Baby Mama (2008)

30++ year old, single, uptight, business woman Kate Holbrook (played by Tina Fey) starts to hear her biological clock ticking like a timebomb. The only problem? Her "T" shaped uterus. As a last, viable option, she looks into surrogacy, and decides, despite the costs and stigma, to go ahead. The agency matches her up with fertile, and immature, Angie Ostrowiski (played by Amy Poehler), and through a series of happenstance and plenty of colorful characters, the two learn how to grow up, and loosen up.

Okay, that summary really doesn't do this film justice. It makes it sound like a cheap, schlocky, blow-off mini-comedy. Which I was about ready to write this film off as. I'm really glad I didn't. Michael McCullers, who's more known as a writer for SNL, and the Austin Powers movies, to name a bit of his work, directed and wrote this film, and I have to hand it to him. He knew his leads, and did a great job of bringing the laughs out of them. It probably helps that Fey and Poehler are ridiculously old friends dating back to their time together at Second City. But still, he knew how to create a great backdrop for the two to play in.

There are some great surprise actors in this film. Steve Martin is always a treat to watch on screen, and he had some great lines as Kate's boss, Barry. Also, Sigourney Weaver is a great laugh as the head of the surrogacy clinic, Chaffee Bicknell. Plus Dax Shepard as Angie's common-law husband, Carl Loomis, Maura Tierney as Kate's sister, Caroline, and Greg Kinnear as Kate's love interest, Rob Ackerman. A great cast, where even the bit parts play well with the leads.

Seriously, Fey and Poehler work so well together. I had plenty of genuine laughs from the two of them. Fey had said in an interview that this was as close as we would ever see them play Laverne and Shirley, and I definitely see why she drew that parallel. They really know how to give and take. This film wouldn't have worked without that, and I'm glad they were able to monopolize on it.

Give this film a whirl if you haven't already. There are some great laughs. Even ones you don't see in the trailer.

Mulholland Drive (2001)

If there's a movie that really sums up David Lynch's WTF style of direction, this would be a sterling example.

Mulholland Drive stars Naomi Watts as Betty Elms/Diane Selwyn, Laura Harring as Rita, and Justin Theroux as Adam Kesher. It all starts with a car crash/botched hit involving a woman who comes to call herself Rita. She has amnesia after the wreck and picks the first name she sees on a movie poster for a Rita Hayworth film. She ends up hiding out at Betty Elms' (an aspiring actress just in from the boonies) Aunt Ruth's apartment, where Betty finds her, and decides to help her find out who she is. While this is going on, we come across Hollywood director Adam Kesher, who is trying to recast the lead female role in his film that is in production, but being strongarmed by mobsters on the decision. The two storylines converge as Betty is called in to audition for Adam's film, the appearance of a blue key in Rita's purse (to what, she can't remember), Rita remembering the name Diane Selwyn, and the Spanish word Silencio.

Okay, so David Lynch made a list of 10 things to watch for to unlock the mystery of this film. Meaning, you will have no idea what the hell is happening unless you know to look for these 10 clues. There's an Easter egg to the list on the DVD menu, so I highly recommend looking over this list before watching the movie. The tagline for this film is "A love story in the City Of Dreams," and really, even having that piece of information is helpful before watching this film.

Despite HATING the fact that this film needed a cheat sheet to be understood, I do find it a beautifully painful piece of cinema. Watching the love stories evolve and break apart in this, watching how consumed the characters are by them. David Lynch did well in portraying that pain and euphoria. As a mystery, it was a bit too mysterious. I don't like to feel like I missed the joke, and everybody else is laughing. My solace: everyone else I talked to about this seemed to not get it, as well.

The acting at the beginning seemed to be in slow motion. Like watching a film underwater. I later realized that this was actually a great effect. It annoyed the crap out of me at first, because I just thought the pacing was too slow, but after watching the film it all made sense, and kudos to cast and crew for pulling that off.

Without giving too much away, because telling you about any other parts would give away surprises, and just sound weird out of context, I will mentioned the Club Silencio scene. On the hunt for Rita's past, Betty and Rita end up at Club Silencio, and watch that night's performance. This scene had me riveted to the screen. The sheer power of the inactivity, your mind working to make sense of what's happening, watching Rita and Betty go to pieces over it all; it captivated me. Points for David Lynch. All of this confusion and emotion translated to well for me as a viewer. Like feeling what the characters were feeling. And that rendition of Crying tears your heart out.

This movie, as a whole, really worked. No one person really popped for me. It's more of an ensemble piece for cast and crew. You don't really think of this as a Naomi Watts picture, although she is quite good in it. This is known as a David Lynch piece, and he guided the helm of this picture really well, but it wouldn't have worked if not for all of the others. Definitely worth a watch, but be prepared.

Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007)

Elizabeth: The Golden Age picks up shortly after the first film (Elizabeth: The Virgin Queen) left off. Queen Elizabeth I has been in power for a few years, and she's comfortable, or as comfortable as a Queen can be, I suppose, in her Queenly duties. At the onset of this film, Elizabeth's (played again by Cate Blanchett) advisers are trying to marry her off, but she, knowing the consequences in this loss of power, will have none of it. King Phillip II of Spain (played by Jordi Molla) is plotting her death, and unleashing the Spanish Inquisition upon England's heretic shores. Wrapped up in his devious plot is imprisoned Mary Stuart (played by Samantha Morton), who wants the crown that she feels is rightfully hers. She's Catholic, too, so easy prey for Spanish advances. Meanwhile, enter Sir Walter Raleigh (played by Clive Owen), into the court. He's trying to gather more gold from the Queen to finance further trips to the Americas, so he spins delicious tales of new lands and travels for the Queen, who, living a sedentary life, eats it up readily, and who begins to feel the pull towards this new, and enticing creature. Too bad her servant, Elizabeth Throckmorton (played by Abbie Cornish) gets there first, and in a big way. So, feeling a bit frazzled by assassination attempts, forceful advisers, lovers' spats, and an impending fleet of Spanish ships sailing on England's shores, Elizabeth does the only thing she knows how to do: ride out on her white horse, and lead her troops into a glorious battle for Queen, country, and religious freedom!

If any of that sounds like a schlock pseudo-summer-blockbuster, it's because this movie played like one. Why those choices were made, I can only offer conjecture. Which follows...

So, let's talk about some of the good stuff about this film, ey? I was happy to see Cate Blanchett reprise her role as the young Queen Elizabeth. She really is stellar in this role. She went even further into this character, showing what age and wisdom brought to it. There was a substantial lacking when it came to any overly emotional scenes, though. She seemed straight out of a sappy melodrama, but I chalk that more up to the writing, than her acting. I think she handled the script professionally, and adequately.

That's about it for the good, though. This film was SORELY lacking in any substance whatsoever. I felt like I had been hit by a frying pan numerous times during this film. There was no subtlety. I list three main culprits for this: director Shekhar Kapur, and writers William Nicholson and Michael Hirst. Now, Kapur and Hirst worked on the first film, but Nicholson was new, and some of his credits include writing for such films as Gladiator, First Knight and Nell. One might be inclined to recognize his qualification through these credits. Alas, you might be sadly mistaken. These films possess saccharine, pseudo-historical, dolled-up-action qualities (some of those qualities listed are present, if not all), and this film could have done without them. Those tricks worked in the 90's, or 2000, but I, for one, wanted more. For a prime example of a frying pan moment, please refer to the scene where Elizabeth is watching the battle between the English and the Spanish. She is in the only patch of light, all luminescent in her armor and long, flowing locks, while King Phillip II is in the darkened candlelight, praying to God to help his cause. Oh, one represents the dark, and one represents the light. I get it!

The cinematography made me motion sick. There were trademark Michael Bay circular camera shots throughout this movie. Why? They served no purpose in furthering the impact for the audience. They just served to annoy the crap out of me while I'm trying to listen to the Queen's monologue about going to war, for crying out loud!

There were also too many cliches in this film to properly keep track of. One that I can mention, right off the bat, is the portrayal of the death of Mary Stuart. Now, picture this in your mind's eye: slow motion camera shots of Mary Stuart from her walk to the chopping block, and through the deed, intercut with shots of Elizabeth making herself sick over her decision to have her executed, Mary Stuart whispers "I forgive you" to the executioner, her lady in waiting screams in horror after her head's chopped off. Did you picture it? Now, take away any clever dialogue, any unique camera shots, and any true emotion you might have thought up. That's what the scene was like.

An angle that this film took in portraying Elizabeth I was to poke holes in her Queenly and powerful veneer. Most historical films do this, granted, but I think Hirst and Nicholson got a little too overzealous at this. Any time they could make Elizabeth seem out of control, they reveled in it. The whole love interest with Raleigh, petty power spats with Sir Francis Walshingham (played by Geoffrey Rush, who I didn't mention until now, because he's just in this film, really, because they wanted to cast Geoffrey Rush again), and working herself up into such a tizzy over her decision to execute Mary Stuart; all these things, in their portrayal, just served to make Elizabeth look like a poor, frail woman, rather than the ballsy ruler who we saw in the first film. It seemed misogynistic, more than anything.

One question I asked myself while watching was this: is it fun to watch a history movie if you already know how the history turns out? We know the British defeat the Spanish armada, so is it interesting to watch these parts? I know that directors and writers can choose to follow the history or not, and their interpretations can either be interesting or not, but do we still want to give our time in watching these? Maybe it was just because the movie trampled no new ground, that I asked myself this, but it still popped into my head, none the less.

Anyways, this movie was far too flashy for it's own good. You can make history interesting without repetitive, circular camera shots, and special effects of heroes swimming under burning boats.

Road House (1989)

Road House stars Patrick Swayze as James Dalton, the 2nd best 'Cooler' (someone who breaks up the nasty nasty fights) in the nightclub business. Recruited by Frank Tilghman (played by Kevin Tighe) to clean up his nightclub, The Double Deuce, Dalton swings into town, bringing along enough machismo for his new staff, and the club patrons, to boot. Dalton gets in the middle of the local patriarch's, Brad Wesley (played by Ben Gazzara), plans to make this backwater town business friendly and hospitable. Not only that, Dalton gets involved with Wesley's ex, Dr. Elizabeth Clay (played by Kelly Lynch). In comes Dalton's good buddy, and number one Cooler in the business, Wade Garrett (played by Sam Elliott), at the behest of Dalton, and they put up one hell of a fight to rid this town of Wesley's influence. If this wasn't enough to draw you in, there are appearances by blues legend Jeff Healy, as the Double Deuce's nightly headliner, Cody, and monster truck Bigfoot, as itself. A little more machismo never hurt anyone, did it?

If anyone was wondering if Swayze was gay, this movie should lead you to some qualified conclusions. Good lord, why would they put him in this role that calls for machismo on the level of Sean Connery mixed with Chuck Norris? He is laughably inadequate. But, it's kinda part of this film's charm. And the love interest between him and Kelly Lynch? The two have as much chemistry together as two dead fish. It's almost painful to watch Dalton court Dr. Clay. So gay. SO gay.

About the only good thing about this movie, besides Jeff Healy's excellent musicianship, and the scene where Dalton rips out Wesley's henchman's throat (Jimmy, played by Marshall R. Teague), is Sam Elliott's character, Wade Garrett. He is really fun to watch. He created such a grounded performance. It put Swayze's to shame, and was a relief in what otherwise could have been a torturous film.

And, seriously, director Rowdy Herrington? When I saw that name in the credits, I went, 'Seriously? Who the hell is that?' And then I looked over his imdb profile, and went, 'Seriously? Who the hell is that?'

You know, I think that every woman, apart from Double Deuce server Carrie Ann (played by Kathleen Wilhoite) showed their breasts at some point in this movie. Seriously. Can someone conduct an analysis of this movie to find out? I think I'm right.

This film was a first for me, though. I know I trash talk it, but it does leave an impact on my movie viewing path, so it does have a place in my heart. This film was actually the first film in which I realized just how bad fight scene sound effects could be. They were so over the top that I actually sat there and tried to think of just what could have possibly produced those hideous sounds as I watched the fight scene between Dalton and Jimmy.

This film got nominated for a slew of top Razzie awards the year it came out: Actor (Swayze), Supporting Actor (Ben Gazzara), Picture (producer Joel Silver), Director (Rowdy Herrington), Screenplay (Hilary Henkin and David Lee Henry). Surprisingly, it didn't win. Star Trek V beat it out. Go figure.

Ugh, I think I have to go take a shower after writing this review.

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (2006)

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon is the bastard child of Mike Meyers and Christopher Guest. Take the same behind the scenes and painfully awkward, but funny scenarios of Waiting for Guffman and place it in Halloween and you'd have Behind the Mask (BtM).

Existing in a world where every slasher icon (Freddy, Jason, Mike Meyers, Chucky, that dude from Shocker) is real, BtM follows Leslie Vernon (played by newcomer Nathan Baesel), a young and upcoming "supernatural" killer, who lets a college news team film his entire process, from the selecting of the "survivor girl," to his training (a lot of cardio and reading plenty of anatomy, escape tricks/sleight-of-hand, and philosophy books) to the fateful night where Leslie makes his final appearance. The film jumps from handheld, stark news-like camerawork when we're seeing Leslie prepare to ultra-stylized slasher film cinematography when he puts on the mask. You would think the jumps between two very different types of cinematography would be jarring, but the film deftly handles the balance.

Writer/director Scott Glosserman definitely owes a debt of gratitude to Wes Craven's Scream, but where Scream left off, BtM continues. By not only deconstructing the plot contrivances and characters of slasher films, but by putting them into a myth context, Glosserman presents the idea that the slasher icon and film has progressed from a simple money-making cinema to becoming apart of contemporary mythology (Mike Meyers as a Joseph Campbell-type "hero!"). This is evinced by the dinner scene with Leslie's mentor, Eugene, a retired psychokiller (he lives in a nice house in the woods with his "survivor girl" now wife, Jamie). When Taylor asks why Leslie and Eugene do what they do, Eugene replies, "In order for good to be pitted against evil, there must be evil." BtM also pays respects to the great shoulders it stands upon by featuring old horror icons, most notably Robert Englund and Zelda Rubinstein; Englund as the Dr. Loomis character (a role that you can plainly see he had fun performing) and Rubinstein in a near death appearance (cold, I know, but it's almost like you can see PA holding her up during her scenes) as the friendly, but doomed librarian. Bonus points to those who can spot 4-time Jason actor Kane Hodder!

Normally, I don't expect much from actors/actresses in slasher flicks; mainly they're there to serve the plot's purpose and not much else. Not the case in BtM. All of the performances are fun to watch. I particularly enjoyed the relationship between Taylor and her two cameramen, Doug and Todd (played by Angela Goethals, Ben Pace, and Britain Spellings respectively) as they become apart of Leslie's dangerous world. Of all the performances though, it is Nathan Baesel who particularly stands out. As Leslie Vernon, he strikes a great balance between charmingly awkward nice guy and psychopathic killer. My favorite scene is the heartfelt moment Leslie and Taylor share on the eve of his appearance: Leslie, with tears in his eyes, proclaims how exceedingly happy he is and how far he's come. Not knowing what to say, Taylor gently takes his hand and comforts him. It should be noted that this all takes place in the barn where, in just a few moments, poor horny teenagers are about to be slaughtered. A dark comic moment, but one that genuinely resonates as we've been present from the beginning of Leslie's story so we know that this is culmination of his life's work.

In the end, what's great about BtM is that it isn't just a cursory love of slasher films; a glancing throat cut, if you will. No. It's a rip-your-heart-out-of-your-chest-with-post-hole-digger love of the slasher film. One that reminds you what the genre is exactly capable of when put into the right hands.

El Orfanato (2007)

Before I write this review, I must post a disclaimer that horror movies hardly ever make me clutch the armrests, curl up in my seat and cause my heart rate to accelerate. And they certainly never make me cry like a little bitch. I was still trying to compose myself after the credits.

It is a creepy ghost story, and it scares you by tapping into the most innate fears a person has – paranormal, losing a child, the noises in the basement. There is very little gore in the film. Instead, director Juan Antonio Bayona uses simpler images such as a tiny, silent child with a sac mask over their head creeping down the hallway to scare the bejesus out of you. It is not at all cheesy or overdramatic like most horror films (especially a lot of Americanized versions of Asian horror). It is sufficiently creepy. It also plays with the formula of a theme on childhood games and stories, following the formula of producer Guillermo de Toro’s Pan’s Labyrinth. This film stays true as a ghost story, though, and a really good one.

“The Orphanage” opens with the silhouettes of children playing a form of children playing a version of tag outside at the orphanage. Laura would knock on the tree facing away from the other children while they would sneak up behind her. They would pose like statues when she turned around. It becomes apparent she is going to be adopted soon, and she is whisked away from the orphanage.

Laura (Belén Rueda) had such happy memories from the orphanage that she decides to move her family there and open a home for children with special needs. Laura is concerned because her son, Simón (Roger Príncep) will not let go of his two imaginary friends. He meets Tomás in a cave on the beach while gathering shells with his mother. Laura assumes Tomás is just another imaginary friend. Simón acquires five more “friends” who reside in the house, and Laura becomes unnerved, especially when they start playing games where they steal “treasure” and hide it, leaving clues for the owner as to its whereabouts.

At the welcome party for the special needs children, Simón disappears. She starts to see a little boy with a mask over his head; thinking it is her son, the police search the cave where she followed him, but no one is found. When the police cannot find a single clue as to Simón’s whereabouts, Laura employs a medium and some parapsychologists to help find her son. They cannot help her find her son, but the medium reveals that something absolutely despicable happened to Laura’s friends at the orphanage shortly after they left. She realizes that in order to find Simón, she has to regress to her childhood and start to play the “imaginary” friends’ games.

I really cannot do the plot justice. This movie was nearly flawless from the opening credits where children’s hands are ripping down wallpaper to the ending where I shuddered. There was maybe one or two tiny plot holes, but they do not affect what really matters in the film.

The cinematography was outstanding. It juxtaposes the temper of the beach with the serene, ghostly atmosphere of the former orphanage. A favourite moment of mine was in the beginning where Laura makes the lighthouse on the beach light up by reflecting the back of a clock against the window for Simón. It was so simple but absolutely stunning.

There is only gory one scene, and it takes you by complete surprise. It is chilling and disgusting, and then it is over. If it was my Tivo, I would have rewound it to see if I actually saw what I thought I did. I gasped, but I could not jump out of my seat because I was so entangled in it from other other scene before it.

The acting was fantastic, and Príncep, who played Simón, is one of the most precious faces I have seen in a movie in a very long time.

It is no surprise that this is Spain’s ballot for Best Foreign film for the Oscars. I have not been this involved with a movie in a long time. It goes beyond “horror film” or “ghost story;” it is dramatic and intelligent.

Time (2006)

Korean filmmaker, Kim Ki-duk, wrote and directed this creepy drama. However, the director may not want us to view it as a drama. Maybe it supposed to be classified as “thriller,” or “romantic comedy” or just “romantic.” But I digress and will address that later.

The premise of Time is actually quite brilliant and genuinely creepy. Ji-Yeon Park plays Seh-hee – an extremely jealous girlfriend. After an outburst in a coffee shop where she accused her boyfriend Ji-woo, played by Jung-woo Ha, of looking at other women, we find that the couple has problems intimately. Seh-hee tries to solve this problem by asking him to think of her as another woman. It works to solve their intimacy issues, but causes a whole slew of other issues, making her more self-conscious to the point where she consistently drones about her “boring face.” She covers it with a blanket to make herself appear anonymous. It frustrates Ji-woo who explains to a pal later that it’s “just time” that makes him look at other women – not a growing disinterest in his current lover.

Soon after, Seh-hee disappears. Her apartment is cleared out, all communications have been cut and nobody has heard from her. We see her in a plastic surgeon’s office asking for a new face. This new face appears at the coffee shop as a cute new waitress similarly named See-hee and “meets” Ji-Yeon. See-hee, now played by Hyeon-a Seong, also runs into Ji-Yeon at a sculpture garden the original couple frequented. Eventually, they become an item, although Ji-Yeon has reservations, worried that his old girlfriend would return and he would have to make a decision.

This sets off See-hee (in the same coffee shop as the original outburst), and persuades her to reveal her old identity to him at the coffee shop later by wearing a cutout of her original face. This was the only part in the movie that writer Ki-duk uses complete strangers in a setting to help tell the story. They ask if it is a theatric – this woman wearing a paper mask greeting her boyfriend. A fight ensues with both See-hee/She-hee and the stranger. Ji-yeon is frustrated, confused and comes up with a solution that is equally as erratic.Do not worry, I won’t spoil it for you.

The movie becomes cyclical. The opening seen shows a woman leaving a plastic surgery clinic with Seh-hee bumping into her, making the woman drop her “before” photo. Seh-hee offers to fix it and says she’ll be right back. The final shows this same image – See-hee leaving the clinic, dropping her “before” photo when bumped into by a girl.

The main problem with this film was that Ki-duk was too ambitious for the film’s good, mostly with the art-direction. Ultimately, I was lost as to what the actual message was – if it is a social commentary on relationships and image or a quirky solution to an age old problem. There is just a point where I asked “What the…”

The cinematography was stunning, but not as a whole. There was little cohesion from scene to scene.

In one particularly art-house styled scene, Ji-Yeon is in a room showing See-hee some photos he had secretly taken of her. They are on opposite sides of the screen. He turns off the lights. Click. It’s dark. Click. We see they have moved closer. Click. It’s dark. Click. They have moved even closer to each other.

While it was a cinematically interesting scene, it fit nowhere in the movie. It ended up looking ridiculous when melded with the surrounding scenes. There were several other experiments similar to this randomly thrown in the movie. In Ki-duk’s defense, most of the last hour of this movie steered itself closer to art-house stylings.

I did love the scene where Ji-woo is drunk and singing karaoke with a prostitute on his arm while mourning the disappearance of Seh-hee. It is one of the more sentimental moments in the movie.
It was an extremely entertaining movie, but at the same time I was completely frustrated with the lack of cohesion. It was a great story in and of itself, however. Because of its ambition, I left the movie pondering for hours about the psychology behind it. I also left it mumbling about crappy cohesion, lousy karaoke singing… but what an interesting film.