjoyed him in like The Departed or Catch Me if You Can. In this movie, however, he was a damn force of nature, turning on a dime from charming to monstrous and playing both to near perfection. Maybe it's his much-ballyhooed chemistry with Kate Winslet that pushed him, because its on full display here, though slightly moreso in their downright scary shouting matches than in their tender moments. Speaking of Winslet, her performance here is rivetting, as she also plays a range of emotions magnificently, from claustrophobic to resolute and several degrees in between. Winslet is definitely the one who wins you over and makes you want to root for these characters though; as she convinces Leo they can have a better life, so does she convince the audience, and you start celebrating their every triumph and being devastated by every setback. The supporting cast is full of gems, with Michael Shannon as the shock treatment-addled but brutally honest mathmetician shining brightest, but with Kathy Bates and Kathryn Hahn also giving standout showings and Dylan Baker taking full advantage of every cameo he gets. While this movie didn't match my personal tastes enough that I can see myself watching it over and over, evaluating it purely as a work, I can say it's a fine piece of cinema and I enjoyed getting invested.

(As an aside, I've never seen Titanic, but if this had been an alternate reality sequel to Titanic where they both survive and end up unhappily married in a Connecticut suburb, it would have been both more depressing and more awesome simultaneously)

Developing a Brocabulary: Deuceappear

For Christmas, Rickey, because he is awesome, got me this:


If your eyes aren't so good, here's what it is: Brocabulary: The New Man-i-festo of Dude Talk by Daniel Maurer. Essentially, it's a guidebook for rad bro phrases to use when speaking with the special dudes in your life. Periodically, I'm gonna post some of these phrases. In honor of the bro who gave it to me, I'll kick things off with Rickey's favorite entry from the book thus far...

deuceappear - To disappear in order to drop a deuce; split and shit.

The entry is pretty lengthy for this one, so here are a few highlights:

...as you know, when someone is in your immediate pissinity--i.e. standing at the urinal next to yours--you have a choice between the thousand-tile stare (staring straight ahead at the wall tiles in a zen-like trance) or the pants-down glance down (fixing your gaze on your own member). When the urinals have no privacy barrier, you're obliged to employ the thousand-tile stare, lest your neighbor think you're giving him a "glans glance." When there is a privacy barrier, it's a matter of personal preference...

...of course, somestimes you just have to tell your bro, "Tough shit, I'm taking a dump." That's fine, but at least have the courtesy to wear a stall shawl--take your shirt off and wrap it around your shoulders to keep it from absorbing the stink...

More to come!

Movie Poster Math

This...


...plus this...



...equals this:


(Paid for by the Foundation for Ben's Man Crushes on Matt Damon, John Cena & Jason Bourne)

Breaking Subway News Update!

No doubt you all recall my epic expose on the history of the Subway sandwich chain. Well, earlier today, I received the follow communique from my former intern, Frank DeAngelo (pictured to the left), rock star and member of the band Modern Hearts Break Faster (EP available now)...

Hey Ben,

I was just reading through your blog and I saw your entry about Subway. From 2002-2004, my band was sponsored by Subway (like sponsored-sponsored: free subways at all locations, they bought us a van, new equipment, paid for our cell phones and gas -- all we had to do was play under some "Subway" banners sometimes and sign autographs at their booths at music festivals).

Anyway, I got to know one of their VPs very well, who was also in charge of marketing, and variety of other stuff (he actually designed their logo, too).

One day, I brought up the "subway cut" to him, asking him why they changed it -- he told me a few things. First, it tested poorly in focus groups -- which I can't understand because its like the company's trademark thing that makes a subway sandwich, a subway sandwich. They said it was too messy (which I said was stupid because now with the new cut everything slips out the sliced side or the grinder breaks on the unsliced edge). And he and I went back and forth about this -- OK I know its ridiculous, these people were throwing money at me and this was my biggest concern with the company :) But also Subway was trying to create a new image, I was told, and that's when the logo because italicized, "eat fresh" was introduced, and to shake things up, the new cut was supposed to signal in the new "Subway."

...go figure...

Then the company instructed all franchises to do away with "subway cut" and told them to deny patrons if they requested it...

Well...this is truly disturbing and horrifying. It is disturbifying.

I don't know what kind of sick, hipster demographic actually enjoys this "new" Subway, but I would like to meet them and slap them all in the face with an OLD SCHOOL steak & cheese.

But hey, real talk: it's not their fault. The kids who have grown up in this totalitarian 1984-like Subway regime don't know what they're missing. It's the corporate fatcasts with their "focus groups" and their "eath fresh" who are keeping us all down. They're letting young men like Frank, who still has the temerity to use the term "grinder," suffer needlessly as their lettuce floods out the side of their Italian BMTs.

It's not right and it's not going unnoticed. The movement grows every day. You won't win this one, Jared.

Viva la revolucion!

A Random Thought on How I Met Your Mother season one

For Christmas, Megan and I received, as requested, the first season of How I Met Your Mother on DVD (actually we received two copies, but that's neither here nor there). We've burned through the season in under a week and, as everybody who recommended it to us predicted, we love it.

I do however have one nit to pick and a question to go with.

(Ok, more like one and a half nits: I don't love Josh Radnor and find him a bit annoying and condescending, particularly early on, but he seems to improve with each episode, so I'm assuming this upwards momentum will continue and I'll dig him by mid-season two at latest)

The one criticism I have of the show and only thing that irks me a bit about it is how they shoot reactions to jokes. Every time a principal character tells a one-liner, the camera immediately cuts to another character smiling or chuckling. Now I could be wrong, because I haven't really watched sitcoms in forever, but I seem to recall this not generally being how it was done. I recall the camera staying on the person who told the joke, as they sell it, and the laugh track doing the rest. I would assume HIMYM does it the way they do it for "realism," since in "reality" people would react to a joke being told, but in real reality, if a joke is funny, people laugh at it for a decent while, not just the two seconds it takes for a reaction shot.

Is this the way jokes are shot on most sitcoms and I'm just not savvy though? Let me know.

Also, it's an extremely small problem with a very great show. See for yourself.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was whatever.

Meh.

Anybody who knows me knows I have a big boy crush on Brad Pitt and Fight Club remains one of my favorite books (not to mention one of my favorite movies), so I was stoked to see this new film from director David Fincher (he directed Fight Club, too). But I didn't go in with massive expectations, though. I wasn't a fan of Zodiac, either, which Fincher directed, so I was careful upon approach.

That said, I still didn't think it was as entertaining as I'd hoped. It came off like a cross between Forrest Gump and Big Fish with a little whimsical dysfunction like you'd see in a Robin Williams film (remember Jack?), and like when I left the theater after watching Zodiac, I was underwhelmed by much of Benjamin Button. (Special note: The screenwriter behind Gump also wrote Benjamin Button, but the similarities go beyond stylistic similarities.)

Button is def moving in many scenes as it tells the story of a boy literally born an old man and follows him through his "extraordinary" life of growing younger as the years flow by. Needless to say, I'd rather the film was about Pitt as Ben Button, a time-traveling pit-fighter on the verge of retirement who finds himself dragged into one final tournament (you'd hear him say, "This is my last one and then I'm out" several times) where he must fight 5 adversaries from across time. The only catch is, these 5 adversaries are each a decade apart in age, and Button must take them on as a ripped, shirtless, greased-up 32-year-old man. Here are my picks for his opponents:

1. THE 10-YEAR-OLD: Dick Clark

He may be a dead-behind-the-eyes robot now and only useful for counting down a ball drop once a year, but this music-loving immortal could prolly wreck shop as a pre-teen. I imagine him moving as swiftly as Yoda in those Star Wars prequels.

2. THE 20-YEAR-OLD: Abe "The Great Emancipator" Lincoln

Yeah. The 16th President. This would be that fight in the film where you'd be all like, "aww, man, I kinda like both these dudes," but you know what? Someone's going down and it's not my boy, Ben.

3. THE 30-YEAR-OLD: Hitler

Yeah, the living embodiment of evil and the bad guy in the new Tom Cruise film. Pitt would pop in while the dude was crapping and catch him with his pants down and then Hitler would ask him in German if this "is some kind of trick?" And then Pitt would roundhouse kick him in the face and knock Hitler's head clean off and through a window where it would then roll out on the cobblestone street for the kids in town to play with like a soccer ball and then Pitt would whisper "Nein" and then teleport out.

(Note: "Nein" means "No" in German.)

4. THE 40-YEAR-OLD: Bea Arthur

The Golden Girl with the most reach, Bea turns 87 in May of 2009, so to nab her when she's 40 would mean Pitt would hafta drop a house on her around, oh, 1962. That was JUST before she became a regular on the Sid Ceasar Show and none of you have seen that stuff, so don't get all high and mighty just cause Brad Pitt killed a woman before her prime. Dicks.

5. THE 50-YEAR-OLD: Himself!

Oh! Didn't see that coming, right? Pfft. This is one of those mirror matches where you'll think younger Pitt has the advantage, but you're not taking into account the fact that older Pitt has more EXPERIENCE. This is a fight that will last about 45 minutes until at the very end of the film, seconds before the credits roll, younger Pitt looks older Pitt in the eye and goes, "Hey, old man. Momma sure loved us," and then older Pitt will shed a single tear and then step back and grab younger Pitt's hand in his own and then hold it up for the whole world to see: they BOTH win!

Cause they're the same person.

The end.

Paragraph Movie Reviews Double Take: Doubt

My only real motivation for seeing this movie was because it's an Oscar contender, nothing more visceral, so I went in with lowered expectations, which can often help. I was definitely entertained and more often than not engaged if not completely enraptured, so I'd qualify it a good moviegoing experience. The plot and the issues it explores are wonderfully ambiguous to just the right degree, giving you enough for discussion fodder without being frustrating. It's not just a question of innocence or guilt, it's a question of whether the latter is necessarily always wrong. Walking out of the theater, I could interpret the conclusion a number of ways and none of them felt wrong; more importantly, I was ok with that. Outside of the plot, though, were mechanical aspects of the film that in some cases elevated it and in other cases did the opposite. My favorite thing about Doubt is probably the way it is shot. There are no quick cuts; every shot is long, deliberate and creates an effect that you need to be paying attention. John Patrick Shanley, who both wrote the play adapted for the movie and directed the film, did an excellent job. As to the performances, this is where I'd deduct points. It's rare when Meryl Streep is a potential hindrance to anything she's in, but this could well be one of those instances. Her performance is powerful and her character is alternately terrifying and strangely sympathetic, but she takes it a little too far more than once, drifting close to parody. When she's on, she's Meryl Streep (which is a good thing), but when she hams it up, scenes that should probably be serious risk becoming comedy. I thought Philip Seymour Hoffman was brilliant; charming but with that right hint of possibly sinister intent, his priest is the standout character of Doubt, in my opinion. Rounding out the main trio, Amy Adams is a great actress whose work I enjoy, but she seems to have a limited range of characters she'll slip into. In this case, it was the meek, timid girl who is afraid of her own shadow, and that's probably my least favorite from her repetoire. When Streep and Adams share scenes, what should be acting showcases too often became SNL sketches. As for Viola Davis, she was great, but I think the "she turns in an Oscar-worthy showing in 15 minutes" hype is way overblown. I would definitely recommend Doubt if for no other reason than it will give you something to talk about afterwards for sure.

And now, for another take, here is my fiancee, Megan...

Okay so I really really liked Doubt. I read the play a few years ago, but I never got to see it on Broadway which I was really bummed about. I was thrilled when I found out that they were making a movie and I was not at all disappointed (and I'm a really tough critic). I, like Ben, loved the way it was shot. Shanley used a lot of angles, and it just made the piece more interesting. It's always cool to think about why a director makes choices like that. Anyway, loved it! Now I have not always been a Meryl Streep fan, but I really loved her in this. I thought her acting was impeccable and every choice was deliberate and effective. Amy Adams' character was interesting. I didn't love her, but I definitely didn't hate her. Her character was intimidated...by everything and that was annoying at times. But her eyes are so expressive. In a piece like this, its all about the body language and I think she nailed it. She was just a little "one note" for me and that is really my only complaint. Philip Seymour Hoffman was really great. I'm a big fan. BUT he was SO whiny. I felt like he would be in these great powerful moments and then he would WHINE. "what do you want me to doooooooo" whine whine whine. I was most disappointed in his performance, but that being said I didn't hate it. I still liked what he did with the character. He was charming and by the end, the audience is really torn about whether he did it or not. Finally Viola Davis. I agree with Ben. There was alot of hype surrounding her character (I was doing part of the hyping). I thought she was wonderful, but not nomination-worthy. I thought she was very effective, but I think the hype is more about what she says as a character (kudos to Shanley) then what she does as an actress. During her scene she had snot dripping out of her nose and I couldn't stop looking at it. That's a bad sign on so many levels. Overall, I really liked it. I thought it translated from stage to screen very well. Go see it! You'll enjoy it and there will be much to talk about, especially if you disagree whether he did it or not (like Ben and I did). :)