Too emotional for you?

The other day, I was telling a friend of mine that I was going to watch the movie "Precious: Based on the novel PUSH by Sapphire" and how I was very excited, being that it has been getting a lot of great publicity. She only responded with "I don't want to see that movie, it will just make me too sad."

Once this was said, I noticed that in one version or another this sentence has been flying around in conversation whenever "Precious" comes up. Since when were people afraid to feel anything in a movie? Granted the subject matter is difficult, but it is not something that people should shy away from; they should see it and form an opinion of their own, perhaps they might even feel something.

I understand the audiences that will not attend horror films. That is a genre unto itself that deliberately provokes fear in the viewer. Sometimes that fear causes a little too much stress on its audience and it no longer becomes entertaining. Like a roller coaster ride, you either like them or you don't.

But "Precious" isn't a roller coaster, just a tough drama. What is the fear of? Being caught with puffy eyes in public ... Not having a tissue on hand...No significant other's shoulder to cry on...
Were people also afraid to see "Schindler's List" , I saw it although the subject matter is horrifying. "Hotel Rwanda" was a tough film to sit through and what about "Boys Don't Cry"? Did people shy away from these films too?

I love being moved in a film. The dark theater and fellow patrons cocoon me and my thoughts with the images on screen. For two hours you can connect, remember and even laugh or cry because of characters that you have just met. Since when are people afraid to become too sad? Cinema's gift is release.

"Precious" deals with tough subject matter, but this film looks like it will take one of the ten nominated slots for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, perhaps even take home Oscar. Ask yourself, would you go see it now, if it were nominated?

I admit that I cried during one of the final scenes of "Precious", the acting is so powerful, it grabs the audience in such a profound way that I was moved to tears. Everyone around me was sniffling throughout the entire film as well; together as an audience we connected with the film. No one I know regretted seeing "Precious", so ask yourself if you are too scared to feel something or are you willing to get on the ride?

Halloween anyone?

This one is for the monster in all of us.

I was just wondering what scary movies you will be watching? I love to hear about what people will screen this time of year.

The theaters seem to be pretty weak. I think there are two titles to choose from if you are in for a scare. Although I have heard that "Paranormal Activity" is pretty scary (very "Blaire Witch"), I think the most frightening part of it is how much money Paramount is making off of this film. I think it was a win-win for everybody and I am hoping to get to the theater to see it soon. It is pretty interesting that Halloween has become synonymous with the "Saw" movies at the box office. How do you think the 6th film will turn out? Without shame, I will admit to seeing four of the five films so far. Not in order and I skipped the fourth "Saw" and went straight to the fifth installment-I don't think it affected the plot at all. Really though, I cannot wait until they have made all nine "Saw" films (yes, 9!) and I get to go to a movie marathon of ALL of the films. That might be the ultimate torture, the final game that Jigsaw will play-we will all walk out of the theater red-eyed and crazy.

Personally, I have been feeling pretty nostalgic lately. I think I'll see "The Nightmare Before Christmas" and then "The Thing" to get me ready for Halloween. To me these two compliment each other nicely with a combination of fantasy, sci-fi, horror that is splashed with holiday cheer. Also you really can't go wrong with Kurt Russel in a jump suit. What will you be watching?

Where the Wild Things Are

It was over forty years ago that Maurice Sendak’s story of a rambunctious child named Max visited the land of the Wild Things. Over four decades, this story has been brought to the bedrooms of children everywhere and now director Spike Jonze has brought it to the silver screen. Staying true to the book “Where the Wild Things Are” beautifully captures what it means to be a child, but it may not be as universally fulfilling as the children’s book.

This is the first time that director Spike Jonze and screenwriter Dave Eggers have partnered together. Eggers is an interesting choice, being that he is new to screenwriting but is a famous novelist and the founder of the publishing house McSweeney’s. Together they took on the difficult task of making a feature length film from a loved simple story. Credit must be given to Eggers for staying true to the book, only expanding on the ideas that were given. But herein lies the problem; the book does not give much text to work with. Within the world of the children’s story it is simple and compelling for both children and parents but the film takes on the larger theme leaving it only for the adults to understand.

Max is introduced as a creative and emotional child. He can make up stories on the spot but cries when things do not go his way. It is when his mother, played by the lovely Katherine Keener, scolds him that he lashes out by biting her and then running away. After running through a forest, he comes to a boat that he boards and sets sail to anywhere. He arrives at the land of the Wild Things and watches as Carol, one of the beasts, breaks houses in rage. To avoid being eaten, Max tells them that he is a king and they make him king of the Wild Things. The fun begins as they sleep in piles together and throw dirt clods at one another. But when Max is unable to fix all the problems of the Wild Things, it is discovered that he is not a king and he needs to return to his mother.

There are six Wild Things, all with their own personality that grow on you slowly, like a good friend. Carol, voiced by James Gandolfini, takes Max under his wing because he believes that Max can keep away the sadness and loneliness that has settled on the Wild Things. Carol has the idea of building a place where everyone is happy and Max decides that they should build it. But the different personalities of the Wild Things create friction within the group. Judith, voiced by Catherine O’Hara, is always negative and KW, voiced by Lauren Ambrose, does not want to be a part of the arguing any longer. The imperfections of the group start to chip away at their idea of happiness.

But this is a film about being a child and so often children do not know how to handle or even describe the emotions that they are feeling. In the beginning of the film, Max experiences such an emotional rage that he storms in his sisters’ room and destroys a piece of artwork he made for her, then sadly reflects on what he had just done. Much like Carol, who in rage tears down houses and destroys his handmade city. He is often so overwhelmed by these feelings that he cries, unable to understand why he cannot get what he wants.

Visually, "Where the Wild Things Are" captures the awesomeness that is a child's imagination.
Everything that they play with and the spaces that they inhabit are all very natural and tactile, always handling sticks, dirt and stones. The island itself has different mediums of nature including forest, desert and mountains that make it seem so large, but never threatening. The Wild Things provide the contrast. They stand out on the island so much, always filmed within a large landscape, making the natural seem unnatural and special.

There is nothing to resolve in "Where the Wild Things Are" because the conflict is simply growing up. You cannot always get what you want, or more importantly, do we really want that? As a child there is always a sense of adventure and new experiences bring up new emotions that one must react to. Unfortunately, it is not always as playful and lighthearted as we would like it to be.

“Where the Wild Things Are” reminisces on growing up and where the fine line of playful childhood blurs with harsh reactionary emotions. When the beasts don’t know how to describe something, or they cannot put it into words they howl. Perhaps we should take a cue from them and not reflect too much on the film, but simply enjoy it and howl because we can.

Mini Munch: Zombieland

I shouldn't really have to say that to get in the mood for Halloween you should see "Zombieland"- it is not a scary movie and you should see it anyway. I guess it is fitting for the holiday though, there are zombie and lots of blood.

The story is simple. The infectious crazed apocalypse has already happened. Zombies are everywhere and humans are just fighting to survive to not become one of them. Columbus is our narrator- the characters are given names by the cities they are from- and he has found an interesting way to get by, based on his own set of rules. When he meets Tallahassee, played by Woody Harrleson, they decide to travel together by default. They are overtaken by two females, Wichita and Little Rock on their way to a theme park that is considered "safe". Along the way, they learn to stick together for their own safety and share how they each get by. For example, when Tallahassee gets really angry he takes anything he can find and tears it up. This makes for a fun scene when they all take out their frustration in a gift shop.

Without ever getting too emotional the film hints at how afraid and alone they all are, realizing that they only have each other in this crazy world. Characters fall in love and a new family is born, all while they each kill zombies to avoid getting bitten. The film starts off where most zombie films end and it makes for a different twist on the genre. A warning- the gore is intense in this film, but it is never frightening, just uncomfortable to look at sometimes. Also, "Zombieland" has one of the best cameos I have seen in a while, but no, I will not give it away. This film is so delightful because it never takes itself too seriously-it knows exactly what it needs to do to keep your attention, getting the audience to gasp and laugh at the same time. In the vain of films like "Shaun of the Dead" this film makes fun of itself, but brings fresh ideas to the living dead.

DVD Munch: The Proposal

Here comes a romantic comedy about marriage with a twist. Instead of marriage being what are two main characters are striving for, it is a bond that they are desperately trying to get out of. “The Proposal” humorously presents a new way of looking at what it means to be attached to somebody, without ever getting too serious.

We are immediately introduced to our two leads and how different they are. Sandra Bullock is Margaret Tate, a pushy and demanding book editor who runs on her treadmill every morning and reads scripts while eating breakfast. Her assistant, Andrew Paxton (played by Ryan Reynolds) can’t get up on time and while running into the office spills coffee all over himself. Margaret finds out that she will be deported to Canada so in order to keep her in the US she blackmails Andrew into marrying her to keep her Visa status. To make it look real and announce their engagement, they fly to Alaska to tell Andrew’s parents. To add to the pressure of the relationship, they are threatened with jail time if this proves to be a plot to keep Margaret in the states.

Once Andrew’s family finds out about their engagement, they want them to be married by the end of the weekend at their home. The wedding festivities begin—complete with

Bridal shower lap dances and hand-me-down dress fittings. As they are both bombarded with family members, Andrew and Margaret desperately try to stand one another all while faking a loving, lasting relationship.

To no surprise, Reynolds and Bullock have wonderful chemistry. Bullock plays a tight-lipped and tightly dressed boss perfectly, never letting her guard down for one moment. Even until the very end of the film, she stubbornly protects her feelings. Reynolds plays Andrew so confidently that you don’t really know why he continues to be bossed around; almost always slightly sarcastic, he brings a youthful and witty charm to the screen.

They don’t end up getting married, but after spending a weekend together forcing emotions, they actually develop feelings for one another. The last scene in the film has the predictable kiss that is part of every romantic comedy. Andrew tells Margaret that they must get married so that they can date-or else she will be deported. Those are some interesting terms, perhaps a new way to look at the bond of marriage? Not only does “The Proposal” endorse divorce, because that is their easy way out, but it makes it seem that it isn’t the kind of bond that is supposed to be “forever” anyway.

I enjoy that the film never tries to be something that it isn’t. It is simple and has fun making fun of itself, all while slowly opening the characters up. Unfortunately, the characters never really expose much of themselves so the final connection seems a bit far-fetched. But then again, so is forcing someone into marriage. If people can fall in love in three days and proposals can be the new way to date, I’m interested—and apparently there is always an easy way out.

There are many fun DVD extras that are worth taking a look at for “The Proposal”. The Alternate ending is definitely worth taking a look at. It is interesting to see how and why the film ended the way that it did. It is also comes with director and writer commentary which is perfect for understanding the choices made. For anyone that likes Deleted Scenes there are a couple of fun ones to take and look at and the “Set Antics” is great to watch because Reynolds and Bullock are so funny. There is also a feature for audio commentary by the director and writer for the entire film. Accompanied with this DVD comes the Digital Copy, therefore easily uploaded for on-the-go viewing.

Box Office. Office Box.

I had many opportunities to get myself to a theater this weekend and yet every time I thought about it, I was not inspired to see anything. Perhaps it was the poor marketing decision of distribution companies to put out TWO sci-fi flicks- "Pandorum" and "Surrogates"- at the same time. Not only am I presented with two science fiction choices, I am left confused by their advertising campaigns because I have no idea what these films are actually about. This got me thinking about all of the times that this happens at theaters- the double booking. I really do not like this because I only want one option, I do not want to have to decide. In most recent memory this happened when studios released "The Illusionist" and "The Prestige" at the same time. Two films about magicians, both with stellar casts, both hard to tell apart. They were each good in their own respects, but why confuse the public? There is only a certain amount of information that can be given away in a trailer and it's not enough to tell films like this apart. What about when "Antz" and "A Bug's Life" went head to head? I know that it has happened more than this. As for the recent sci-fi releases I was just left confused by poor marketing. I know that they are very much different stories, but to make me decide between the two makes me have to pull favorites. Honestly, Bruce Willis is usually the immediate choice (star of "Surrogates"), but I wanted to give Ben Foster a chance in "Pandorum", but those were my only choices this weekend. This dilemma along with lack of excitement for either of the titles left me skipping the theater to catch up on the pile of DVDs that I have at home.

This week, I get "Zombieland", the Cohen brother's new film "A Serious Man" and Drew Barrymore's directorial debut "Whip It". If I get to the theater on Thursday night for zombies, I think I can squeeze in a quirky drama, a cute rollerskating film or maybe one of the sci-fi titles by the latter end of the weekend. Now that is a stellar weekend at the movies. Different films for different moods and different people. What film will you go to?

DVD Munch. Ghosts of Girlfriends Past

I like hybrid stories. When you take a classic and give it a little twist, perhaps what some might call a “make-over”. I like them because they give you a new perspective or sometimes even make the old, new again. “Ghosts of Girlfriends Past” took the skeleton of the popular tale “A Christmas Carol” and applied it to a romantic comedy. In theory this was a good idea, unfortunately for the end product it was far from a fabulous outcome.

We are first introduced to Connor Mead, played by Matthew McConaughey, as a famous photographer that is notorious for all of the women he beds. Even with this kind of reputation, women still throw themselves at him and he loves it. His younger brother is getting married and when he arrives at the rehearsal he is reunited with his old flame, Jenny (played by Jennifer Garner). Immediately they snidely argue back and forth, revealing their touchy past. That night, when Connor is about to sleep with one of the bridesmaids, he is visited by the ghost of his uncle (Michael Douglas) and told that for his own good three ghosts will visit him. To no surprise, we are shown what happened between Jenny and him and ultimately what could happen to him if he continues with his lifestyle. When he finished with the ghosts, he realizes that he must get Jenny back.

“Ghosts” tries to sell itself on its star cast. Combining McConaughey and Garner is supposedly a formula for success. I am not denying that they don’t look good together, but they bring as much depth to their characters as a stale puddle. The best characters in this film include the entire supporting cast. I am so happy for great B-roles. Upcoming star Emma Stone, who made her debut in “Superbad” and to star in the upcoming film “Zombieland” is absolutely charming in this movie. She plays the ghost from the past, the one that shows Connor his entire dating history and where he started to change into what he is now. I don’t think I have seen anyone play an awkward teenager from the 80s so well—she is commanding, purposefully clumsy and hilarious.

We find out that it was Connor’s uncle that trained him to treat women the way that he does after he gets hurt, on his own account. He is taught that he should never let himself feel for women again. I can’t say that I am very fond of the message that women can be manipulated and used only for sex and that it is ultimately the females’ fault that make men so unhappy. Perhaps I am the only one that feels this way, but it portrays Jenny as a hurt and uptight control freak that has never gotten over her first love. Some might think it’s romantic, but it is just pathetic.

The film loses its charm with its message. Connor is happy with his life—unlike Scrooge from “A Christmas Carol”—so why does it matter if he changes? There is no redeeming quality to Connor and he seems to be pretty okay with that, therefore his epiphany is unbelievable and forced. This film should have worked; it had the opportunity to mix fantasy and reality in a very light-hearted way. But much like being visited by one of the ghosts, it is like a bad dream that you can’t wake up from.

The DVD which was released Tuesday, September 22, 2009 contains an option for Widescreen and Full-Screen viewing, Scene selection and Language choices.