Industrial Food: The Movie

Embracing my winter vacation, I finally checked out Food, Inc. on the 'ol Netflix. The visuals are shocking and the subject matter is appalling. The two principal food experts are Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser, the authors of The Omnivore's Dilemma and Fast Food Nation, respectively. Having read both, this movie borrows heavily from those books. The original parts were the litigation and the food advocacy sections (which actually may be in FFN, it has been several years since I read it). Liking both books, I recommend those over the movie (FFN over The OD), but if you're pressed for time, the movie will do. Just don't expect to enjoy chicken that much any more.

Paul Blart- Birthday Ruiner

It being a Sunday and having gone out the night before, the roommates and I opted to go to the Harris Teeter Redbox to rent a movie (for $1 I might add). When we got to the front, a line had formed and so after once through "Comedies" I said we should get Paul Blart: Mall Cop. Regular readers know that I'll give almost any movie a fair chance. I like Kevin James: King of Queens and what stand up of his I have seen. Bucking the critics, Paul Blart was a smash success at the box office, I figured, why not?

I'll tell you why not: people are idiots. It is terrible. It is completely predictable and not funny. When the bad guys take over the mall (am I ruining anything? no- this movie sucks) I thought I had fallen asleep and woke up to Home Alone 4: Kevin Really Let Himself Go. No redeeming quality to watching this movie.

Upon a time

After hearing NPR stories and reading a lot of good reviews about Once, I was excited to watch it, but after such buildup I didn't want to dash the hopes I had for it.

Once is great. It is very touching, and I feel like it needed to be done because it is a low-budget indie-ish film that goes a different way than Hollywood romances. It is VERY cute: in one early scene the girl- whose name we never learn- brings her "Hoover sucker" (vacuum) to the guy- whose name we never learn- to fix it, and she ends up rolling it around town. At points its got a cerebral "what is love" sort of feel like Before Sunrise, but those moments do not dominate and are outnumbered by the number of times when the guy and girl share love.

Oh, plot summary, yes. It is about a guy and girl who meet while he is playing his heart out via guitar on the streets of Ireland. Her insistence at him acknowledging her (not in a romantic or sexual way, but more like "I'm not going to take the hints that you want me to leave, lets establish a platonic relationship because you are interesting.") eventually leads to them forming a romantic bond through music and off the movie goes. She helps him make the leap of faith and act on his dream of being a professional musician.

I loved the art of this movie. Multiple scenes are shot like a music video or a reality TV show. It made me want to go out and shoot a movie (I started playing around with the video editing software pre-installed on my computer after watching the movie). In the special features they talk about it being shot like a movie someone would make and that gives it a very real and approachable feel. The style enhances the simplicity of the story, sucking you in as a participant- sort of like being in the audience at a show- rather than as someone merely watching a movie. The principal actors have great chemistry. Lastly- and I hesitate to make this the last word, because music is a central part of the story-, it goes without saying that the music is fantastic (the most popular song from the soundtrack here).

Watch it.

The real slum, dog

One of the things that bothered me about Slumdog Millionaire was that it didn't explore the depths of poverty in India. It sort of glossed over it.

Born into Brothels does not. I'm not sure who recommended it or if I just heard about it because it won the Oscar for Best Documentary (?) in 2004, but it is fantastic. Not that long, but pretty powerful. The story follows a group of 9 children in Calcutta who live in a brothel in the red light district. An American photographer ("Zana Auntie") teaches them photography and gives them little cameras to go take pictures. Besides taking brilliant pictures of their little part of the world they are also dealing with some pretty real stuff. About half-way through the movie, it starts to focus on the American woman's attempts to intervene into their lives to get them into school. Scenes of the Indian bureaucracy messing up the kids names on their forms, rejections from schools, and resistance from the families and the kids send this story into some sad moments. Not going to ruin the ending, but I think its worth the watch.

Movie-wise a couple of things bothered me. First, the music is melodramatic and kind of diminishes what is an otherwise powerful film. Take away the music and there's a whole new ball game. Second, and maybe I'm comparing it too much to Mad Hot Ballroom (a MUST-see documentary about an inner-city ballroom dance competition in NY public schools) but the drama and intrigue are not strong. The kids are very sympathetic and their stories are compelling and heart-wrenching. But, the film tried to make it into a drama and not an expose on their lives. I think it could have done with less work in the editing room.

I think its available online (Netflix has it to stream or rent) and maybe at the video store. Check it out.

A.O. Scott

One of the things I have enjoyed the most about the New York Times is the movie reviews in the Arts section. Often I find myself reading reviews of movies I have zero interest in watching just to read how others think of them. My favorite reviewer is A. O. Scott and until tonight I had never seen his face.

He review "Mad Max" in their video section of their website in this clip. Its short so there's not much there, but for other fans of his, I thought it might be interesting.

Let's open up the vault

If you're reading this you probably know me and that I'm willing to watch just about anything (also stated "I'm interested in seeing crappy movies"). There are some movies over the years that have escaped me for one reason or another and now with the invention of the Netflix queue and my laziness some of those movies arrive in my mailbox.

Ashley Judd and Tommy Lee Jones star in Double Jeopardy, a thriller where Ashley Judd's character (I think they said her name but she'd probably prefer it if you call her Ashley Judd's character) is framed for murdering her husband and sent to jail only to discover while in jail that her husband is still alive and has started a new life with her son and best friend. That is approximately the first 15 minutes. I'm not sure what happens in the next hour and a half because I blacked out from ODing on obvious plot "twists" and assertions of the strength of Ashley Judd's character (think Not Without My Daughter). Tom Lee Jones plays somebody that does something and we're supposed to be interested but JHC its terrible. I could've just written this: Double Jeopardy: its bad, don't see it. However, I know my readers expect- nay, demand an explanation.

I watched Confessions of A Dangerous Mind last week. I didn't want to write a review of that because I was only half paying attention but it was worth watching. Interesting for sure. I wish they'd played up the fact that his CIA experiences may not have actually happened and sort of taken a bigger picture (like Adaptation) view of his autobiography: a movie both about and from the book. Not a lot to write about it b/c I wasn't immersed in it but its got some spy stuff and the visual effects are pretty neat (I was reminded at some points of Europa, Europa- I don't remember why).

OH, OH. A movie I watched that I really liked was Bloody Sunday. It was done in 2002 and won an indy award for making a political statement or promoting peace (something like that). Its about the Sunday in Dairy, Ireland (the Northern part) where British paratroopers killed a bunch (13) of innocent* people. Never having learned the story and knowing disappointingly little about the event (the one from the U2 song) I was amazed about the story. The frustrating sequence of events that led to unnecessary death was displayed masterfully. I was moved. The acting is phenomenal and art (camera work and lighting, especially) are amazing. I would watch this again for sure.

*= asterisk.

Back and Bloodier than ever.

The school year ended and I have some packing to avoid, so I'm back at the reviewing game.

Talking about Blood Diamond last night neither Jake nor Geoff could come up with a happy movie set in Africa in the past 10 years (Lion King is too old). And that's the way this goes. Set in Sierra Leone, Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou of Amistad and Gladiator) is separated from his family and forced to mine for diamonds. He finds a big 'un and is about to get killed over it when he miraculously is able to escape after hiding the diamond. Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a Zimbabwean (nee Rhodesian) profiteer who learns of the diamond and tries to get Solomon to take it to him. Add the American Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly) as the reporter who is trying to land a big story on the diamond trade and we've got a movie.

Two thoughts jumped out at me: 1) The plot is pretty standard and some of the action seems unreal. Coincidences and close calls make some of the movie eye-rollingly unoriginal. To be clear, the plot isn't bad, just nothing surprising. 2) A lot of it is too real, baring the atrocities in an un-gratuitous and revealing way. The violence isn't shocking for how it is depicted, it is shocking for what it is. Included in that is the violence committed against the young boys who are changed into child soldiers.

A big interesting theme that runs throughout the movie is the question of what should the rest of the world be doing in Sierra Leone? At times that question is uncomfortable as American culture and attention to suffering around the world is indicted. However, the movie is ultimately thought-provoking rather than accusatory.

I recommend Blood Diamonds with the caveat that its not great and you will see women and children die.

No time for the Jibba Jabba

From the Presidents- they're just like us! files here is an article about Barack Obama's TV preferences. 

No time for long posts but here is some quick hits:

TV

Lost- loving it, the plot is moving fast.

House- thanks, world, for ruining the major change to the show before I had a chance to watch it.

Movies

Zack and Miri make a Porno- don't see. I was excited to see the movie because I like most of the elements (Kevin Smith, Seth Rogan, Elizabeth Banks, Craig Robinson, etc.) but it was bad. The best part was Jason Mewes (Jay of Jay and Silent Bob) who played a dumb guy instead of his normal character. 

The what-what?

My Netflix queueueue is not organized and so I get random movies I have put on there for no known reason showing up in my mailbox . A week ago I got "The Chumscrubber" and put it off because I didn't really know what it was about. It is a suburban dystopia where, similar to "Brick" (a movie I highly recommend) and the show "Weeds" the kids live in an alternative world where they do adult things  (drugs, sex, crime, etc.) and the adults are petty and childish. The movie has a pretty good cast (Glen Close, Ralph Fiennes, Alison Janney and a host of familiar-looking teens/kids) and I think the acting is pretty good.

I thought it was a decent movie touching on themes that are overripe. The movie came out in 2005, so maybe I just watched it after its relevance, but I don't think that's the case. I liked the fantastic (as in fantasy) animation sequences- very much like "A Scanner Darkly" (or those Charles Schwab commercials with the real life people overlayed with animation, if you haven't seen Scanner)- that serve as commentary of the unnaturalness of suburban life but that aspect may have been too much because the action stands alone as commentary. It is more of a character-centered film, so unless you're gung-ho about criticizing suburbia it is not a must-see.

What you don't know will be used to scare you

I was taking notes and starting to write this review while I was watching the movie (which is "Traitor") so I had a whole long post drafted about how bad this movie was and all of the problems I saw with it (factually) and how as a vision of the "war on terrorism" it was a farce. I was truly disappointed with the film to that point and not psyched to finish it. Then about half-way through the movie they added another layer and I for a brief moment I had to stop writing and start watching.

... and then it got ideological again. Then with 30 minutes left a couple of great twists and I thought this movie was going to be salvaged.

... and then it wasn't. When the climax comes and action happens rapidly the predictable happens. Yuck.

"Traitor" is about terrorists, terrorism, and the U.S. efforts to fight them. It is from 2008, so it is done in the shadow of the Bush presidency where that stuff is taken ultra-seriously. In fact all of the depictions of everything are extreme and ideological.

The story: Don Cheadle plays Samir, a devout Sudanese Muslim who is into shady business but gets mixed up with terrorists. He goes to prison in Yemen and gets then breaks out with them only to travel and assist their operations. At the same time two FBI agents (Guy Pearce and Neal McDonough- from Band of Brothers) are trying to stop an impending massive attack in the U.S.

I kind of have to save everything for the spoiler section because it is a thriller with twists and turns, but the whole thing is best characterized as "far-fetched."

One thing that's not a spoiler is the role of the two FBI agents  who are chasing Samir. That they are FBI agents is odd because it is a domestic law enforcement agency and they track him abroad waaaay before he gets involved with the terrorists. Not only that but the FBI is doing international counter-terrorism analysis and coordinating with international agencies to prevent attacks abroad under the guise of preventing an attack in the U.S. I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure those two things do not happen or do not happen to the extent that they do in this movie. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on this.

So, all in all this movie is pulp and should not be ingested by anyone who has a formal or sophisticated understanding of terrorism.

There is a saving grace of this movie in that the majority of the people who watch it will not have that sophisticated understanding and may have their perceptions changed. Ugh, that's kind of disheartening in itself.

(Warning: spoilers below... but don't see this movie.)

----------------

Spoiler Section-

Don't these agencies (CIA, FBI, DHS) coordinate? Does the CIA operate on US soil like Samir was doing? The FBI agents make direct connections with scant evidence and carry on with a narrow-minded views of things. I am not of the opinion that the FBI is perfect, but I am of the opinion that they are smart and have a nuanced view of people. The whole thing seems farcical and only a step up from 24 (admittedly I only saw one season of 24 and it was apparently, it wasn't not one of the "good ones").

Half-way through, the movie becomes a bad CIA-FBI thriller. When Jeff Daniels dies I thought the movie had the potential to be a lot better. They could have played up the fact that Samir was basically operating without authority and had to decide whether to cover his ass or protect America. That angst never came across.

When Omar (played by Said Taghmaoui of Lost- recently- and some other stuff) and Samir have their showdown I wanted to vomit. Its just dumb. I'm tired and need to stop writing. But seriously, don't see the movie.

A week off

School work and a surprise trip to Beantown left me busy last week, so here's what I've seen in a nutshell:

How I Met Your Mother

The Good: It's finally back on.

The Bad: Can we move the plot please? Yes, Barney loves Robin. Can we get some movement there or drop it? Also, Barney seems only to love Robin when its convenient (in Three Days of Snow he pursued the college girl).

House

(Note: I watch this online and Fox puts it up a week after it airs on TV, so this may be doubly old if you watch it on TV.)

The Good: As usual a good episode.

The Bad: It seemed mechanical- reinforcing what is known about the characters, not moving them along except the Thirteen-Foreman relationship.

The Office

The Good: Victory for Kevin! I love to see him win (see Chair Model- Season 4, Episode 10). It is great to see a large part of the office coalesce into a supporting group (for the most part). The stuff with Phyllis-Bob Vance (of Vance Refrigeration) was hilarious.

The Bad: It is kind of a downer that there are a bunch of unhappy people in the office. The stuff with Phyllis-Bob Vance (of Vance Refrigeration) was disgusting.

30 Rock

The Good: The Frank-Jack story line is funny, although, maybe I say that only because I happen to really like the Frank character. I was dying when Jack had to turn Frank away just like Harry.

The Bad: I've seen this episode before- Jenna acting out because she's jealous of Tracy and Liz being crazy about babies and manipulating others to get her way is P-L-A-Y-E-D.

Lost- Separate review to follow.

The Daily Show

The Good: They're keeping the Obama administration's feet to the fire. I thought this interview was brilliant:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

White House Press Corps

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

I really liked the interview with former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (Part 1, Part 2) and think its a must-see. The interview with Billy Crudup got me more excited about seeing The Watchmen (review to come?). 

The Bad: They're still fighting culture wars against Fox News. That is kind of old hat to me.

Saturday Night Live (Yes, I still watch it)

I haven't actually watched it, but I've seen links to clips floating around online, so I'll probably watch this sometime. I just wanted to mention it.

Run, Fat Boy, Run

Running and especially running marathons seems to be a thing now so I'm very happy to review this movie. (Side note: I highly suggest watching this interpretation of marathons from HIMYM.) 

The plot is nothing spectacular, but the charm of the movie is that it is funny and uplifting. The male lead is Simon Pegg, who I liked in Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, and the female lead is Thandie Newton, the woman from MI2 and Crash, and both do what they do fine. The story is basically this: out-of-shape, loserly Dennis Doyle (Pegg) leaves pregnant Libby Odell (Newton) at the alter and then wakes up one day to realize he made a huge mistake. Libby's boyfriend- Hank Azaria as Whit- is a big threat to take both Libby and Dennis' son away from Dennis. The battle for Libby's heart is fought in the arena of a marathon. A group of Dennis' friends get together to help him get in shape- hilarity ensues. Hank Azaria (from the Simpsons and probably some other stuff- but I couldn't stop hearing Simpsons voices whenever he spoke) seemed like an odd choice because he's nerdy but I think it worked in the end. The humor ranges from gross (but never over-the-top) to classic.

I recommend this if you're looking for light fare.

That's it!

Indiana Jones and the Unnecessary Sequel

I really enjoyed the Indiana Jones movies growing up and fondly remember playing the Last Crusade computer game (where you just do what he did in the movie) in 5th grade computer class. So, I was wary about ruining my affection for those movies with a 66-year old Harrison Ford.

Sadly, I was proven correct. The movie is completely unbelievable... as in non-believable. The story involves aliens and Communists (Nazi-thwarting is way more entertaining) and surviving a nuclear explosion and a tough-guy Shia LaBeouf and monkey-kids (all the depiction of South Americans are shamefully racist) that haunt ruins and ESP. I did not put any of that in a spoiler section because it all happens in the first 30-45 minutes. In the first action sequence Harrison Ford is trying to escape and it looks baaaad. I mean, I think they sped up the tape to make him look like he was climbing and running faster than he was. The combined effect makes this movie entirely over-the-top non-believable. The Lost Ark and the Last Crusade (the good ones of the three) are predicated on historical/religious lore. This one is all made up stuff with splashes of historical plausibility.

The worst part of the whole thing, is that if this movie didn't have the Indiana Jones label, it would not have been made. The movie has no art in it anywhere. The casting of Shia is a transparent way of extending the franchise (or at least testing the waters).  I hope the producers recognize the mistake they have made and just let the series end.

Positivity section: There is an extended care chase/fight scene that is entertaining and sort of reminiscent of the car chase/fight scene in the Last Crusade. It too, however, is riddled with weirdness and unbelievability.

Recommendation: Don't see it unless its on TV, there's nothing else on and you won't really be paying attention.

Inappropriate pun

Hancock. Right off the bat, with the title, things aren't looking good. But, I've watched many Will Smith blockbusters and consider them a part of my formative years (ID4, Bad Boys, Men in Black, Ali, I Robot, etc.) and am a HUGE fan of Fresh Prince. Plus, I like superhero TV (maybe not any more) and movies so I had to give this one a looksy.

Rating: Its not bad, but its not good. 

If you're watching the movie, you're probably prepared for a blockbuster and so aren't looking for any meaning out of your experience. You don't expect character development, significant statements on life/the world, and you don't really care if there is logical consistency (See Spoiler Section Note 2). Also, you expect a small degree of homophobic, racist, and sexist remarks and portrayals that demonstrate "mainstream" views or "everyman-ness" (gender bias intended). This movie had some (especially up front), but didn't beat you over the head with machoness and only had a taste of homophobia.

I like the flawed superhero aspect (super people can have emotions and personal shortcomings too!). Also, the financial toll that he wreaked on the city was an amusing touch of realism. Everyone in the movie played their parts well, but no one made their career on this movie.

At the same time, I was not entertained. The effects are okay, but it seems like they implied more than they actually show. They talk about the messed up stuff (destroyed buildings, trains, etc.) and flash some digital images (not bad quality, but obvious) of destruction here and there to paint the picture but, as long as you're taking me there, bring it. See Spoiler Section Note 1.

Another crucial aspect that was missing was any sort of interesting aspect to the story. Jason Bateman (I don't know if his character's name is ever said, its certainly not important) is trying to reform Hancock- this isn't giving away anything. The natural story line is for the superhero to try and reform and mess up a bunch of times on his path towards goodness- hilarity ensues. Instead, the answer is for him to go to prison. Not funny or interesting. There is an unforeseen twist that comes about 5/8 of the way into the movie, but it completely changes the movie into a weird sort of romance thing. The climactic action is fairly obvious although the villain does not enter into the equation until 20 minutes left into the movie. Probably not giving too much away by saying that there is room for a sequel here (although, to be fair, even if the end had not been favorable to a sequel the $62 million opening weekend and $227 million gross probably is favorable for a sequel) but please no.

Best Part of the Movie: Charlize Theron (her, her character, and um...her)

Biggest pet peeve: no good one-liners. 

Biggest let down: No allusions to Jason Bateman and Charlize Theron's previous collaboration on Arrested Development. (At least that I could see... I wasn't going to watch it again to find them).

Best thing to do if you're not going to really watch the movie: Scour the internet for updates on the possible Vince Carter trade to Houston.

(Warning: spoilers below)

----------------

Spoiler section- for further commentary on things that give away information.

1. The superhero fight scene could have been a lot better. It was a lot of close up shots of them wrestling, and it seems like the hallmark of superhero fighting is creative use of your surroundings, which that scene didn't really have.

2. Logical Consistency- So, if they are weaker when they're around each other- why didn't Hancock die when Charlize Theron threw him through the house? He- and a fridge- went through a wall into several cars and into the street- what's up with that? Moreover, how come they didn't kill each other when they were fighting? Even if the argument is that they had to have strong feelings of love for them to become weak, why didn't Charlize die? She didn't lose her memory and still loved him.