You Want Fries With That? (Super Size Me)

We're going out of order again - not to mention that we're starting after a five month hiatus. Tonight's film is one that we felt the need to watch due to a special visit from it's director and subject - Morgan Spurlock. By now everyone knows his story. Morgan posed the question, "What would happen to me if I ate nothing but McDonald's food for 30 days?" So begins the mission of Morgan v. McDonald's. The idea came to him on Thanksgiving of 2003 while watching a news story about the two obese girls and their families who sued McDonald's for their chronic illnesses and unhealthy lifestyles. At first, Morgan believed the lawsuit to be frivolous - but upon listening to further argument, he found validity in what they were saying.

I think part of the intrigue of this documentary is that we all know eating at McDonald's, and other fast food establishments, is harmful. I think the degree and/or severity of the harm isn't anything that has been investigated in such a way that is both informative and entertaining. Spurlock does this by introducing the audience to who he is and the risk he is willing to take. Like any good suspenseful film, we want to know what happens at the end - in this case, what will be the results of the 30-day McDonald's diet.

Sure McDonald's took the bullet for Taco Bell, Burger King, Pizza Hut and many other fast food restaurants - but hey, they're the biggest right? That's not to mention that they were the defendant in a multimillion dollar lawsuit.

The rules are as follows: he can not eat or drink anything that isn't on the McDonald's menu. He must eat three square meals a day. He has to eat everything that is on the McDonald's menu over the course of those thirty days. He can not exercise - because a majority of people that choose to eat items from the menu multiple times a week also do not exercise. He must Super Size the meal if asked at the counter or drive-thru. Seems pretty simple? What's the worst that can happen? Well, before I go there, let's talk about some of the things that McDonald's lawyers argued. They stated that McDonald's cannot be held responsible for free choice that consumers make when eating at their restaurants - if they know that eating the food is unhealthy for them. Let's review that. McDonald's conceded that eating their food is unhealthy - and that we should all know that as common knowledge. This seemed to be a logical assumption for most of us once we reach the age of adulthood. So knowing this, topped with the admission of McDonald's about their food being unhealthy should send us running in the other direction. Morgan travelled the U.S. while investigating the epidemic obesity and what causes it.

When watching the film this time, I noticed how happy Spurlock seemed when he began the first day. He seemed absolutely thrilled to have the opportunity to document each menu item he devoured. He describes each item he chooses with energy and fervor. At one point, he even kisses the Big Mac he orders. To see the transition from this fun, happy state at the beginning of the experiment to the other extreme as the film progresses, is interesting. It reminds me of the things we think were so yummy as kids and then, as adults, we change our opinion. I think some of it relates to memories we had as kids and how we relate these things to food and experiences. When watching this, it appears as if, Morgan Spurlock started the experiment with the gusto of a kid with great memories of McDonalds. It doesn't take long, however, for everything to change. It might even be day three when the pain is evident.

There's no doubt that Spurlock has a charismatic personality that we're drawn to. Like Michael Moore before him - he approaches interviews with humor and determination - yet sympathy for his subjects. Never does Spurlock dismiss the personal choices that people make - but neither does he completely blame them for choices they've been conditioned to make since early childhood. From Happy Meals to Playlands to billions of dollars spent on advertising annually it's a wonder that all of us have not turned our three meals a day over to McDonald's. While watching him at ISU, it was interesting about some of the observations he made of his critics. Some argued that you could eat healthy when ordering from McDonald's - if you ordered one hamburger, the children's fries (or an apple) and a Diet Coke - never mind that you'd have to have no ketchup on your burger and have to discard one of the buns in order to stay under the recommended calories for one meal (that's not even considering the saturated fat contained in the meal). Morgan asked, "Who the fuck does that?" Indeed. Who? Perhaps if you're forced into eating McDonald's on a bet you may discard the bun and order a McApple. However, it's safe to say that less than 1% of the people that enter a McDonald's are considering the healthy options of the McMenu. It's the same reason that when you go to Kuma's Corner you order the burger - it's what they're known for. You're going there for what they do best. No one walks into a place like that considering ordering something they can buy else where for less money and better quality. At the end of the first week of Morgan's McDiet, he was informed by his dietitian that he was ingesting 5000 calories - which is over twice the recommended needed per day.

Sure this review has nearly turned into a criticism of McDonald's - easy target right? Let's talk about the movie. This movie narrows its focus and keeps on topic. He successfully tracks the laziness with which we live in the U.S. in everything from our physical activity to the choices we make. There's nothing in this movie that's mind-blowing other than how quickly his health decreases. At 21 days into the diet, Morgan gained over 20 pounds and was essentially pickling his liver - much like an alcoholic on a binge would do after two or three weeks of heavy drinking. However, every physician was stunned that the body could deteriorate so quickly. I also observed in my last viewing that of the top 15 most obese cities in the United States, all five of the most impoverished cities were contained in that top 15. Alicia and I have watched this movie four times now, and though I would not say that it's one that you will watch with repeat viewing - it's certainly not a waste of time to watch it multiple times. I found that I pulled something new with each viewing and was drawn to Morgan's personality and ability to tell a story - as well as expose truths we refuse to acknowledge.

Although McDonald's or other fast food establishments mentioned in this blog entry have not admitted to changing menu items or marketing campaigns in response to the film, to me, it seems obvious. Maybe it is a coincidence that McDonald's discontinued "Super Sizing" and included apples as a Happy Meal option in the place of french fries, but I noticed a change going on around me following the release of the film. Was it a response to getting hands caught in the cookie jar, per se, or was it just time to make a change. There is a 'healthier foods' trend that continues to flood advertising and other social internet feeds. I don't think everything is finely tuned and figured out - by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think that 'healthy' has a new name and a new image. I think the idea for this experiment gained so much attention that action needed to be taken. The naysayers who argue the concept was unrealistic and the supporters who have turned vegan, perhaps, or have boycotted fast food or even just limited visits. Changes have been made - especially for Morgan Spurlock.

Paradise Lost and John Locke (Lost - Seasons 1-5)

I am departing a bit - which is why the text is in black. Alicia has not been much of a Lost fan - but I can admit that I am truly addicted. This show has sucked me in since the moment Jack (Matthew Fox) opened his eye. In completing the last episode of Season 5 and being that Seasons 1-4 are on our movie shelf - I had a few thoughts - they're as follows:

Ok – I was wrong, wrong, wrong – WRONG about Jacob being John Locke. However, I did feel somewhat satisfied to see that John Locke was not really John Locke at the end of the episode (well not satisfied in the Ben stabs Jacob in the heart satisfied – but the I knew that John Locke was a key to the entire show – who didn’t know that right?). There was something right about John Locke being Jacob – and there still is - . I have a bunch of thoughts and this post will be constructed throughout the day when I have time – and copy and pasted into the comments section later. Who says BSG had the most complex plot laced with religion on TV – short of Robert Tilton – whoever that is ;) – let’s stick with Lost, shall we?

Jacob and Esau – Free Will vs. Destiny:
This makes a lot of sense, and I feel very foolish for not seeing it before. It’s been the thing with which nearly everyone on the island has struggled. However, regardless of destiny or chaos, free will or predestination – there has been manipulation. By introducing Jacob and Esau to be whom they appear to be, we realize that they are the master puppeteers of everyone on the island. These two guys are obviously the big picture string-pulling gods. However, I have to pose a question that we’ve been able to wrap our heads around better as a society in the last 20 years – with the emergence of reality TV. Does not the introduction of any external influence into an environment – specifically knowing you’re being watched – alter the natural flow of things? In other words, does not the very existence of Jacob and Esau still imply that some sort of destiny is inevitable – and by extension the existence of Benjamin, John Locke, Desmond – the list could go on and on . . . shape destiny? Perhaps the question that is more pertinent is whether we are free to choose from limited destinies – as Jack, Kate, Sawyer and Juliet’s of the world? Are we not equipped with a certain set of gifts in life that direct us to those big picture items? Sure! We can teach or we can work in a factory or we can stay at home with children – but aren’t we still going to do the big picture things that were always fated for us – and the rest are simply details to the story? The apple will still be eaten. Consummation will still take place and children will be born to continue the cycle. Lost simply has been very good at illustrating whether or not we will continuously act within the nature that is wired in our DNA or our predestined strings. It must be noted, however, that temptation constantly is introduced to the characters attempting to alter the choices which would normally come natural to them – more on that in the next section.

God and Lucifer – Don’t Forget Milton Already Did This:
No. I know you’re all disappointed – I’m not going to talk about L'Allegro or Il Penseroso – or am I? Shakespeare asked us “What’s in a name?” implying the question – what’s in a word? After all, a rose is still rose and a turd a turd - by any other name – more or less. See, it was when I started thinking about God and Lucifer that I starting thinking about Lost and Milton. Sure when we focused on Jack’s eye over five years ago, we assumed the show would be about all these people that are lost and they need to get home (having gone astray or missed the way; bewildered as to place, direction, etc). However, there’s another meaning to lost – destroyed or ruined; distracted; distraught; desperate, hopeless – this is the Milton sense of the word. This is Paradise Lost. This is the theme that is timeless and what we as an audience care about. There’s a reason that you watch Gilligan’s Island and chuckle at its cuteness and a reason you sit every Wednesday with white knuckles (thanks for the term from your first Lost book Nik), desperately yearning for the next week’s, next season’s episode. This is a story about the loss that everyone has had to endure in order – what we hope – prevail in the end. This is the real destiny vs. freedom confrontation – because we all know that with real freedom comes a loss.

The reason – as a modern society that we cannot associate good vs. evil to fate vs. free will is because freedom has become heroic. It is a sign of coming of age. It’s a virtue of our young new world order – well middle-aged new world order. However, if you’re a Biblical-type, the first choice – or the first act of declaring freedom was Lucifer’s fall – as illustrated in Paradise Lost. The first significant character introduced in the poem is Satan (was that really your eye Jack?). We know that to yearn for free will is a sin – one that Satan talks Eve into committing – with Adam following. However, it is hugely important that the pride of Lucifer and ultimate revolt (better to rule in hell than serve in heaven boys!) is the first act of free will. Again, it is free will – from a Biblical sense – that makes us human. But the very same thing that makes all of us human is what also brought us death and loss of innocence.

"They sat them down to weep, nor only tears/ Rained at their eyes, but high winds worse within/ Began to rise, high passions, anger, hate,/ Mistrust, suspicion, discord, and shook greatly/ Their inward state of mind."

These are emotions and feelings all of the major characters of Lost have experienced – via manipulation – whether it be from Ben (who can remember Jack being forced to watch Kate with Sawyer) or from Jacob and Esau. The most interesting though I considered as I reviewed Paradise Lost was the use of the serpent by Satan to trick Eve into eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. This goes back to my thoughts on free will – and whether there is any real freedom when the characters are but marionettes controlled by two puppeteers at the same time. On one hand, sure, they are making choices that shape and form their futures. However, the choices with which all these characters are faced are relentless and never-ending. One has to wonder when the final choice to prove faith, worthiness, love or whatever it is Jacob and Esau seek will occur. Or do their strings keep being pulled one way or the other until they make the wrong choice with no chance at redemption – but wait – we do have time travel that can now give us that second chance at proving ourselves – or redemption from sin (even though these people were pulled onto the island against their will – no free will there). In gaining choice – in gaining freedom – safety is lost. We’re now subject to the consequences of our incorrect or wrong choices. Do we stay on the beach or do we go to the caves? Do we pursue Kate or do we lead with a clear mind? Do we stab Jacob in the heart or do we stand firm against our pride and savor the moment for which we’ve waited our entire lives?

Return to Eden
There’s a book that I read for a class on Literature of the Old Testament called The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden. This book contained what would be called an anthology of lost books of the bible – some of which were thought to have been undiscovered until after the first publication of early versions and others considered to be apocryphal. Contained within were two books called The Book of Adam and Eve I & II (also known as The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan). Though it didn’t occur to me until very recently, the entire season has been about a return to the island. It’s about a return to Eden. This is the miracle jungle that heals the sick and is hidden from the rest of the world – minus a select few. In the Books of Adam and Eve, once the two are banished from the Garden, Adam and Eve are full of sorrow. They are so stricken with grief once the realize that they cannot return to Eden that they try to take their own lives over and over. The leap from cliffs only to be spared by a God that feels sorry for them. I thought of Jack quite a bit here – he wanted to go back. He was so stricken with sorrow that he’d drank himself into addiction, alienated the love of his life and was completely broken. However, returning to the island was not even good enough to satisfy his quest to return to paradise. He had to make them go back – go back to before the plane crashed and land safely in LAX. He wanted his innocence back – which is what Adam really wanted back – as seen in both Paradise Lost and The Book of Adam and Eve. At some point, Jack has realized that he’s been tricked into losing something so significant that he’s willing to lose everything that he’d gained in his time on the island – and Juliet is able to articulate it best – if the plane never crashes, she doesn’t have to love and lose Sawyer. Again, this is the use of the world loss, lost, lose with which the show’s double meaning engulfs us.

Jesus Christ and the John Locke Resurrection:
What would Biblical text be without Jesus Christ? I suppose it’d be the Old Testament. What would Lost be without a Jesus-figure – Gilligan’s Island? Really, we’ve been toyed with a bit on the theme of resurrection throughout the course of the show, and time and again – we’ve watched John Locke rise to the occasion – pun intended. Locke has been the most interesting, complex, confusing characters in recent television. Now, Paradise Lost doesn’t focus much on The Son of God – other than to offer himself as sacrifice to God on behalf of Adam and Eve – or mankind 2000 years later (if you’re going to sacrifice yourself – might as well get your bang for your buck). The important thing to note in Paradise Lost is that – unlike The New Testament – Jesus Christ is not the main character. He is a side character at best, because the purpose of Paradise Lost is not to chronicle saving mankind. It’s to illustrate the humanity in its loss. I think it’s pretty hard to try to explain what Milton was thinking or intended when he penned that piece. However, I know my feelings when reading it is that Adam, Eve – hell even Satan – all have human qualities prior to their falls. They are vain, prideful, independent and argumentative. They – just like our lovely cast from Lost – exhibit qualities of humanity. It is not a matter of whether they will rise above all the noise to sacrifice for and save one another – it’s a matter of whom. So far it seems like John Locke is the piece of the puzzle that continues to inspire, drive and lead both The Others and The Losties. He’s had his moment of doubt when he shouted at the sky – and refused to press the button. He’s risen more times than a flag in a schoolyard – both from a grave and his sweat lodge. He’s been pulled from the clutches of death so often - that I was no longer surprised when he was still alive. I am not sure of what’s to come in Season Six, but I do feel that John Locke will be back – but he will not be the same man he grew to become. I believe he will once again be broken and shattered, but I do believe that in him lies the key to saving everyone else – doesn’t that make him Jesus’ mini-me in the Lost Universe?

Others:
Betcha think this is going to be about Benjamin and the gang. Nope. I just needed one last section to sort through a few other interesting thoughts, characters and possible ties to Paradise Lost. To quote one of my favorite movies – Blazing Saddles – “Where are all the women?” Okay, so I am missing a qualifier there – but you understand my point. If this is all about Paradise Lost, we’re going to have to start trying to figure out who Eve is. Could be a few people right? Is it Kate? Is it Juliet? Is Jacob really a woman? Who knows. I do know this though – if the theme of our favorite show on TV right now centers around Paradise Lost. A lady’s going to be/or already has been tempted by the serpent. Last time I checked, John Locke’s got a Y in those chromosomes. Could it be Juliet has already eaten her apple by banging on the H-Bomb. Was Jack our fool to be duped by Satan (or one of his demons – in Paradise Lost it is mentioned that Satan worked with Beelzebub – Lord of the Flies)? Did that snake take the form of Daniel? Remember, just because a body wasn’t inhabited doesn’t mean that the power of Jacob (or something) didn’t start impacting the way people thought on the island. I believe that Esau had a similar level of power on the island – and could impact people who resided there as well. Daniel had clearer thoughts and knew what he had to do as he stayed longer – much like John Locke gaining strength of body and mind did throughout seasons 1-3. Speaking of stayed longer – where did he go for three years in the ‘70s? Are we sure the Daniel that influences Jack (people and free will are time travel’s wild card) is really the Daniel that we met present time?

Another thought that I considered was an interesting relationship that Satan has in Paradise Lost. He creates Sin – his daughter which came into being when his plan to overthrow God was conceived. He later spawns Death – with Sin. Sin is an interesting character because – well she is created in the image of her father – and eventual lover – only to spawn an unholy offspring – aptly named Death. I’ve been trying to wrap my mind around who might represent these characters in the story. Do any of them represent Benjamin? Juliet? Kate? It seems to me that it’s important to consider Sin and Death to be represented as characters in Lost if there is a tie to Paradise Lost – as children have also played an important part of this story (or the lack of natural born children on the island – making every child who has been on the island all the more important). So – is Lost an allegory for the fall of angels and man – better known in this post as free will vs. fate? If that’s the case, did the creators of Lost consider Paradise Lost as the main piece of work from which their phenomenon is based? Will we see Sawyer’s book in his carry-on luggage is a piece by Milton? I dunno – but he does like to read.

It's Deep (The Abyss - The Director's Cut)

"I drown, and you tow me back to the rig," is the line delivered with logic and confidence by Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio's Lindsey Brigman. As Bud (Virgil as Lindsey like to call him) tries to argue with her knowing he won't win the debate, she explains that he's already wearing the wet suit and that the rig's crew can resuscitate her. He's the stronger swimmer. The water is near freezing, and that will make it easier to resuscitate her. It's the only play - really. With the plan firmly set, water continues to fill the stranded submarine. "No! No! No! I don't want to die," she weeps as logic is battled by her on survival instinct and reality of the rising water sets in - she's going to die. This scene begins the end of a Sci-Fi, action thriller and begins a somber, beautiful drama about sacrifice, loss and the humanity that makes some beyond human.

One of the most difficult things, for me, is writing about movies I didn't buy and put on our shelf. This would be one of them. I didn't dislike The Abyss but I can't say it is anything I would want to watch again. I appreciated the story but the bubbly water sounds soothed me in and out of sleep while I was watching it this second time. I think, perhaps, this may have been the case when I watched it for the first time as well. I do have several types of movies I really enjoy and this just doesn't fit into the genres selected.

I guess the majority of this one will be on me then - which is fine, because tonight we're watching Across the Universe. I'm sure that Alicia will be much more responsive to writing about that. What else is there to say about The Abyss? After Titanic, many hastled Cameron for "King of the World" proclimation at the Oscars - and his reputation suffered for it. He was perceived by many as childish - and by extension his films were as well. That doesn't change the fact that he made some great movies. The Abyss is one of them. It's no secret that Titanic was given to him on the technical reputation he received after completing this. Estimates are that nearly 40% of the scenes in this movie are filmed underwater in a containment building at an unfinished nuclear power plant. The movie is now twenty years old and stands the test of time from a visual point of view due to Cameron's access to the facility. The Director's cut gives us a new theme that adds tremendous meaning to the film. With aliens considering to destroy most of mankind due to their inability to live peacefully - those same aliens witness multiple acts of kindness and sacrifice from Bud and his crew.

Though Cameron will be remembered for The Terminator, T2 and Titanic (how many T-movies does this guy have -- 3), his ground breaking FX from T2 started in The Abyss - look at the scene in which the aliens observe on the crew of the rig using water as there harmless supterfuge. Top those ground breaking FX with Ed Harris, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio and Michael Biehn's (Oscar buzzed - though didn't receive a nod) performances and you have a movie that stands the test of time and tests timeless themes. I strongly urge those of you who love SciFi to own this movie - so long as you find the Director's Cut. I also believe that you'd watch this time and again noticing something interesting about the film with each viewing. This is one of those movies who Special Effects also stand the test of time - bringing us back to watch it believing that a story like this is really something that could take place in the near future. Oh, and it's deep. :)

Hi! I'm a Mac (Accepted)

Why do we watch far-fetched comedies? I ask myself this upon second viewing of Accepted. I thought the reason would be Justin Long. It wasn't. I didn't love Justin Long in the smart-guy Van Wilder-esque role he plays in this movie. The smart guy who has everything figured out but yet isn't able to get into any college for which he applies. He's highly likable and his shady ways seem endearing and with heart. Still, I can't say anything that I found about him funny.
What I did find funny: Lewis Black delivering lines as Lewis Black. I also liked the evolving talents of Jonah Hill, who we see everywhere now, it seems, but, possibly, made his debut appearance in Accepted. He's a little shy, a lot awkward, and has the scream of a 10-year-old girl. Hill seems to make up for the laughs missing elsewhere in the movie.

I've said it for years. I have a weakness for dumb comedies. There are those that aren't high in quality or believability. Accepted falls into this category easily. It doesn't hurt that I too like Justin Long and his Macintosh commercials. Enter Bartleby - or B. He's a guy always trying to buck the system with schemes and facilitating rebellion. However, in his quest to make fake IDs for friends and pull the wool over eyes of teachers and administrators - he failed to do one thing - get into college. The pressure he feels from the disappointment his parents have in him motivates him - with the help of his best friend, Sherman - to created a fake website and letter of acceptance for the South Harmon Institute of Technology. Yes - S.H.I.T. - where you can follow your dreams - and everyone is accepted. When dad gives B $10,000 for his first semester's tuition - Bartleby and his friends rent a dilapidated, closed-down mental hospital and attempt to turn it into their S.H.I.T.

The rest of the story will be about how Bartelby and his friends continue to feign college life and attempt to provide some sort of educational institution to others. The parents stop by for a visit and reality is dodged on several instances. At a huge party of a fake college we are introduced to random characters one-by-one and realize that every ones hero in Bartelby also is soon to become every ones huge let down. We know the big reveal is coming but just not sure when, where, or to what degree. That is one truly great thing about dumb/far-fetched comedies, you can get away with, basically, anything. The story can stray, skateboarding can be a college course, and the resolve can be incredibly planned and tie-up perfectly.

You forgot about the girl Alicia. Bartleby has admired the token blond from afar throughout all of high school - and the hero that he becomes at South Harmon provides the confidence to win her love - regardless of the popular boyfriend she followed to a prestigious college. Of course, we know that Bartleby will end up with her, and we know that her boyfriend will be B's main protagonist. The problem with this is Bartleby really isn't that different than he was in high school. You get the feeling that Justin Long's B has always been liked - and there's no reason for him to not have approached her in high school. I had fun with this movie, but it's a weaker version of Animal House or Van Wilder. Though neither of those two are perfect comedies - but the key to those two is the cool factor of Van Wilder or Bluto or Otter. I do think Bartleby is cool by the time the South Harmon is opened for enrollment, Justin Long's attempt at playing the nervous, clunky, awkward 18 year old doesn't seem to fit with what he becomes. He says, "It's a Renter." I can honestly say that I bought this blind in hopes of it to be a new Animal House or Superbad - but it really only had a few moments that I laughed out loud at. There are things that you'll like about this movie, but if you can't displace your disbelief - you'll be frustrated with it.

Dear Ndugu (About Schmidt)

The movie opens in silence. Life was winding down for Jack Nicholson's Warren Schmidt as he looks up at the the ticking clock illustrating what he's done his whole life - watched time go by quietly. He's retiring after accomplishing little that would be remembered in his company and field - his final title is a Vice President of Underwriting in a life company of an insurance company. Alexander Payne's About Schmidt comes a couple of years before Sideways and a few after Election. The comedy is subtle - only to be trumped by its immense sadness. In that sad comedy lies a truthful look at life - constantly illustrating that the real world is much funnier than what is dreamed up by Hollywood.

Certainly something that I appreciate in this movie are the actors who look like regular, normal people. Warren Schmidt's wife looks like someone who could live next door to you. The couple who invites him to their camper look like...campers. The building Warren Schmidt worked at looks like a regular building and his house looks like a normal house. I could go on. One thing that, I believe, makes the audience find this movie endearing is due to how easy it is to see others you know, or even yourself, in the characters. The way Warren pens his thoughts about his wife, Helen, or the way he comments about the trials of traffic upon a long trip to visit his daughter, you begin to know him and realize you already know someone like him. This element appeals to the charm of the movie. The blue eyeshadow on Jeannie and Hummel figures Warren collects - each detail telling the story and making everything make a little more sense.

I remember watching this movie in the theater. Alicia and I went with friends from work - an insurance company. Even though Alicia and I loved it, our friends - who are little bit older than the two of us - didn't. When I talked with the two of them later to try to get to the bottom of what they didn't like about the movie. They couldn't really point to anything specific. They liked the performances and laughed out loud at some things. I think what they had a problem with was just how real it was - but more poignantly the film forces us to consider, "What's the meaning of life?" It's a question that Schmidt didn't even know he was looking to discover it until the life he knew was over. In order to make something like that work - the people have to look real. The places need to be places that we recognize. There's no romanticism. There's no dream-come-true. It's just a slice of life.

A slice of life served with a side of heartache and despair. I could see the story being a hard one to swallow. I suppose it depends upon what you want to get out of a movie you see. Through the harsh realism, however, there is some strange delight in the quirky characters, empty rooms, tacky weddings, and letters to Ndugu.

Schmidt's journey to find meaning to his life starts with his retirement, the loss of his wife and takes him on a cross country journey to his daughter's wedding - to a man he feels doesn't deserve her. About Schmidt illustrates a coming of age story for someone at the end of his life. Knowing Nicholson - we anticipate him to have a "Jack" moment. When Jeannie's fiance, Randall, approaches him to invest in a pyramid scheme - we expect a "Jack" moment. When Randall's mother screams and curses at her ex-husband - we expect a "Jack" moment - and finally, when asked to give the toast at his daughters wedding, the "Jack" moment never happens. Instead, he goes on with living his life responsibly - true to his nature. And when the movie draws to it's close and we watch Schmidt find meaning in his life - we get our "Jack" moment that is touching, beautiful and real. He says, "It's a buyer." If you're a Jack Nicholson fan, this will be a movie that you'll watch to see a range that we knew Jack had but delivered with a silent, reserved approach that he has never given us. You've seen One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, The Shining and A Few Good Men - but you've never seen Jack like this. Of all my Nicholson movies, I'm glad this is the first I was able to tell you About.

Thirtysomething Going On Thirteen-something (About a Boy)

When sitting down for the first time to watch About a Boy, I really didn't know what to expect. Hugh Grant is cool, but prior to this movie, I can honestly say that I could take him or leave him. The same can be said about Rachel Weisz and Toni Collette - as I'd just not seen enough of them to appreciate them. The only thing I'd seen by the Weitz Brothers was American Pie - which I saw in the theater but walked out feeling a little dirty and childish for laughing at some of the jokes that I did laugh at. About a Boy seems to highlight what's great about all the aforementioned. Hugh Grant is wonderful as the spoiled thirtysomething living the dream life but still missing something meaningful. The Weitz Brothers take Nick Hornby's work and seem to understand it very well and keep it smart. Thinking back, Hornby was the entire reason I was sitting in a theater opening night for this. Alicia had been reading him for years and loved his work. It didn't hurt that I loved High Fidelity - which was also based on his work.

Nick Hornby's story was the cause for my excitement for the movie. Since High Fidelity, Hornby has built a reputation for working with great musicians as well and having the talent to pair fantastic music with the stories he tells. This one isn't any different. He chooses Badly Drawn Boy to create the soundtrack. Coincidentally (or not) I had been listening to Badly Drawn Boy previous to this movie's release. The pairing of the story and the music was enough for me to look forward to seeing it in the theatre.

I've been a fan of Hugh Grant since Four Weddings and a Funeral, which now that I think about it, is a movie I adore that we do not own. As Will, Hugh Grant comes across as, bluntly put, a jerk. He is out for nothing but his own personal gain and isn't accountable for casualties that may happen to get in the way. He uses lies and manipulation to get a date. He lives off the royalties of a Christmas song his father wrote. He does nothing else and has no shame. As an audience, we aren't suppose to like Will and, as an audience, we don't. I like how different Grant plays this role as opposed to other roles he had in past films. He isn't the stumbling but charming guy who we immediately root for from start to finish. He is the overly confident guy who, despite his actual age, needs a lesson in growing up.

Will goes to a support group for single parents that have been dumped. The only problem is that he doesn't have a child. I also get the feeling he'd never been in a relationship in which he was dumped. Grant meets Marcus because he goes on a date with one of the mothers at the support group who agreed to watch Marcus at the same time as his date. When returning Marcus to his mother's they find her unconscious after taking a bottle of pills - a suicide attempt. Marcus decides quickly that he needs extra help to watch over his mother. Though I think Marcus' original intent is to set up his mother (Toni Collette) with Will - he quickly recognizes that it won't work. They're too different - which is funny - because after watching Marcus and Will bond, you realize that they're quite different as well - and what Will needed was someone to need him. I really do love this Oscar nominated script - and pulled for Grant to get a nomination of his own. I believe this to be one worth repeat watching - as you'll laugh at something new every time and enjoy listening to Badly Drawn Boy's perky soundtrack.

Something I've noticed with the film interpretations of Nick Hornby's work is the integrity of the author remains in tact. I have this assumption Hornby was involved with the creation of each film. As a fan of Hornby's work, this is wonderful to see.

Seeing Spots (101 Dalmations)

I'm going to begin by stating my three favorite things about 101 Dalmations in no particular order: 1. The story is told from the perspective of a dog 2. Cruella DeVil is one of the best villains ever. 3. This is probably the first heist movie I'd seen.
I love dogs and I love dog stories. I am especially fond of this one as it is told from the perspective of a dog. This dog is Pongo. Pongo, true to a dog's nature, is highly loyal and incredibly smart. As the first scene opens the movie, Pongo watches out the window of a London flat where his owner, Roger, sits on a piano bench penning a new song. The scene, from the perspective of a dog lover and a songwriter, is one of charm and beauty.

As Roger states when he writes the Cruella DeVil song, the melody comes first and the words arrive later. He pounds the infectious tune on the piano and the lyrics appear due to the inspiration of a rotten woman named Cruella DeVil. She bursts into the flat wearing a black and white fur coat matching the black and white colors on both sides of her hair. Her face is skeletal and the green smoke from her cigarette pollutes the paths where she walks. The song perfectly encapsulates the greedy, filthy, scary character of Cruella DeVil.

A puppy heist! I saw this movie as a young kid, way before watching it again as an adult. I can't say I remember another animated heist movie. There is a sense of tension as the puppies are stolen and the chase is on. Thus enters bumbling henchmen and plot-thickening capers ensue.

Alicia and I watched this with our son, Keaton. It was wonderful to watch it with the eyes of a four year old present. Keaton cackled with glee at the bumbling attempts to contain the dogs during the escape scenes, and through his eyes, I remembered what I loved about Disney movies. The art has the magic that all Disney movies prior to 1970 and after 1985 have - but it has more - this is a Disney movie that has aged well - for many of the reasons that Alicia mentioned above. You know that I had to go here - but I actually thought this movie played better than the 1996 live action Glenn Close version. And the difference is the appeal to children - I just felt that the 1961 version had a slapstick bang-em-up feel - and it was fun to watch.

I find it interesting the horrid conflict which our faces heroes. Cruella wants the dogs to kill, skin and make coats out of the puppies. When you think about it's scary - and I wondered if Keaton even realized the consequences of Cruella successfully completing her plan. Upon further reflection, I realized that it really didn't matter. The magic of Disney is that regardless of the conflict, they instill in us a confidence in their heroes. We know they will overcome. Perhaps it's the bumbling nature of the villains. Perhaps it's the strength of the heroes.

More of the Disney magic could be the heroes, in this case, are dogs. Pongo and Purdy protecting their puppies and the puppies they find. The brood of other breeds of dogs heeding the call for help. I agree with Jason, in that, we know everything is going to be okay. We know this from the beginning and we are more interested in the journey. How will the puppies get back home not questioning if the puppies will make it back home.

I don't know if this is a favorite Disney movie of mine, but it is a classic that I still adore. I enjoy the vivid setting, the iconic villain, the songwriter, and strong sense of family. I was happy to watch it again, after many years, with Keaton. I'm sure we will watch it again.

That's the thing isn't it. We'll watch it again and again. Keaton will still laugh at it, and we won't mind watching this one time and again like one might Barney or what's the flavor of the year for toddlers. As a parent, I'd say buy this while you can - as we all know it's going back in The Disney Vault for ten years - if not more. So, he says, It's a Buyer. Even if you don't have children, it's fun and that fun lies in the presence of the villain. There's no doubt that we love to hate her!

If I Were Lucy, I'd Forget This Movie Tomorrow (50 First Dates)

I feel that whenever I watch an Adam Sandler movie, I know what to expect. There will be the over-the-top jokes that go too far and had potential to be funny but fell flat because the joke took the route of gross out or annoyingly shocking. There will be the obligatory appearance by Rob Schneider. There will be a main character, played by Adam Sandler, who is the ladies man for reasons I can never figure out. There will be several quirky characters who don't have much screen time but who are lovable additions to the story...I could go on. 50 First Dates doesn't stray from this formula. The movie wasn't painful to watch. There were parts of the movie I found cute and rather interesting, however, I couldn't seem to find anything redeeming about the movie in order to give it a second watching.

Do you see the look on Drew Barrymore's face in the photo? I think it was the same look on my face upon second viewing of this film. Why did I buy this? I didn't buy it blind. I bought it because I liked it. However, after watching a walrus vomit on a character - in an exaggerated fashion, Sandler try to figure out the gender of a gender-ambiguous person and Rob Schneider talking with a Pacific Island, Hawaiian-native accent, I definitely was wondering what I originally saw in the movie. Well, enter Drew Barrymore's Lucy - the memories came back. That's not saying I am the biggest Barrymore fan in the world, but I do know that I liked the chemistry between Sandler and Barrymore - just as I did in The Wedding Singer - and it worked here. The two of them have something going - and it's believable. The script is often forgetable, but the two of them are not. That's not to say that I am ripping on Sander. I was there opening weekend for Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore. But I was also a beer drinking, tailgating College Student at the time. I suppose my tastes have matured - and I know Sandlers has too - so I cringe a little bit at that Happy Madison humor, because it just doesn't fit in this. If you want to make another goof-ball comedy, continue making the over-the-top silly, but let's see what a script looks like that focuses on the crazy romance that is forgotten every 24 hours by one of the star-crossed lovers.

So, the audience learns that Lucy was in a car accident with her father and suffered brain damage as a result. Lucy is not able to remember anything after a 24-hour day. Her father and brother continue to re-enact the day the accident happened everyday to prevent causing Lucy any grief. The comedy ensues when Henry makes attempts, on a daily basis, to win over Lucy over waffles at a local restaurant. This continues as Henry gets to know Lucy better and begins to understand what works with her and what does not. I also liked Barrymore as Lucy. She is funny when she has to be funny and she easily obtains empathy when she needs empathy. I enjoyed watching her as Lucy as believe that she made the totally ridiculous concept make as much sense as it could. I didn't care for watching Henry, however...as Adam Sandler played the same character he plays about 90% of the time. I wasn't concerned with his success with Lucy or her family.

So - why is it that we don't connect with Sandler in this movie? It's not his talent as we've seen him in some really great roles - Punch Drunk Love or The Wedding Singer. I think it's that when he does choose to play this type of character - we've seen it a dozen times. However, that said, it's the relationship that works. As I watched the ending, I felt a bit touched by their marriage, her daughter and the support of Lucy's family as they took his research trip around Alaska. I'd say this is well worth renting. I still question why I bought this and realized that it was a sale item - probably $4.99.

You Want To Know How I Know You're Into This Movie? (The 40 Year Old Virgin)

40-Year-Old Virgin has a way of appealing to, what might seem to be, a rather vast audience. The cast includes the broken-hearted and forlorn, Paul Rudd, the scheming Seth Rogan, the guy who talks a big game, Romany Malco...and then there is the seemingly awkward wallflower, played by Steve Carrell. The jokes also seem to range from the rather raunchy to quick and witty. The buddy comedy focused on sex isn't a buddy comedy focused on sex. It is, perhaps, the opposite.

I remember hearing about this movie and being very excited. For years, I'd watched Carrell and Stephen Colbert verbally spar on The Daily Show. To top that, Alicia and I were huge fans of Judd Apatow's Freaks and Geeks and Undeclared - and being that he was co writer and director of this, it seemed like something we'd really be into. The script by Apatow and Carrell was no disappointment. Though there was a healthy dose of crude and sexual jokes, the script is surprisingly full of heart. I think that I can honestly say that I have never have watched a movie rooting for the hero to have sex, but this movie pulls it off...

I could, potentially, watch Paul Rudd in anything...and, lucky for me, he is in everything. This movie was one of the first of many comedies he would star in. I enjoyed watching the cast just interact...what appeared to be improvisation or just random verbal sparring, the cast clicked.


Alicia hit on something very special about this movie and other Apatow projects. Though the dialogue feels loose, the script feels tight. Apatow knows what he wants and directs from the school of Larry David. In any given scene, the script feels as though the actors know what they're supposed to do as they go into any given take - but their improvisational skills turn each scene into gold. So Andy (Steve Carrell) has turned into a hermit that goes from his neat breakfast to his safe job and back to his action figures, models and G.I. Joe dolls. It's obvious that Andy isn't as afraid of having a sexual relationship as he is about getting close to anyone that could hurt him or embarrass him. Yet the desire to be accepted and respected gives him enough courage to join the guys for a night of poker - in which he's pressured into confessing that he's still a virgin - and 40 years old.

Throughout most of the movie, Andy is ashamed about his virgin status. He feels embarrassed when talking with his friends over a poker game. He doesn't want to reveal the truth to his girlfriend, Trish, played by Catherine Keener. The movie is also about Andy coming to terms with his reality and, in turn, being okay with it. The story includes a message, of some sort, about differing from the norm and embracing that. This theme takes the audience through Andy's metamorphosis into being happy with who he is despite what others may say.

I think that's what makes this movie so fun. It's a teen-aged sex comedy with heart - but a group of middle-aged adolescents. This is a movie that I've watched multiple times and would recommend owning. Not only is it fun multiple times, but the jokes just don't get old. A few times they go overboard, but it's never too far. For those that are middle-aged, it takes you back to a time when you struggled with all the things Andy did, and for those of you that are young - well you surely must chuckle because you can relate.

Run Before You See the Red of Their Eyes (28 Weeks Later)

28 Weeks Later should have had quite a bit going for it. Everyone knew that it couldn't end with Jim and Selena surviving and everything being okay. I mean zombie movies just don't have happy endings - unless it's Shawn of the Dead. So here it is - we knew that people had to be hiding out. We knew that there had to be a few intelligent humans that would lock their doors and keep quiet and just hide out. Eventually the zombies would starve and civilization revived - or so they thought. Apparently, the survivors hiding out have never seen a zombie movie before. Enter Don (Robert Carlyle) and a his wife - hiding out with a group of survivors. When faced with his own mortality - and his wife's nurturing nature for a young boy - he turns tail and runs - I'm reminded of the old joke about the two men being chased by a bear in the woods - as one says to the other, "All I have to do is out run you." That's just what Don does - he leaves wife and random boy to raging zombies.

I suppose I wasn't watching this and considering the zombie movie rules. I liked the happy ending of 28 Days Later and, quite frankly, I wasn't concerned with what happened 28 Weeks Later (or 28 minutes later.) I didn't think there was a need to follow up this story with a clearly mediocre sequel. This could have been a completely different movie that was not tied to 28 Days Later and I would've been happier with the result. 28 Weeks Later did not have the visual appeal or retain my interest as its predecessor.

What can I say that Alicia didn't in her previous paragraph? I think the movie is a fine continuation for those of you that wanted to see the fate of mankind. However, 28 Days Later is really a story about Jim and Selena - we don't care what happened to the rest of mankind unless it has something to do with Jim and Selena. 28 Weeks Later are for all you zombie fans that want to see just how widespread this rage thing really was. I've believed - for quite some time that a good horror movie is about what is not shown. Suspense is the key to good horror. This movie is excessive in gore and violence - which is what appeals to those that have a different opinion than mine of what good horror is. That said, I can't help but argue there's something interesting about the second installment of this franchise. I think that in the sub-genre zombie movies - this does what others have done. First there's the character and social study of mankind (28 Days Later). Then there's the study of the arrogance of man - which is this - the belief that man can control the unnatural. From Night of the Living Dead to Dawn of the Dead - we see a significant change in the focus of what we care about as an audience, and the transition from Days to Weeks follows the same formula. I would say this is worth a watch if you're into zombie movies or believe that the 28 Days/Weeks world is one worth looking in on to see what's next. I'd even say that if you're Jonesing for a 28 Months Later that you should probably have it's two predicessors on your movie shelf. I, myself bought the movie blind - but would not recommend doing so to anyone but the most die-hard 28 Minutes/Days/Weeks/Years/Decades fans.

The New Bohemians Minus Edie (RENT)

I asked to have RENT jump ahead in our sequence due to an upcoming appearance by the actor, Anthony Rapp, who portrays Mark Cohen in this film adaptation of the musical. I have plans to see Anthony Rapp and I thought it would be beneficial to the experience to have a fresh look at the movie.

My first introduction to RENT was a stage production taking place at Assembly Hall on the University of Illinois campus. The stadium was cut in half, for seating, a stage was placed in the center facing the audience. I remember being somewhat distracted by a tall guy sitting in front of us and the sound, from what I recall, wasn't of the best quality. For a story like this one, basically told completely in song, sound is crucial. So, overall the experience for this musical wasn't the best. I still thought the story was a good one and I appreciated the well-crafted vocal melodies and modern themes.

I didn't see the film adaptation of RENT in the theatre. Jason gave it to me as a present. This was my second viewing as I remember watching it, by myself, about two to three years ago. Still, for the first time viewing, I chose Anthony Rapp's character, Mark Cohen, as a standout. As the archivist of the group, Mark captures the love, pain, and loss he and his friends experience. I was also pleased to be able to recognize Idena Menzel who portrays, the precarious, Maureen. After RENT, Idena Menzel would go on to play Elfaba in Broadway's Wicked. She would also star as Nancy in Disney's Enchanted. Here, Idena Menzel plays a feisty performance artist who is feisty and rather self-assured. As Maureen she taunts Mark's emotions and brings constant worry to her new girlfriend, Joanne. I thought the casting, for this, was fantastic. Voices as well as charismatic individuals blend together well to complete all roles.

I recall going to this at Assembly Hall with Alicia, and it was pure frickin' torture. I was not a musical fan at the time. I had yet to enjoy pieces such Singin' in the Rain, Moulin Rouge and Chicago - not to mention I had not really considered The Blues Brothers and The Wizard of Oz musicals. I suppose what I am trying to say is that I was very anti-musical at the time that I saw it - oh the things you do for love! Since then, I have opened my mind to musicals more. I've watched West Side Story and The Sound of Music, and they're okay. As I think back at the Assembly Hall experience, I go back to bad seats and being place firmly behind a very tall man - making the experience that I already wasn't looking forward to firmly placed on the side of bad.

I am glad to say that RENT was not that bad. The story was one worth watching. I still feel that I need a break though between songs. I am not a fan of musicals that begin with singing, end with singing and have nothing but singing throughout. Though the stage production that was saw had no dialogue, this did. That helped. I really liked Jesse L. Martin's Tom Collins and Anthony Rapp as well. Upon it's opening I recognized that this was written to showcase the voice talents of nearly every main character in this movie. They all had their opportunities to belt it out - and did. Though the story of love lost is one that we've seen a million times - in movies like Moulin Rouge and various other love tragedies - it was still engaging and the lyrics of the song were fitting to the story and delivered beautifully by the cast.

I am a huge fan of musicals. I became a fan, as a young child, as I was taken to see my brother act in such high school version classics of Oliver, West Side Story, Bye Bye Birdie, and Gypsy. I have been happy to see the musical, make a comeback and become more beloved and accepted by a wider audience. RENT isn't one of my favorite musicals. I have some problems with the flow of the story and some of the songs do not seem, to me, to be on par with the rest of the songs. I still believe, however, content-wise, the songs eloquently tell a story and elaborate on characters.

I think that the introduction of a group of people faced with living in destitute and faced with loved ones who have AIDS is a vehicle behind the tragedies each of these characters are faced with. The key word is living. These people are alive to the fullest and looking to share their art with the world - if only the world would listen. There is where I think the problem lies with this movie. It's not a bad movie, but I feel the suffering artist that these people are supposed to be portraying just isn't real. I felt more admiration for the lyrics, music, singing and acting than I felt sorrow for the loss that these characters experienced. The affection that I felt for Satine and Christian in Moulin Rouge just wasn't there in this. The disease that most of these people were living with felt absent at best. I also kept watching this waiting for Roger to tell Mimi that he was either HIV positive or had contracted AIDS. Perhaps this was done in the middle of one of the songs, or maybe she already knew. However, the fact that I missed this - while actively looking for it felt negligent at best. I did feel for Tom and Angel significantly, but I think it's because they addressed their disease in the time that we spend with these characters. I know that part of the point was to address that these people were alive - regardless of the fact that most think of those with AIDS as the walking dead. I applaud Jonathan Larson for approaching the material in this way - but I think that the movie suffered what happens all too often in musicals - sometimes key points just move too fast in the lyrics of a song. He says, "It's a Renter." I really don't see watching this again unless I were to see it on stage.

I don't think I would disagree with statements made in the above paragraph. I think I was so entranced by La Vie Boheme and enthralled with the passion the characters display for their craft. I may have put aside the importance of some key plot points. Where this musical is different from others, I believe, is the inclusion of AIDS and drug addiction. I also think the subject is one that brought much criticism for it. I do think the topics are dealt with, in a way, that is accessible to the public and it becomes an education and an enlightenment, perhaps, for some. To clarify, the story should bring about discussion from the audience who sees this and allows for questions and reviews to be written.

Where the Streets Have No People (28 Days Later)

Near the start of this movie, we see a lone man walking the streets of London. They are barren of people. There is no one to be seen in from Piccadilly Circus to Big Ben, and it's a miraculous shot. 28 Days Later is the first horror film reviewed by Jason and Alicia, and it's one of my favorites. A Danny Boyle film - it's clear through the viewing of this film why he went on to win the Oscar for 2008's Slumdog Millionaire. The premise is this - a virus is accidentally released on the population of London. Around the same time, Jim is admitted into a hospital with a head injury. 28 days later, he wakes up to find the city in ruin and no people to be found.

Cillian Murphy is at the top of my list for celeb-crushes so, watching Cillian Murphy as lead throughout 28 Days Later, was no difficult task. The good news is, there is more to Cillian Murphy than a pretty face. He certainly carries his own in 28 Days Later acting solo for a good portion of the movie and being forced into one situation to the next. The story unfolds in a way that speaks volumes with zero dialogue. The abandoned hospital and the empty London streets set the tone of ultra-creepiness. at this point, I am already asking, "Can the last man on earth save the world?" Another question might be, "Can the last man on earth save himself?" Boyle paints the desolate scene with artful panache to leave an audience gobsmacked and possibly, rather frightened before anything very obviously scary even occurs.

More to Cillian Murphy than a pretty face - hrm - I wonder what you're referring to Alicia. Cillian certainly lets it all hang out in this movie. Look for a transformation from the victim to leader of surviving mankind, but that's one of the keys of a good Zombie Movie - the everyman steps up that previously wouldn't have in a lesser situation. Quickly the film transforms from a horror movie into a social study of groups faced with their very survival. Some of the characters see the infection as an opportunity to shed their humanity in order to continue the human race while others realize that it's humanity that makes us stronger than the virus. It's the fact that we're willing to risk our own lives help someone else who needs it that makes us human. It's that we make connections from doing this, and allows us to make necessary connections. There lies the dilemma of this movie. Ultimate survival depends on these pockets of survivors repopulating the planet. However, early on Selena (Namoie Harris) tells Jim that she can't afford to have others slow her down because that means she'll be dead too. Though it goes unsaid that if one takes survival to such a selfish level, there will be no one left to allow for the human race to survive. Therefore, it is contingent that the social unit operate with order and common sense - but most of all humanity.

Something I found to be very frightening was the lack of trust to be found. Happening upon a non-infected person or group of people doesn't mean automatic bonding and safety. It seems as if the danger became more intense due to the militant behavior of the leader.

Watching this, I do think about the Human Vs. Zombies game I played at work. Similar, in that, I remember how anxiety was so high walking around the cafeteria as a "human" looking around and dodging getting tagged by a "zombie." I also noticed after I was tagged by a "zombie" and turned how I quickly bonded with the other zombies. I walked into the courtyard area at work and other zombies waved to me. The zombies were so much friendlier than the humans. Why is this so? Well, zombies have nothing to lose. The humans in the game, however, didn't trust one another. You rarely noticed another human because you were too busy looking over your shoulder for zombies. The humans didn't help one another out the way zombies did. I suppose the game reminds me a lot of the way of human behavior in 28 Days Later.

It was interesting to see the transformation of Jim throughout the film as well. He begins as someone feeling very lost and alone calling out in the empty streets to find any human response. He learns the new rules and learns to adapt in the fastest way possible in order to survive. These elements, combined with the direction of Danny Boyle, makes for a ride of artistic and horrific storytelling.

When I watched this for the first time, I bought it blind. I stand by that. I bought it due to it being released on Halloween and knowing that it was directed by 'the guy that directed Trainspotting,' but after watching it Danny Boyle's name stuck and I found myself consciously interested in what his next project would be. His movies have always been a study of how the social unit breaks down when faced with conflict - so a Zombie Movie is something that had to be done by Danny Boyle. Some have been better horror movies, and some have satisfied the sadists better with gratuitous gore, but short of Romero's Night of the Living Dead - none have better delivered a social study of humanity better.

Doyle's Law (25th Hour)

I was prepared to begin 28 Days, as I thought this was the movie on our shelf to follow 13 Conversations About One Thing, and in its place, I found 25th Hour. Although this was the first time I watched 25th Hour, I was glad to see it was written/directed by Spike Lee and starred Edward Norton. Expectations are set as it will likely be a story worth watching.

The story seems to be about a beaten man who was consumed by the city in which he lives. The scenery around him, the people, his father, his friends and his past. The 25th Hour allows for reflection, regret, and examination of the life he led.

The movie is more than a reflection on the way one leads his life though. It's a reflection on whether incarceration rehabilitates or destroys. 25th Hour questions whether the punishment fits the crime. Sure, we realize that Edward Norton's Monty would still be a practicing drug dealing businessman if he'd not been caught. However, Monty points out that by the time he is released from prison, he'll be 38 with a record, no college education and a completely ruined life, and that's the best case scenario assuming that nothing horrible happens to him while in prison. It seems to be no coincidence that Monty's best friend is Frank (Barry Pepper) who takes advantage of the misfortune of others by short selling stocks on a hunch about unemployment numbers going up. Though this was only partially pertinent in 2002 - shortly after 9/11, it seems as though Spike Lee recognized that fast individual profit comes at the expense of others. Enron seems like a distant memory in light of the recent events of financial institutions and Wall Street. I also believe it to be completely intentional that this movie takes place in New York City/Manhattan.

I don't believe we see regret for the lives ruined by the drugs he sold - other than his own. However, we do know that in the case of drug abuse, it takes more than one to commit the crime. The question is - which crime are we referring to? Is it the crime of selling drugs - doing drugs - or does it go deeper than that? Would Monty have stopped if his father or girlfriend or two best friends had thrown an intervention for him? It's safe to say that he wouldn't have stopped, but - as Frank points out to Naturelle (Rosario Dawson) - she had to know where the money was coming from but certainly didn't turn down the gifts, trips and lifestyle that Monty's profession afforded them. Perhaps Naturelle, his father and friends are supposed to be the symbolic voices of a nation that has ignored our addiction to a quick buck and 401K accounts that earn 30%.

I agree, in that, there is so much going on here that it would be difficult to choose one theme. This may be especially evident in one of the most powerful scenes, which I will call the 'bathroom mirror scene' where Monty is spoken to by his reflection in the mirror on a rant of blame using the people, events, and city surrounding him as scapegoats to explain his current situation playing the victim. Motivated by a profain statement written on the mirror, the audience is taken on a tour of the diversity of New York ripped apart by anger, guilt, and disgust. It is almost like an option or path to take to explain his past. The resolve is his own response to this rant taking accountability for his actions and rejecting placing blame on others.

The symbolism of Doyle, the dog practically left for dead, taken in by Monty that opens the film, is an exceptional addition. It seems that those beaten down by society or for whatever reason may be pushed aside for someone else to deal with...or left to fend for themselves. One watching the film may wonder if Monty takes in Doyle in a way that he would appreciate the nurturing and safety.

He Said, "It's a Blind Buyer!" Given the current state of our country, and the price you would pay for this move (probably no more than $7.50), this movie has quite a bit going for it on multiple viewings. Starting with this being one of Spike Lee's better movies on par with Do the Right Thing and Malcolm X, this movie is a character study that also forces us to consider social issues in a Dostoevsky-like manner. Right and wrong are relative to who's in control society (it's no irony the law that seal's Monty's future is called the Rockefeller Law). The cast is simply amazing as well - Edward Norton, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Barry Pepper, Rosario Dawson, Anna Paquin and Brian Cox all give their all in the scenes and they show that they understand the material.

A very well done character study that is engaging from start to finish. I recommend 25th Hour to those looking for a thought-provoking, socially conscious film.

Faith Is the Antithesis of Proof (13 Conversations About One Thing)

I recently organized and brought in Dr. Alan Zimmerman to speak at my company. For those of you who aren't familiar with his work, he's written such books as Pivot and Brave Questions. Zimmerman has drawn on his own personal experiences to formulate a universal truth - positive attitude leads to personal success and happiness. As I watched this movie for a second time, I thought about Dr. Zimmerman. I believe he would have liked this movie quite a bit. 13 Conversations is split into 13 vignettes - to which we assume will be about one thing. Our movie opens with Patricia (Amy Irving) smoking near an open window in her apartment with a table set for two - seemingly waiting for someone. Her husband enters - wet. "I forgot my umbrella he tells her," before saying anything else - before greeting his wife - before showing her some small gesture of appreciation. Walker (John Turturro) selfishly takes over a conversation his wife begins and diverts it to reflection about a recent mugging which left him with a black eye. He proclaims that he's looking for happiness - which is what anyone wants. We then move to a bar focusing on two people that seem to be in different places - certainly not together. Gene (played masterfully by Alan Arkin) is sitting at the bar by himself with his head down with the weight of the world on his shoulders. Troy (played by Matthew McConaughey) celebrates with several coworkers for successfully prosecuting someone. The two men engage in a conversation about lady luck. One man does not believe in it and the other believes that luck is contextual and what you make of it. It is with this premise that the movie continues and flows showing the interconnectedness of everyone to one another. If we take the lawyer's blind view of luck, fate or attitude - we ignore the fact that luck or fate is directly influenced by attitude. This story supports that philosophy.

'Conversations' is a very quiet movie, literally speaking, in that it is a movie about discussion, coincidence, and happenstance. I've always been a fan of a story told in a series of vignettes. I like the sections supported by titles and I also enjoy the way the characters become narrators or storytellers as the film progresses.

The quiet provides its audience with reflection - reflection of things done and not. We're thrust quickly into judging characters of this movie for anything from laziness to happiness to negligence. Though the movie focuses on thirteen conversations, the characters with which it focuses on is considerably less. Though there are really only about six people that these stories center around, those conversations lead to events that change the people involved - whether they realize it or not. Arkin's Gene seems to be the voice that carries these vignettes - if not from what he says then for what we know he's considering. The movie unfolds like life - moments of calm in the chaos. Whether those moments last seconds or years is something that is presented to us as if we're living within those moments.

He said, "It's a multiviewer." It's worth watching both to watch the tremendous cast and script. Jill and Karen Sprecher deliver the "One Thing" to us so that it feels very personal, because as the two of them worked on the script, it was personal to them. This is the type of movie that you could watch in a class and talk about it for days with your fellow students. This is one of the movies that makes you feel watching independent film is so worthwhile.

Are You Mentally Divergent - Friend? (12 Monkeys)

Time, memory, sanity - or insanity - and prophecy (Wikipedia's article on the film recognizes these concepts as well) are all themes examined and questioned closely in this film. 12 Monkeys is one strange duck - to be sure - but it is wonderfully woven forcing us at all times to wonder which time is real - what memories are accurate - is Cole (Bruce Willis) sane or not which would directly impact the truth of whether his prophecy will occur. In questioning all these things through the eyes of Cole, we have to then consider the implication to believe him one way or another has on the real world - which ever one is real if not both. Really - one thing is certain: the more things change, we realize the more they stay the same. Time is a cycle. Memories are a reflection of experiences yet to come. Sanity is assimilation. And science is the new religion.

I'm not one for Sci-Fi, however, I am one for the weird. Thankfully, for me, the two often combine. So is the case with 12 Monkeys. The appeal, to me, over the Sci-Fi element is the weirdness. I enjoy the constant guessing game the audience must play through the film and I appreciate the unclear conclusions one may attempt to draw. While watching this, I felt as if I had to keep up with each scene to link the series of events.

The concept that most intrigued me, besides the time traveling, was the structuring of memories. I believe we, often, remember things the way we want to remember them. I think we also construct details based on pictures we see or experiences we have. 12 Monkeys allows the audience to go through this with Bruce Willis' character, James, as he reflects on a recurring dream. The faces change to become more familiar and pieces are added as the story builds. I was also interested in the fondness James had for music that seemed to escape him in the futuristic world from which he came. He seemed so comforted by listening to the radio as if it was something else that was added to the list of things taken away from him.

Watching Gilliam provides no shortage of weird - that's for certain. Time travel and the apocalypse are simply vehicles to force us to reflect on the struggle that takes place between those who want to control society's picture of sanity and those who want the freedom to experience life in a way that makes the most sense to them. It's a theme we've seen time and again in Gilliam's work - but it's constructed appeal to mass audiences in this movie - which showed in its $160M worldwide gross. Some might say that the appeal of Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt rolled in the audiences, but I can remember the strength in the word of mouth on how good this movie really was. Not only is the concept one that intrigues most of us - what if I was the only one that knew the end of the world was coming but no one believed me. Rarely is it done well - ask Al Gore and his Oscar about that!

The weird of this movie works so well because we see a future that is a blend of the past, present and imagined future. In other words, it's not very far from what we might imagine a post-apocalyptic future to resemble - the more things change, the more they stay the same. There are elements of his other work here - Python movies, The Fisher King and Brazil all seem to be here - but with a story that hooks us from the opening shot.

Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt certainly did not detract from the appeal, of course. When watching the scenes with Brad Pitt, I recalled the creepy character he played in Kalifornia and, most recently, his portrayal of the hyperactive fitness instructor in Burn Before Reading. Pitt is far more diverse than some may give him credit for and this seemed evident in his early work as well.

And although the film's themes were rather grim, there is also a sense of sarcasm, wit, and absurdity to it that, to me, reflected Gilliam's want to not take everything so seriously. I would say examples of this are included in the music from the film. This may be within the original songs from the score and of the playing of 'What a Wonderful World' locked on the FM driving to Pittsburgh. Humor being a sign of intelligence there is much intended here.

I was teased for years about having a man-crush on Brad Pitt, but the truth is this role is the beginning of my respect for his abilities. I saw then what very few chose to see - his ability to throw himself completely into a role. His ability to improvise throughout the scenes of the mental hospital are as hilarious as they are frightening. Pitt - the pretty boy is nowhere to be found in this movie. Yes, he threw himself completely into the role - as did Willis. I couldn't help but wonder how difficult it would be to drool on queue as Willis sits in the jail cell in 1990. Gilliam has taken some great actors and showcased talent that many of us as views have not seen in any other role - DeNiro in Brazil and Depp in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas come to mind imediately. This movie is no different. For those that are not Pitt fans, this is one that will make you reconsider - and you'll certainly get more out of Willis than the quick one-liner. He said, "It's a multi-view." This movie is one that you can not watch without dedicating full attention. The story is very complex, and if you miss something early - you'll either feel lost or miss the genius of this tight-tight script. If you're a Sci-Fi fan or a Gilliam fan, this belongs on your shelf as one of the best in both categories.

Slightly confused but continuously interested, I was glad to be able to watch this again.

It's Hot in Here and We Need to Get to a Ballgame (12 Angry Men)

Mr. Lumet (no French-sounding silent T in his name), I would feel badly calling this your best work, because it would imply that you rushed out of the gates too quickly. With works like Dog Day Afternoon, Murder on the Orient Express, Network and others - it's tough to say it's your best work. However, it's greatness can not be denied. 12 Angry Men boasts an all-star cast by any standards with Henry Fonda anchoring it by doing what he does best - wearing the white suit (no offense Once Upon a Time in the West). The movie does so many things so well, that it's hard to know where to begin.

Not having much background knowledge about 12 Angry Men, I started analyzing the film from the very start. The opening scene in the courtroom. I noticed the jury box and, what I could assume, were the 12 Angry Men for which the film was titled. At first, I wanted to rename the film, 12 Angry Men and 1 Angry Woman. The woman being me due to the fact I noticed zero woman in the group as this story takes place when women were not allowed to serve on a jury.

Taking time to move past that, I also assumed the film would take place in one room. In this instance, it did...for the most part. Very true to theatre, everything happened within a set timeframe within the courthouse. Also, following suit, the cast consisted of the 12 Angry Men...no more and no less. This allows for an intimacy with each character as time progresses and characters reveal themselves. This also begins right away as, what was thought to be, a quick and easy decision between 12 men deviates without warning. A bold move to vote in a way that differs from everyone else in the group. There are shouts of bothersome discontent about the vote and very little empathy. My favorite response to this is when Fonda's character states that he doesn't know if the defendent is not guilty therefore leaving a reasonable doubt. The scenes following include the process of exploring the defendent's story from start to finish as if there could be a reasonable doubt. Besides the breadth of the defendent's story, I believe the concept of Group Think and basic social behaviors are also examined. Other people affecting our opinions and if there was an anonymous voting process would our vote change. Fonda's character allowed for that window of doubt, worry, concern, and awareness. Men began looking inward and reflecting upon family. Some began opening their minds to possible motives that aren't black and white.

In talking with Alicia, she's made the point that at the end of the movie, we don't know if the right decision has been made by this jury. She implies that she wonders if the boy is guilty - but I would have to argue that it doesn't matter. Reasonable doubt was established - which is all the boy needed for his freedom. Here's the point. The all-star cast walked into that room - minus one - deciding the boy was guilty due to reasons that had little to do with candid examination of the evidence. Their attention spans were on to the next thing - which is what I think Lumet illustrated so well and may have been a visionary in considering the fate of American Society. After all, is a trial determined by a jury of your peers fair if all your peers don't take the time to consider key points - or consider points that have no bearing on the case. In considering those things - this is where Juror Number 8/Davis is our hero. He plants the seed for other to consider reasonable doubt - which is what any of those men should have stopped to consider.

Besides the strength of the script which considers timely social relevance, Lumet's direction and the ensemble cast is tremendous. There's a reason that this movie is deservingly ranked as #9 on the IMDB list of great movies. Lumet gives us the feeling of being locked in the room with the men who want to leave - and at first, we feel anxious. There's a sense that we don't know where things are going. We're not really sure if we want to see it through, but something in the back of our head drives us to spend just a few more minutes listening and watching. And the subtlety with which Fonda poses the inital questions that bothered him throughout the trial illustrates the skills we'd seen on the silver screen for twenty years. As we fast forward to the future, we see many of these actors go on to win countless awards - some for Lumet's work. He said, "It's a multiple viewer." I can honestly say when I've seen it on TV, I've stopped and watched scenes. Lumet and Fonda fans need to own this. However, other than that - I'd say watch and decide for yourself.

I appreciate the topic explored and I would be curious to watch this story unfold on stage as part of a live performance. The courage of Juror Number 8 equals success, influential power, and more importantly, justice.

Alicia Will Take a Guitar Every Time I Screw Up - No Problem! (10 Things I Hate About You)

It's been one week since you thought about yet another critic out there to write about movies. Well have we a treat for you -- two for the price of one! Alicia and I are going to give you a break down of all the movies on our shelf from top to bottom - that is if she can keep up on the Westerns - 3:10 to Yuma has already been declared a casualty of war (no way alicia makes it through that movie either). Maybe we'll swing back around for that one. That said, Jason and Alicia's partnership in blogsville will begin with 3:10 -- er wait - 10 Thing I Hate About You (1999). Shakespeare has never appealled to the masses as much and another teen comedy has never appealled to the self-appointed artistic community more than this - if ever.

I was at the movie theatre with a friend and the choice was between 10 Things I Hate About You and Pushing Tin. Sadly, Pushing Tin, for whatever reason, was chosen. So, I left the theatre disappointed in choosing Pushing Tin and, now, for missing out watching 10 Things I Hate About You in the theatre. The movie was a DVD purchase and it has become one of my favorite comedies we own.

To begin, I'll start with opposition (already, I know, so soon) I think 10 Things I Hate About You appeals less to what might be labeled as an artistic community and more to an audience that could possibly care less about Shakespeare. I believe that, perhaps, part of the reason Pushing Tin was chosen over '10 Things' was, due to the fact, I thought it would likely be another brainless comedy about high school kids exchanging ridiculous dialouge with a prom finale. Now, this is a comedy, it is about high school kids, the high school kids exchange dialouge, and there is a prom scene. The difference is that is isn't brainless or ridculous and, even if I had no idea this was a modern version of Taming of the Shrew, I would be impressed. Still, this stated, '10 Things' certainly does make Shakespeare accessible to any audience.

Opposition aside, some of you are probably thinking that a review of a movie that's ten years old is a bit odd, but to watch it again reminds me of how timeless a movie like this - not to mention The Bard - really is. As we watched it today, I was genuinely thoughtful, funny and full of heart - even if the occasional sex joke about black underwear is dropped in there - then again - didn't Shakespeare even dabble in that type of humor? Maybe we should talk plot a little.

Cameron is new to town and immediately burns, pines and perishes for Bianca Stratford (nevermind that Tommy wanted to get with Alissa in 3rd Rock). However, everyone knows that Bianca's father won't let her date. Joey should know - he's been trying to get with the younger Stratford girl the entire year. The rules change overnight though when Kat and Bianca's father gives Bianca permission to date when Kat dates - which is very unlikely. Enter Heath Ledger wearing a Patrick Verona costume, and hijinks ensue.

Admittedly, I was thinking the same thing - Who wants to read about a movie that is ten years old? Also, for this reason, we can skip around and write about various aspects of the film rather than write about it in any sort of sequence as many others have already seen this. Also, it gives me an opportunity to gush about it, even a little, I'll take it.

I admire the story unfolding at Padua High, as it does, with introductions to each main character and a few of the high school staff (a highlight being Allison Janney as Principal Perky who could really care less about disciplining students and cares more about the awkwardly inappropriate erotic novel she works on in between student visits to her office.) Something that draws me to this movie, is certainly, the cast and the quirky characters each actor is able to pull off with ease. Julia Stiles, as Katerina Stratford who I identify with the most. Somewhat sadly, because I was somewhat like Kat in high school (minus being ultra-rude to anyone and everyone that crossed my path.) Another favorite is Heath Ledger as Patrick Verona. His character's image is one which is meant to provoke fear as, one would think, he was used to rejection. Maybe, for this reason, he is the best candidate to attempt to break through Kat's hardened shell.

The thing about 10 Things I Hate About You is that it's like trying to define the difference between "like" and "love." I mean I like modern takes on the teen movie - such as Superbad, Juno and various others - but I love 10 Things I Hate About You. Beyond the fact that this English degree holding critic can proudly cite this to be a remake of a Shakespearian work - it's just fun as hell. I kept thinking throughout the course of the movie about Heath Ledger and how he's no longer with us. It saddened me - once again - as even early in his career we saw that he had that thing. Call it "It!" Call it what you want, but one thing is certain. Ledger had talent and knew how to elevate a work which he was involved. With the wrong Patrick Verona, this movie could have been a wreck. To play the guy perceived as a badass hood but who really has a heart of gold is a difficult line to walk. Most of the time, when I see someone like Ledger in a movie like this - I'll refer to him as "The 10 Things I Hate About You guy" - not with Ledger though. Right away, his name stuck. So, you must be asking what it is that I thought this movie? He said, "It's a buyer." I bought this one for a reason - it's fun, thoughtful and worth multiple watches. Heath Ledger looks so young in this, but if you watch closely, you'll see the budding talent of an actor who's been working on his craft for decades. It's too bad that we only had him for one.

Now this, I agree with, in that, Heath Ledger is the right Patrick Verona. I also agree that he makes this work. It is also very fun. This is one of the reasons I could watch '10 Things' over and over again to the point of line memorization. I just like it. It is fun, lightweight, somewhat dreamy, and transporting to an overprivledged world that I can't compare with anything I've experienced but, at the same time, would have liked to all the same. I am able to suspend my imagination enough to allow the lead singer from Letters to Cleo show up at the prom and walk off-stage to sing directly to Kat and Patrick because the tone is so fun and the context makes everything that happens, make sense. This is one of my favorite comedies because I continue to laugh upon multiple viewings and continue to recommend it to others...as I am doing now.