Funny Face

Audrey Hepburn is so cute and lovely that she at times made me forget how annoying certain parts of this movie could be. I'm not a huge fan of the old school Hollywood big flashy musicals.

Maggie Prescott is basically a sort of nicer version of Meryl Streep from "The Devil Wears Prada" In fact the opening scene of her coming into her office is near identical, and even the look of her office and her assistants desks look the same, or very close. I can see where they took some of the visual aspects for "Prada" from. She comes into her office and calls all her little lackeys in, she is distraught over the newest issue, its dead to her, with a bit of genius and ingenuity she comes up with "Think Pink" Everything should be pink, the whole issue will be Pink. There's a whole dance number involved that screams consumerism and a certain soullessness. That is until the end of the song when everyone else but Prescott is in Pink someone asks her why not, she says she wouldn't be caught dead in the color. It was at that moment I was seeing the tongue in cheek humor of the whole thing. In that way it was very funny.

When Prescott and her photographer Dick Avery can't get a dimwitted model to photograph well they take her to a small book store in Greenwich Village where they meet the girl who works there, Jo Stockton. They treat her like garbage, and ultimately decide she will be the new face of their magazine and take her to Paris with them. She is against everything they stand for, but in Paris is her favorite Philosopher, so she's willing to play along, for a while. Once in Paris there are plenty of dance numbers and opportunities for Jo and Dick to fall in love, and for the rest of it to fall in place just like they all do.

If I had seen this when I was younger I'm sure I would have gotten bored, and not understood most of the humor. The movie makes fun of basically all the types of people in it. The narrow minded and rather shallow magazine editor. Her yes (wo)men drones, the photographer who doesn't care about anything of substance, even the Philosopher we meet is generally mocked for having his high values and outlook but is little more than a man.

When on their way to the book shop at the beginning Prescott says, "Look there's a good one, it looks just sinister enough" referring to the book store. Pretty funny stuff. The whole sequence about pink became a terrific lampoon when it ends and she shows just how little she actually cares about the nonsense she spouts.

Audrey Hepburn actually looks much better before her makeover. She is what really made the movie for me, as funny as it was at times there were still many cliched and boring parts that weren't meant to be cliched, but just were what they did at the time. When she tries to stop the girls from rearranging all the books in her shop, and eventually push and lock her out you just want to step into the movie and help her she's so cute.

The music was pretty good for the most part, as was the dancing, it wasn't to flashy and overdone, In fact the best dance sequence they have in it is just Audrey Hepburn, and a few male dancers who are there sort of doing their own thing, emphasising her as she dances in the middle of a cafe. Most people have actually seen it, there was a Gap commercial about 3 years ago for their new skinny pants that has her saying "I rather feel like expressing myself now, and I could certainly use a release" She then starts dancing. Its a great commercial, they take only her out of the movie and bring in a yellow background and play around with the footage of her dancing. That scene was probably my favorite in the movie. The air is thick with smoke, she's wearing a simple black pant (skinny) and black shirt with her hair pulled back in a pony tail. Her face becomes obscured at times, the whole room is rather smoggy, not the usual look for a musical.

It was funny, and wasn't as annoying as some musicals Ive watched, but the thing that really made it worth watching was Audrey Hepburn, doesn't she make everything shes in worth the time? 7/10 stars.

Director: Stanley Donen

Starring: Audrey Hepburn, Fred Astaire, Kay Thompson, Michel Auclair

9

There were so many movies in the last year that came out called "9" or "Nine" or "District 9" its easy to get them all confused. This one I think got a little mixed up and forgotten.

Its not surprising that it was a little forgotten, it's rated PG-13, so there it knocks out the adult and kid crowd for the most part, leaving the teens and people in their twenties to pick up the slack, and honestly unless its Pixar I am willing to over look most animated films until they are released on DVD like I did this.

9 is the name of our main character, he is a robotic rag doll made of burlap and rudimentary robotics in a time that resembles the 1930's, in what we can presume is Paris based on the architecture and the presence of what appears to be Notre Dame. 9 wakes up in a room where there is a dead body and the world has basically been destroyed, he is maybe a foot tall at the most. When he begins to venture outside he finds another one like him named 2. When 2 is captured and taken away by a robot made up of metal and a cat skeleton its up to 9 and another robot who saves him named 5 to get 2 back. In this time we also meet 1, 6, and 8. The others we are told are dead. When going to save 2, 9 awakens something far worse and are now on the run from the real evil they've unleashed.

Along the way we learn more about what annihilated humanity and how the world became the ruins that it is now. Its a re-imagining of history, if we had made this huge jump in the 20's and 30's with robotics and artificial intelligence is this what might have happened? With the Nazi's as power hungry as they were its certainly a possibility.

The animation takes a few steps backwards and instead of getting glossy, or going for photo realism they rather go for a look of the drawings from the time of what the future would look like. The animation is certainly top notch, but they intentionally didn't make it flashy, the story didn't fit that and it would have taken away from the deeper message.

This is where I'm going to jump to some conclusions, and I could be wrong, but there is certainly plenty of stuff to go on in this to come up with some ideas of what they were going for. Not only is this a reflection on war and specifically WWII, but I think they were also taking a look at the Holocaust from a safer standpoint than making a movie directly about it. They mention the "Chancellor" a few times and how his use of the 'brain machine" resulted in it turning on us. They even show the "Chancellor" at one point and he looks plenty like Hitler. There are burning smokestacks in it, yes that's a stretch, but then couple that with the archway to the factory from where the smoke comes from looks a lot like the one over the entrance to Auschwitz then it makes a stronger case.

6 is made up of what appears to be the striped clothes many of the Jews and others prisoners were made to wear. The fact that they are numbered and that it is physically printed on them is a good example. Now like I said, I am jumping to conclusions, but all of this taken together and the fact that the time frame is somewhere close to the 30's and 40's of the last century it fits much better.

The voice acting was good, other than 9, who is voiced by Elijah Wood and 5, who was John C Reilly, I couldn't really tell who any of the rest of them were, later I found out that many of the other ones are voiced by people I know. It was short, a lot shorter than I would have hoped, they spent a lot of time creating this world, and we see a lot of it, but I wish they wouldn't have rushed the story along as much as they did, and spent some more time just around in the destruction. Then we as the audience could really soak it in. The designs of the robots were very inventive and imaginative. From the one that looks like a cat, to a dragon one, or a cobra one, they really made them look different from many other robots Ive seen in movies.

Its to dark to be a decent kids movie as compared to what is expected of kids movies today. I still think kids should be allowed to watch this, maybe for little kids it might be to much. It was a strong addition to the computer created animated film sub-genre. They made it more adult, hoping one day it might become more mainstream for older people to see animated movies. 8/10 stars.

Director: Shane Acker

Starring: Elijah Wood, Christopher Plummer, Martin Landau, John C. Reilly, Crispin Glover, Jennifer Connellu

Mancora

The more movies I see coming out of South America and Israel the more impressed I get. Not that there aren't great movies coming out of the states, trust me there are, but there is a certain freshness in watching a movie from South America.

In Lima, Santiago is to busy having sex with his girl friend at a concert to answer his phone when his dad is calling. If he had he would have spoken to his father and heard him in person say "I Love you" before he kills himself. Santiago is not doing well, he's not leaving his house, he's just moping around. He keeps getting calls from his step sister Ximena who lives in New York, she wants to come and see him, and in tow she brings her new husband (Inigo).

Shortly after they get there Santiago admits that he's leaving Lima for some time and going to a childhood escape spot called Mancora, he and Ximena went there when they were children. When he goes to leave the next morning Ximena and Inigo are there to go with him. So they start on their journey to the Ocean. They meet a man named Batu along the way who joins them. As sexual tensions rise fights break out and Santiago starts searching for what he thinks is missing and wrong with his life.

The story isn't anything new, or even that originally done. Ive seen a dozen movies that have this or close to this storyline. A one that comes to mine and has plenty of comparisons would be "Y Tu Mama Tambien" There is a certain sexual freedom that exists in both of the films, and a lot of them that Ive seen coming from the Southern Hemisphere of America.

The characters are strong, not according to some of the reviews I read, but their complaints seemed more about the actors looks and the fact that the characters seem to be pretty well off. Personally I don't really care about that, am I surprised the actors are good looking? No. Is it easier to make the characters rich so you don't have to waste story with explaining how they can just leave work and dealing with their work situation in general? Yes. Its better for this story to stick to what its about and not try and make it all that grounded in the middle classes socio-economic situations.

That was the reasons I read for why one reviewer didn't like it, weak sauce to say the least. And if they hate that about this movie then they must hate most movies, because these plot points that they gloss over are the norm.

The colors of this movie are so rich and vibrant. The golds and oranges make me feel the warmth of the place, the blues of the ocean make me feel the cool splash on my face and skin. The cinematography certainly made the film that much better. Like I said the story wasn't all that original, the characters weren't either, but the fact that it was strong in so many other ways it made that other stuff inconsequential.

What Santiago learns on the trip will change him, the problems he has with the world he finds the reasons, or at least finds out how to fix it, within himself. On a side note, the girls in this, all of them are beautiful (The guys too) but I don't really care for the guys. Really gorgeous and nice to watch.

Here is another great contribution to the cinematic community coming from the South and I'm sure it wont be the last, I look forward to the next. Keep them coming. 8/10 stars.

Director: Ricardo de Montreuil

Starring: Jason Day, Elsa Pataky, Enrique Murciano, Phellipe Haagensen

Big Fan

Some of what sports fans do I think in many other societies could be viewed as a form of mental instability. Don't get me wrong, I love most sports, and am actually a big football fan, but I know when to stop.

Paul is a shlubby guy in his mid thirties who lives with his Mom and works as a Parking lot attendant at nights. He spends his days listening to the radio to call in sports programs and writing out his retorts for when he calls in later that night. Little in his life doesn't revolve around watching and loving the New York Giants. When out with another super-fan friend they spot their favorite player Quantrell Bishop. They jump in their car and naively follow him, his ride stops in a bad neighborhood and he goes inside to presumably buy some drugs, either Paul doesn't realize that's what he's doing, or he doesn't want to believe it.

They then follow him into Manhattan where he goes into a strip club, they make their way in, and after a few failed attempts to get his attention they actually go over and visit him. At first things go fine, until Paul slips and mentions something that gives away that they were following him. Bishop gets very upset and beats the crap out of Paul. He is hospitalized and chargers are starting to be prepared against Bishop. He could go to jail, and if he does the team will suffer, and the team is Paul's life.

Paul is played by comedian/actor Patton Oswalt. He has been a favorite comedian of mine for some time now, his early stuff showed promise and over the last few years has really hit a stride with his style. This would be the first movie I think Ive seen him in that is actually a serious role, and a very serious movie. He is vastly talented and does a great job with the role. I was actually surprised how well he played some of the scenes. Nothing was over the top, he was just a sad loser. His family adds to the character of Paul as well, his brother the sleazy personal injury lawyer and his brother's orange tanned fake titted trophy wife. It paints a real picture of where he came from, how his life is that sad that he will cling onto anything that brings him a set of emotions like loving the Giants does.

It gives him something everyday to feel. Sometimes happy that they just won and that they are doing well, angry that a ref made a bad call, or there was an injury to a key player. It also gives him a social acceptance, the sports watching community is vast, and he can go almost anywhere and talk about football with someone who loves the sport too. Thing is though, he is a Big Fan, perhaps to much, when he is beat up, all he can think about is the team. Having a rivalry with another guy who calls into the radio station ends up consuming him.

The story telling is very straight forward and rather simple, but it works, this mans life is uncomplicated, he goes to work, he watches the games and that's enough for him, there's not much to complicate his life until his run in with Bishop. There were some really interesting shots and some cool things done with the lighting, but for the most part it was standard dramatic lighting, they kept some style in it, but it wasn't stylized, or at anytime unrealistic.

I just read a moment ago that its director, who also wrote this, was also the writer on "The Wrestler" While watching this I couldn't help but notice the similarities, and there are many. They are not the same movie though, but they are both a negative look on the people who idolize athletes, and shows the other side of the story. We see what wrestling does to the human body in "The Wrestler" and in "Big Fan" we see what football does to the psyche of a fan who takes it to seriously.

The film very effectively points out the problems our society has in giving attention to the wrong things and rewarding bad behavior simply because there is something we like in the person, or that they do. 8/10 stars.

Director: Robert D. Siegel

Starring: Patton Oswalt, Kevin Corrigan, Michael Rapaport, Jonathan Hamm, marcia Jean Kurtz

Smile Pretty

It was amateur hour in my living room tonight. I could not stop laughing at this crap fest of a movie, and I'm being light with this.

A girl named Nastalia, aka "Nasty" is being abused by her adoptive father in the most PG way I've ever seen. She gets in some trouble at school when she is caught giving some dumb shit a blow job. Of course she gets into trouble with her "Dad" Peter. He locks her in the closet....so scary right? She soon after meets Matt a 32 year old that is super cool about talking to her and hanging out even though he knows shes 14. We soon find out that he knew her, from the Internet, apparently Peter has been putting the pictures of her he takes naked on the Internet, and Matt is one of his best customers, and has figured out where she lives and has come to find her. (Side note: Peter is selling the photos online for 8 dollars a piece, couldn't they even make that realistic?) (Also why is he not afraid of distributing child porn like this?)

She is now in love with him, after he attacks Peter they go on the run. After meeting another 14 year old, who was also abused they start a little 3-some action. I don't even think I can continue explaining this crap fest. So Ill just move on to making fun of it.

The movie starts out with the words "Suggested by a true story" Already off to a rocky start. It looked like they shot it on a camera phone, the audio levels were all off, they were peaking all over the place. The acting was below bad, it was upsetting to me as a human being. Not only are all the men in this, and I mean ALL of them pedophiles, but all the girls have been abused by their fathers and are more than willing to do it again. This isn't even close to the real world, its not even a good fantasy world.

I couldn't not stop laughing at the horrible dialogue that sounded as if an 8th grader with a hard on had written it. The story was so illogical and stupid it would have made even the worst story tellers question what these hacks were thinking. They took on a subject that is beyond delicate and treated it with a butchers job when they needed a surgeon. Ive seen some great and disturbing films on this subject and Ive seen it done right. This was a travesty that they performed here, they should next make a Holocaust movie, they might treat the subject matter with a little more humility and a little less bullshit.

As much fun as I was having laughing at this train wreck I couldn't wait for it to end. The characters existed simply for the story and not vice versa, they were 100% flat and one dimensional, and so... so.... so.... stupid. I really cant stress enough how bad this was, it reminded me a lot of the movie called "The Room" it was that laughingly bad. It was meant to be shocking and was only shockingly bad. Even the costumes were bad, like terribly bad, a beret, really?

Don't watch this, ever. Its sad that movies this bad are made when there are great ones that will never see the light of day. 2/10 stars.

Director: Harry Bromley Davenport

Starring: Scout Taylor-Compton, Pete Chekvala, Alexander Knezevich, Shannon Collis

The Dancer

There are so many little niches in our society as a whole. Its just filled with microcosms that for the people involved in them are their whole world. One such niche is the world of professional Ballet dancing.

Many little girls take Ballet lessons when they are kids, its fun for them and its very feminine. Thank God most of those girl don't go after it as a career, not only does it take a very specific body type like with Football, or Boxing, but it also destroys the body. The girl that the documentary follows is named Katja Bjorner. She describes the pain she is always in, as she warms up and talks to the documentarian she mentions that her leg and foot were hurting her that day and that she has just learned to ignore it. The reason for the pain is that she, as well as other Ballet dancers are doing something unnatural. The human body is not made to do this sort of thing. The film makes us watch as her as well as other dancers bend and mould their bodies into doing what they need them to do.

They bend and mold their bodies in the same way that their shoes are made. A very cool section of the film shows how their shoes are made, how quickly the shoe makers work, since they have to be made by hand and tailor fitted to each separate girls foot they cant just make one size fits all. So much of a Ballet dancers movements are based on the feet having to be able to do something incredibly specific with weight distribution and balance that if there's something wrong with the shoes they cant do what they need to do.

One of the teachers explains the difference between a dancer and a ballerina, and that they are the same, but the Ballerina has to be perfect. She continues to say that nothing is perfect, but the Ballerina has to be. That is quite a load to bear as a dancer. Perfection is the key to success, but as you turn your body into a dancers and break your self down and rebuild there has to be weakness' that form and cracks.

Ballet is made up of a few components, to my understanding of the way it works is that its a merging of the geometry of the human body, the lines we have and the way we move combined with the math of the music that each different dance is made for. Making the body into an instrument of the music, to me it seems the purest form of dance of trying to make the human body into the music would be Ballet.

Watching the dancers is like watching a Degas come to life, at one point towards the beginning of the film there is a wide shot of Katja and one of her teachers dancing in unison and it was so beautiful, it was beyond what I could describe, you have to see it. Most of the film when she isn't talking about dancing we are simply watching her warm up, train and perform, sometimes alone, sometimes with other dancers and teachers. That might sound boring, but it really was breathtaking. Its been a few years since Ive been to the Ballet, and when I did see it I was in the nosebleed section, but even from there I could see the women and their movements and it was something else.

A complaint I would have, and its not really their fault necessarily is that sometimes they were shooting on film and other times on video tape making a strange mix. Years of simply existing degrade tape, so certain sections you could tell the color was a little off, or there was some interference, minimal at best. These are things that upon reflection I thought about, but didn't really notice during the actual viewing. Almost no one would realize this without the proper education on it.

There are so many stupid dance movies that have come out in the last few years, here is one about the real thing. It might be slow, and there might not be a "story" but it was just beautiful to watch and I really enjoyed it. Seeing the human body in that way is about as close to perfect as I guess we can get. 8/10 stars.

Director: Donya Feuer

The Others

I already knew the twist. In case someone does read this....hello......HELLO....I'm alone right? Anyway if someone DOES read this then I wont give away the twist, it's a good twist though.

So this is post "The Sixth Sense" movies for a while thought they had to have a big twist, so I will give it a pass for being slightly heavy handed in that respect. A woman named Grace is looking for a new staff to take over when her other employees just left. She own a fairly large estate and since she has money she can pay other people to do the domestic things for her while she reads or sleeps, or whatever. She gets a few new employees and upon showing them around explains the house rules including if one door is open then all others must be closed and locked. Strange, yes, until we find out about her kids, they have a severe reaction to sunlight, if exposed even for a short amount of time they could die.

This sets up the mood for the rest of the film, with the house being a fortress closed off from almost all light we are left to see the house only where they have candles, many dark corners form. Scary enough for kids like that, but then add onto it that they say there are other people in the house. Strange noises are heard, doors open and close on their own, and so starts the fight to find out whats going on.

I remember seeing the trailer for this and being marginally interested, but not enough to pay to see it. People had told me it was good, but still I wasn't really compelled to see it. I thought it was about time to see what the fuss was about. It wasn't the amazing movie I was led to expect, but it was better than it could have been with a weaker cast or script.

The gimmick of the kids allergy is great for giving a real reason why the house needs to be dark. I was happy about that, so many times sitting there in other movies you wonder why not just hit a light switch. Nicole Kidman is good in just about everything, she is good at playing the anal mother and in this instance plays it as well as you can, pushing the threshold of annoyance and overbearing.

Its worth a glance, but not something that needs to be seen. 7/10 stars.

Director: Alejandro Amenabar

Starring: Nicole Kidman, Fionnula, Alakina Mann, James Bentley, Eric Sykes, Elaine Cassidy