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.