Top 5: Movies I will Watch to Completion Whenever They are on TV

You know that feeling. You’re cruising through the channels and suddenly, you come across a movie. Maybe the game is on in 10 minutes, or you’re just in commercial break from [insert reality show that everyone watches here] and it’s that one movie that you’ve seen so many times. You can recite every line to it and yet, you can watch it again and again. Even though it has been on for an hour, watching it to completion feels necessary. I would like to present with you now my list of movies that I will watch anytime I find them on TV. Some have been acknowledged as masterpieces. Others, meanwhile, may have you questioning my credibility. Read the complete list after the jump.

1. Goodfellas

“As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster.” “Goodfellas” has what is, in my humble opinion, the most flawless opening a movie has ever had. It is exciting, hilarious, and most importantly, captivating. It gives you enough information to get into the world, but not enough so you feel the need to find out more. Once you’ve started it, you’ll just want to keep watching. Even after seeing it so many times, watching the opening again re-invigorates the curiosity I felt the very first time I ever watched it. Good luck changing the channel now.

2. The Godfather (I & II)

The first two parts of the “Godfather” saga are over three hours a piece. With commercials, that puts both of them at close to five hours each. Once you’ve seen them, they are the kinds of movies you can pick up at any point and keep watching. AMC typically plays the first two movies every Thanksgiving, and “Arrested Development” marathons notwithstanding, I will always tune in.

3. The Big Lebowski

This spot nearly went to “Pulp Fiction,” until I realized that it was time to set limits on how often that movie could be discussed on this site. As “Lebowski” gets better on repeat viewings, it is fitting that I will always want to watch it on TV the whole way through. Like any great Coen Brothers movie, there is always more humor to be found in scenes that you never thought could ever be funny. And while I usually hate the way that networks censor movies, the infamous re-dubbing of “The Big Lebowski” is the stuff of unintentional comic genius. Unfortunately, I cannot find the footage online, but just picture the phrase “f**k a stranger in the ass!” being replaced with the supposedly much gentler “find a stranger in the Alps” and the weirdly fitting, if nonsensical ,”feed a stoner scrambled eggs.”

4. Anchorman

The collective viewing public has seen “Anchorman” enough times that it can recite the whole movie by heart. While it is not as funny as it was to me years ago, I will still drop what I am doing and watch “Anchorman” whenever TBS makes room for it in its busy Tyler Perry-packed schedule. I speak for the whole world when I say, that sequel cannot come soon enough.

5. 3 Ninjas

What has The Reel Deal come to? How do I begin with one of the AFI’s top 10 movies, and end with this throwaway family film from the 90s? It is hard to pinpoint one answer. Maybe because it brings back some very nice nostalgia. Or, perhaps it is still fun to shout “Rocky loves Emily!” repeatedly. While “3 Ninjas” contains plenty of the “nutshot,” perhaps the lowest point any comedy can sink to, there is something so infinitely watchable and hysterical about the break-in scene. I’ve laughed at it over and over again for nearly 20 years. When your film diet consists largely of foreign films, Martin Scorsese, and Charlie Kaufman, it is nice to have something like “3 Ninjas” to look back on, in order to keep your sanity and immaturity intact.

Editor’s Note: The 90s are underrated.

Analog This: Community, Pillow Fights, and Storytelling Algorithems

Leave a reply

The Changlourious Basterds.

Earlier this week, while reading a document for my English class, I realized something: studying theory can really suck, especially when words such as “interpellation” are used every other word. So I vow now, when discussing a comedic pop culture artifact* such as “Community,” I will do all I can to stay away from such language.

This seems necessary, especially when the story at hand is about how a pillow fight turns into war.

Last night’s episode of “Community,” entitled “Pillows and Blankets,” is a high note for a series that mainly consists of high notes. It did everything “Community” is known for doing right, and then some. Since its return from hiatus, “Community” has been on my mind lately. While maintaing the funny, the show has also delved into depths darker than any explored in its past.

Troy and Abed, the inseparable best friends, get into a major fight once they are both faced with the prospect of becoming adults. The conflict escalated last week, as the two of them built separate blanket and pillow forts, and then declared war on one another. Such a silly subject strangely seemed so sad. That’s because they’re Troy and Abed, and they hosted the cheeriest fake talk show to ever exist.

But on to “Pillows and Blankets.” It is one of the series’s so called concept episodes. This episode, which was mainly based off of either either a History Channel special or a Ken Burns documentary, turned the pillow fight that broke out in last week’s episode (which was more a sendoff on “The Lord of the Rings”) into the Civil War.

A few weeks ago, I discussed how I believed that “Community” was about the characters constantly trying to figure out their assigned roles. Even when out of typical sitcom form, every member of the study room seven acted exactly as they would have in a war. Public health major Annie took on a Clara Barton role, Jeff took on the role as mediator so he wouldn’t have to go to class, Britta acted as war journalist, and Pierce was doing everything he could to stay relevant. The episode, told partly in the slideshow form of the typical PBS documentary, doesn’t even have a single line of dialogue from Britta. However, she stole the show, with her terribly juxtaposed black and white photographs. When “Community” is imitating something, it is best at sticking to the form while throwing in very subtle jabs, such as the one that black and white does not necessarily make a photo good. Pierce’s pillow armor, which made him look like the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, was also a nice touch.

“Pillows and Blankets” also displayed a few hilarious quotes throughout that could have been real, such as “feathers without birds” and “pajamas without children.” They include maps, with each part being named after a person (even “North” is named after a guy who’s last name is North), and a series of ever ridiculous arrows, obstacles, and retreats. No other network sitcom puts this much devotion into the little details.

All of the perfection is thanks to wunderkind perfectionist Dan Harmon. Harmon, has been in the headlines a lot lately. Unfortunately, it is for all of the wrong reasons. But after the fallout of his argument with Chevy Chase, Harmon proved himself to be as humble and self-aware as the show he created with the apology he wrote on his blog earlier this week. But more importantly, an excellent profile written on Harmon in Wired reveals perhaps the most important piece of information about the show. Harmon has been pop culture obsessed for pretty much his entire life. With all of the “Die Hard” and “Doctor Who” he has watched, Harmon studied basic story structure, and broke it down into eight easy steps:

This is what Harmon uses as the backbone for every episode of “Community.” When looking over it, I find this structure to be incredibly accurate. The best part about it is how flexible it is. Every form of story, from movies, to television shows, to books, to songs, to documentaries, are all connected by this structure. That is why “Community” can have an episode spoofing Civil War documentaries, another spoofing “Hearts of Darkness,” and another spoofing “Goodfellas,” and have each one come out so perfectly. Dan Harmon, I believe, is one of the seminal storytellers of our time.

*That’s right, “Community” is an artifact.

Analog This: The Trailer for Aaron Sorkin’s The Newsroom

Leave a reply

No, I have not seen “The West Wing” yet. I also have not seen “Sports Night” or “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.” The first two are on my to-watch list. However, I have seen “The Social Network,” and I still tune in to it every time it is on TV, and I know that Aaron Sorkin is a writer like no other. Sorkin is back, with an upcoming drama for HBO called “The Newsroom.” It looks like a Sorkin drama in every way, crackling with fast, whip-smart dialogue. And maybe it will bring HBO, the original purveyor of quality drama on cable, the new hit show that they have not had in years. The premiere is on June 24 and you can watch the trailer below. Let’s see how many episodes it takes for Jeff Daniels to scream, “I am mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore!”:

Movie Review: 21 Jump Street

Leave a reply

If Hollywood wants to continue remaking movies, then remakes must declare themselves as being one. That helps in making “21 Jump Street,” a modern update of the TV series that made Johnny Depp a star, so good.

Early in the movie, when Chief Hardy (Nick Offerman) is assigning mismatched officers Schmidt (Jonah Hill) and Jenko (Channing Tatum) to a new job as undercover officers at a local high school, he notes that the people who make these assignments lack creativity and instead steal old ideas from the 80s. The studio was truly a good sport on this one.

“21 Jump Street” might as well have been called “Not Another Cop Comedy.” It is more “MacGruber” than “Starsky & Hutch,” with a hint of “Hot Fuzz.” “21 Jump Street” works because it knows all of the beats that a cop comedy should go through, yet it is funny and self-aware at each of them. Call it a post-modernist cop comedy, if you want to be all English major about it.

Schmidt and Jenko go back a long way. In high school, Schmidt was president of the juggling society and Jenko was a jock. Jenko frequently beat Schmidt up. However, they form a tight, unlikely bond at the end of high school and go into the police academy together. Schmidt is always the smart one and Jenko, well, he looks and acts like a cop. Or at least the kind you would see in a movie.

The duo find their lives as cops surprisingly dull; they mainly patrol a park while riding bikes and stop kids from feeding the ducks. The scene of them trying to stop a group of drug pushers shows just how many possible ways there are to make riding a bike funny.

Schmidt and Jenko prove to be hopelessly incompetent as cops. Because of their youthful looks, they are placed in a program that puts under cover cops in high schools, under the jurisdiction of the tough Captain Dickson (Ice Cube). It was Ice Cube’s performance here that made me remember what a good actor he can be, and almost made me totally forget those “Are We There Yet?” movies. But I digress. Anyone who watched the show will already know that 21 Jump Street refers to the abandoned church (not sure how it was in the show but here, they worship some kind of Korean Jesus) where all of the undercovers meet. Schmidt and Jenko are assigned to the same high school they once went to in order to bust the kingpin of a potentially deadly new drug. Jenko can’t wait to return, and Schmidt is quite afraid.

Schmidt and Jenko find out that this is nothing like the high school experience they had. Now, veganism and tolerance are popular. So Jenko has a particularly hard time fitting in, especially when he inadvertently commits a hate crime on his first day.

Schmidt, meanwhile, has a much easier time fitting in. He enrolls in a drama class and takes the part of Peter Pan in the school’s latest production. One of the funniest scenes in the entire movie comes during his audition. Soon enough, he gets in on the cool crowd by befriending Eric Molson (Dave Franco, who shows that talent runs in the family).

“21 Jump Street” is the kind of movie that has been done so many times before, and it knows that. And while the plot beats are pretty predictable, it is the way that the story and all of the jokes are done that makes it a winner. Everyone should know from the start that at least one of them will have a relationship with a student, and at least one of them will pursue a teacher. But what is funny about it the fact that the teacher (Ellie Kemper) is actually the pursuer and the fact that the relationship that forms between Schmidt and fellow drama student Molly (Brie Larson) is actually kind of sweet. I give credit to the stellar screenplay by Michael Bacall, a highly talented writer who is also responsible for “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World” and “Project X.” He has a good ear and eye for the way teenagers talk and act nowadays, the kind that most writers lack. With this movie and the past two mentioned, Bacall has made himself an indispensable comedy writer.

Usually, two directors working on one movie would seem like a bad thing, like the old saying of too many chefs in the kitchen. But Chris Miller and Phil Lord are a dynamic directing duo, and perhaps both of their sensibilities contribute to the very even balance between comedy, drama, and action throughout. Miller and Lord, with the combination of Bacall, hysterically play with audience expectations throughout. They will only blow something up when they feel like it. It is as if they are shouting “F**k You, Michael Bay!” in certain scenes.

“21 Jump Street” serves partially as a vehicle for Channing Tatum’s comedy career. Seriously, who ever thought Tatum could be this funny? This is the same actor who starred in the “Step Up” movies and was once a male stripper. As Tobias Funke might say, “this is ripe for parody!” Tatum is a standout because he is such a great team player, willing to mock his own appearance for laughs. I don’t know if I could ever see him doing standup, but I could definitely see him acting in more movies like this. Mark Maron could make a great WTF Podcast about him.

Perhaps to the shock of everyone, Tatum gives the movie its heart. Despite once being a jock and a bully, Jenko is sensitive and a loyal friend. Think of him as more Troy Barnes than Andrew Clarke.

Tatum and Hill play off each other well, and they gave me enough reason to want to see the sequel mentioned at the end that may have only been a joke. This is the rare occasion when I actually would not mind seeing a comedy get a sequel. That is, as long as they don’t “Austin Powers” it and make it exactly like the original. If there were to be a sequel, I would hope there would be more scenes with Offerman’s police chief, who is criminally underused here. I suspect that many of his original scenes had to be left out during editing.

I find much joy in the financial success that “21 Jump Street” has had at the box office, and by the end of next week, it will likely cross $100 million. On the one hand, this could drive studios to continue on the sequel/remake trend as an alternate for producing original ideas. Or, this will make them realize that what truly makes a good comedy (or a good movie, in general) is to take a lot of risks, and hire a good writer. “21 Jump Street” is not a short movie, and a large chunk of it involves Schmidt and Jenko going through the side effects of a drug over the course of one day. Yes, it becomes totally necessary that we see the disgusting way in which they try and expel the drug from their bodies. A stupid comedy with a few laughs will do well its opening weekend, break even, and then be totally forgotten about. One that is as funny as “21 Jump Street” will merit repeat viewings.

Things That Should Possibly Happen: A Carrie Remake

Leave a reply

That awkward moment when someone pours pig guts all over you at prom.

New remake gets “Carrie”-d away, said the worst headline writer ever.

Hollywood doesn’t seem to understand that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. However, I’m done yelling at studio executives who probably aren’t listening, and I’m also tired of referring to every person who works in the film industry collectively as Hollywood. The idea that existing properties are more valued than original ones needs to change, but there is no way that it will ever happen overnight.

The latest remake being concocted is of “Carrie,” Brian De Palma’s twisted horror thriller. “Carrie” seems to have little justification for a remake. “Carrie” stands out to me because because nothing really exciting happens until the very end, yet the whole experience is a thrill to watch. The promised finale lasts under five minutes, yet it is as spectacular and horrifying today as it was in 1976. The slow buildup is a perfect display of Hitchcockian tension. This is a subtlety that most horror movies today are devoid of, and I fear that a modern update of “Carrie” would be substitute real scares for extra buckets of blood. And not just pig’s blood.

However, there is one saving grace to the “Carrie” remake. Chloe Moretz, better known as Hit-Girl from “Kick-Ass,” has signed to take Sissy Spacek’s place as “Carrie.” Now, Moretz is not quite Sissy Spacek yet but then again, neither was Sissy Spacek when she took this role. Moretz can play a hard-edged teen, but can she bring Spacek’s creepiness and vulnerability back? Also, the movie will be directed by Kimberly Peirce, who directed “Boys Don’t Cry.” I have yet to see “Boys Don’t Cry,” but some extra female perspective for this story could be interesting.

Either way, I’m standing by the original. And unless Peirce really screws up, there is no way this could be as bad as the Broadway musical. Discounting the fact that this story should never be a musical, it was apparently terrible.

Read more about the remake here.

This Ad Just Set Back The Anti-Piracy Movement By A Decade

Leave a reply

The piracy debate is a tough one, and it would take me too long to fully explain my stance. So instead, here’s a great way to make people not want to go to the movies. Reminding people that going to the movies is paying for an experience is very noble, but why pick “Battleship,” a movie based on a board game? Maybe this weekend’s “Hunger Games,” which broke box office records, could have worked. Or some kind of appeal to the great movies of the past, I’m sure the Academy Awards has more than enough montages to lend. Seriously, “Battleship” is the last thing to make me want to buy a movie ticket and some over-buttered popcorn.

Movie Review: The Hunger Games

Leave a reply

Before I start this review, let’s get something out of the way: I have not read “The Hunger Games” or any of the other books in the series. I cannot compare the film adaptation to the original book. Therefore, I will be reviewing “The Hunger Games” as a movie, not an adaptation.

I will admit that I ignored “The Hunger Games” for most of its popularity because I associated it with the tweenage wasteland of “Twilight.” “The Hunger Games” does not deserve to be put into that category because the story is much more mature, the characters are more complex, and if the movie is any indication, Suzanne Collins is a much better writer than Stephanie Meyer is. The difference is that Collins seems to write about teenagers from the perspective of an adult, and Meyer with the prose of a fifth grader.

Plot description is probably irrelevant for all fans of the novel, but hopefully people unfamiliar with the books will go see it, too. “The Hunger Games” takes place during an unknown time in the future in the nation of Panem, which was once the United States. After a rebellion (which hopefully will be explained in the next film), Panem has been divided into districts. Our main focus is in the rural District 12 which, like the rest of Panem, is in ruins. Each district seems to be closed off to protect the people from each other. Apparently in the future, people are no longer to be trusted.

In District 12 lives Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), who for the rest of this review will be known as Catnip. Teenage Catnip cares for her younger sister Primrose (Willow Shields) and her mother (Paula Malcomson). Her mother is never given a name, but it seems like something we really should know.

Catnip is young but mature beyond her years, assuming the role of both hunter and gatherer for her family. Her skill with a bow and arrow will come into play later on. On a related note, it’s kind of awesome when a dystopian movie uses primitive weapons.

To punish the people for the rebellion, each year the government hosts The Hunger Games, in which a boy and girl from every district is chosen for an arena battle to the death. The names are chosen at random in a lottery-type system. Prim, eligible for the first time to compete, is chosen to represent District 12. Not wanting her younger sister to have to face death, Catnip offers herself up in Prim’s place. And with that, “The Hunger Games” shows that it is not one of those “Chosen One” narratives a la “Star Wars” and “The Matrix.” In this world, no one is that special.

Catnip makes quite an impression on everyone with her brave sacrifice. Chosen alongside her is Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), who will be referred to as Pita for the remainder of this review. In his first interview before the Hunger Games begins, Pita declares his love for Catnip on national television. Awkward.

“The Hunger Games” is as much about media hype as it is about the actual Hunger Games. This is what elevated the story for me the most. I have always assumed that one day, someone would make a reality show about people killing each other, and that is essentially what the Hunger Games is. The Games serve to both unite and distract the Districts. They are all united in watching the games together, yet they all root against each other. As Roger Ebert wrote in his review, “Reality TV is the opiate of the masses.”

This story, essentially, is about a world in which the most important thing is getting other people to like you. Catnip learns this during her publicity tour, but I liked her from the start. Lawrence plays her with the same brashness, wisdom, and self-assurance that originally made me notice her in “Winter’s Bone” in 2009. This character is not trying to break any female stereotypes, she just shows the kind of strength and bravery worth admiring in any human being. Think of her as a teenage version of Ripley from “Alien.” Like Ripley, she assumes a mother-like role for just about everyone she can.

One of my biggest problems with many action movies is that they will let the hero win everything, but never give them much struggle. However, Catnip is one of those plausible heroes I have seen on screen in sometime. She has to overcome a lot in order to win. And while everyone else around her is an actor, she is a reactor. Everyone else is trying to simply hunt or be hunted, while Catnip uses the tools provided by the world around her in order to win. She is not only strong, but also smart. I will continue to follow this series, and even read the books, because of her.

“The Hunger Games” is a well above average summer blockbuster playing in March. We all know the hero will survive until the end, yet there is still doubt and suspense every time Catnip is in peril. That is what good filmmaking is all about. Thank you for that, director Gary Ross, who also wrote “Big.” These two movies are not related in anyway, but I just felt the need to point this fact out.

Ross brings this world to life. The outside is bleak and mechanical like any dystopia, yet everything inside is bright, colorful, and fast-paced. Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci), who acts like the Jeopardy host from “Slumdog Millionaire,” looks like he blue himself.

Bringing a popular novel from page to screen is never easy, and some things are certainly lost in translation. Even as someone who has never read the book, I could tell that much had to be taken out. So much of the movie is setup, yet much more could have been done to introduce the world. I would like to know more about the other districts, as well as District 12. An adaptation should be inviting of new followers, and not exclusive to those familiar with the original.

Apparently in the novel, Catnip was gaunt and starving. Lawrence is a great choice for Catnip, but she does not appear as either. Also, the Hunger Games at times seemed rigged, and it would have been really interesting to delve more into the people who were orchestrating the games. Everyone else fighting besides Catnip had absolutely no personality. Maybe it will be revealed in the next chapter, but who exactly is the villain of the Hunger Games.

But now, let’s get back to Pita. In order to make a love story engaging and emotional, both lovers should be equally interesting. To be honest, Pita might as well have not been there. Nothing about his skills, nor his backstory, are fully elaborated. In the end, it is possible that the two are not even in love, as Catnip has another love interest at home. I smell a love triangle!

See the image in full here.

But I digress (briefly). “The Hunger Games” seems to be leading to the point that their is a difference between relationships and personalities formed by the public, and those that are actually real. However, it would have made more sense had their love not seemed so force. I am not calling this deliberate, this is definitely a flaw.

Unfortunately, the movie loses some steam towards the end. Seriously, those giant dogs looked like something out of “Ghostbusters.”

However, I hate to slip into such negative territory with this movie. Here, I believe the positives overpower the negatives. The second the games begin, we are immediately drawn in the scary and unpredictable idea of death at any moment. I can’t remember the last time I went to a movie and heard such a mixed emotional response from the audience. At some points, there was genuine laughter, and at other points, sniffling. I am not sure if this movie provided everything about the “Hunger Games” universe that it was supposed to, but I can’t wait for the installment to find out more.

Your Friday Dose of Weirdness: John Ford

Leave a reply

“You know I don’t speak Spanish…”

Some characterize directors as egoists. They could be right, until they watch this interview with John Ford, conducted by Peter Bogdanovich (director of “The Last Picture Show,” which I will hopefully have a review for later this week).

The interview is so insightful because there is absolutely no insight provided by it. Is Ford being rude, or humble. Is he arrogant, or self-conscious? I usually don’t take much credence in what YouTube commenters say, but the discussion on this video is surprisingly toned down and intelligent. Take a note from that, Internet.

Anyway, what I found so interesting here is the way in which Ford answers the questions. Should a director remain closed off and mysterious about their work? Or is it better to reveal all of their intentions to the world? Discuss, and watch below:

Movie Review: A Seperation

Leave a reply

Who would have thought that a slow burning film in Farsi would merit a second viewing? “A Separation,” the winner of this year’s Oscar for Best Foreign Language film, is also one of the best films to come out of 2011. It merits such interest and praise not only for the country for which it came from, but because it is the kind of challenging fair that does not get make it to theaters enough.

I do not know how “A Separation” got by in Iran, a country bound by such heavy censorship, but that makes this filmmaking effort all the more bold. Yet, it makes no sweeping political statements, it is just about the hardships of life as it is.

“A Separation” deals with a conflict that any American, or let alone any citizen of the world, can relate to: keeping a family together. It begins in a court of divorce, and the rest of the movie will take place in and out of various courts of law. Nader (Peymon Moadi) and Simin (Leila Hatami) look to divorce. Nader was never abusive, and they never really fell out of love. Simin wants to leave Iran and look for a better life, and Nader wants to stay and take care of his father (Ali-Asghar Shahbazi), who has Alzheimers. His father is mostly bedridden, and breaths only through an oxygen tank. All he wants is the morning paper, and if he doesn’t get it, he will even dodge oncoming traffic for it.

The family is part of an established upper class. There is little association with politics and any social or political views the movie projects are done so subtlety. Maybe that is because writer and director Asghar Farhadi wanted to separate himself from the regime, or because there is something closed off and sheltered about the country’s upper class. However, education seems to be a prime concern amongst them. The education of their 11-year-old daughter Termeh (Sarina Farhadi) is of utmost importance, and she is also one of the factors that tears the marriage apart.

While Simin is gone, Nader hires Razieh (Sareh Bayat) to take care of his father. Razieh is of a lower class and despite her deep devotion in helping Nader’s father, she is treated poorly. Nader even accuses her of stealing from him. This is a woman that is so honest and faithful that at one point, she won’t even tell a lie that will benefit her, because she will be swearing an oath on the Quran.

In an instant, “A Separation” transforms from a family drama of staggering devastation to a he said-she said Iranian version of “Rashomon.” After some unfortunate circumstances that lad Nader to physically push Razieh out of his apartment, her subsequent tumble leads to Nader’s trial for killing an unborn child. Depending on how you look at it, he may be innocent, guilty, or something else in between.

“A Separation” is shot in such a simple, beautifully uneven style that it resembles a documentary. Farhadi is the fly on the wall, capturing every event while being as objective as possible. There is also almost a complete absence of a musical score. In a film, music usually tells you how to feel in a certain scene. The case involved has so many sides that using music to tell the audience how to feel would be a major cop out. “A Separation” is not about cop outs. This movie shows a lot, including every mundane detail of a day. And yes, there is even a loving closeup of an overstuffed suitcase being zipped up.

This is all fitting, as “A Separation” never attempts to glorify nor vilify the director’s homeland. It doesn’t provide the brightest vision though, either. If “Slumdog Millionaire” was about filling Mumbai with pulsating energy, then “A Separation” fills Tehran with urban pessimism. I would relate this most to the Chilean movie from 2009 “The Maid” about a maid who loses her grip on reality after finding out the rich family she has served for years might replace her. “A Separation” has less of the painful things-fall-apart feeling of that film, but it certainly shares a similar mood dealing with class warfare.

“A Separation” is a portrait of a country that always seems to be in turmoil. Just like Nader’s marriage, it is constantly caught in the middle and splitting apart. In one scene, Nader admonishes his daughter for speaking in Arabic as opposed to Farsi. In another scene, one of Termeh’s textbooks recalls a time in the country’s history when the only two classes that existed were “royalty” (which she then changes to “upper class”) and “everyone else.” Everyone seems to go either one way or another and in that light, it is hard to choose because as the main incident of the movie shows, life has more than two right answers.

When “A Separation” concludes, there is no sigh of relief, only the discomfort of uncertainty. That is what makes the whole thing so unsettling, and ultimately so rewarding. There is some blatant separation symbolism at the film’s end, but that doesn’t make it any less effective. There is a key decision made at the end, and it is fitting that we never know the outcome. Either way, one character we like will be hurt, and the other won’t be, and vice versa. This is one of the most stirringly objective narratives I’ve ever seen on film.

However, being so objective is hard. Every person involved in the trial of “A Separation” has the best intentions, and they all live their lives according to the same religion. Yet in the end, it is only our own personal feelings that can provide us with the moral compass for this story. I hope to see more movies like this, that challenge us to choose our emotional response, rather than feeding it all to us.

Movie Review: Friends With Kids

Leave a reply

Let’s clear one thing up right now from the trailer of “Friends with Kids”: this is not a rom-com. This is not even a comedy about love. It is more along the lines of a dramedy with some awkward laughs, and a lot of babies ruining things. Man, do children ruin everything.

The main group of friends of “Friends with Kids” like to talk. A lot. About everything. I guess that’s what 30-something Manhattanites are supposed to do. In a fancy restaurant, two couples and two best friends discuss the mundane. Platonic best friends Jason (Adam Scott) and Julie (Jennifer Westfeldt) remark how much they hate the parents around them who bring their kids to a restaurant like this, to which Alex (Chris O’Dowd) and Leslie (Maya Rudolph) announce that they plan to have a baby. Some brief, yet awkwardly hilarious tension ensues.

Four years later, Alex and Leslie have two kids. The other couple Ben (Jon Hamm) and Missy (Kristen Wiig) are also knee deep in babies. Ben and Missy weirdly seem to share a brain. Alex and Leslie meanwhile, are two very different personalities. Leslie is more uptight and stern, and Alex is the complete opposite. They fight a lot, but it is always clear that they love each other. As Alex, Chris O’Dowd chews up the scenery and brings humor back to having a foul mouth. He shows off the comedic skill that he could not in his nice guy role in “Bridesmaids.”

At this point, Jason and Julie are still single. They both want children, but without marriage, as they see it tearing as tearing apart the personal well being of their other friends. On impulse, they hatch the plan to have a baby while simply remaining friends. They are both the kind of people who believe they can have it all, so they decide to take part in this social experiment. The real lesson here: never have a baby before doing your research.

Julie gives birth and at first, the arrangement works out as well as they imagined it would. Then, problems arise when they both do what they set out to do: raise a child, and date other people at the same time. Jason gives in to his shallow tendencies and dates the beautiful, but empty Broadway dancer Mary Jane (Megan Fox, who hopefully didn’t call anyone Hitler on set), and Julie dates single father Kurt (Edward Burns), who is so perfect to the point of being an absolute bore.

“Friends with Kids” is an eclectic mix of Woody Allen and Robert Altman: it combines philosophical musings on love and relationships with bountiful overlapping conversations, with a profound love of New York City. The writing is often times sharp and full of wit, and lets the conversations drag on just before their breaking point. Rarely does a movie driven more by talking than plot get made, and rarely does it ever actually work.

Romantic comedies like to ask the question a lot of whether to people can be a couple without being in a relationship. In fact, it happened twice last year (“No Strings Attached,” “Friends with Benefits”). When it comes to romance, there are two rules that Hollywood lives by: true love exists, and if two friends have sex, they will eventually fall in love. “Friends with Kids” falls under the latter rule, but goes further than that. No two friends can raise another human being together without feeling the bond of love. This is why surrogate mothers exist.

Putting an image of Megan Fox in an article is a guarenteed way to increase the amount of hits you get.

But I like “Friends with Kids,” and the fact that it doesn’t just fall under the rules, but asks questions about why they mean, and why they are even there in the first place. This is not a movie where big events happen, but rather the story unfolds in walks through Central Park, dinner parties, and ski trips.

The dialogue has a very rapid fire that can be hard to keep up with. This is why I assume that five of the six deft actors in the cast are best known for work on television. Scott, usually a great supporting actor, steps up to the plate in his first true leading role. He takes his kind, nerdy role in “Parks and Rec” and the alpha male cockiness of his role in “Step Brothers,” and uses it all for Jason. He sells his ending speech with the genuine emotional breakdown that comes along with it. Scott is one of the best actors out there today; this guy never phones it in.

A few big problems that “Friends with Kids” has is that sometimes, it does reach the breaking point on conversations. The whole movie seems to be an experiment about a social experiment but sometimes, it does drag on a little too long. There is something of an underutilization of the actors, which ultimately leads to trouble with the story itself. For example, Hamm and Wiig are gone for a majority of the movie and when they come back, their marriage is inexplicably in shambles. And why does a character rendered as meaningless as Hamm’s Ben, get the honor of giving the speech that proves to be the turning point of the movie? Someone should have watched Don Draper’s Guide to Picking Up Women.

Westfeldt provides a look on love, marriage, and family that is funny, entertaining, and most importantly, honest. The honesty part is hard to come by nowadays. It is hard to get me to see a romantic comedy, and I’ll admit that what made me want to see “Friends with Kids” most was the cast. The ending is just about what you would expect it to be, but how it gets there is much more important. This is a comedy about the reality of romance, not the movie version of it.