_________________________
Our Idiot Brother (2011)
Director: Jesse Peretz
Writers: David Schisgall,
Evgenia Peretz
_______________________________________
Director: Gurinder Chadha
Book Series Author: Louise Rennison
I will admit that this book series turns back the clock and makes me return to my younger years. Okay, so we're talking 10-15 years only but it's fun to escape the adult world and transport back to being an angst-ridden teen (only because I know I am no longer in that painful stage of life). I'm currently reading the 7th book and I think I have three more to go. This particular movie is based on the first two books and of course it took some liberties and changed up the story a bit but as Director Gurinder Chadha mentioned in the bonus features, it was a challenge to create a movie out of a series of books that were written as a diary of the character, Georgia Nicholson. As a fan of the book series, it was a little scary, yet fun, to see these characters on screen. As any reader knows, there is the fear that the characters/actors on screen will somehow muddle the characters you have in your mind. Interestingly, Gurinder said she was following some of the fan blogs of the book series and was happy to find many readers were happy she was going to direct, rather than an American. I think that's great. Georgia's personality is influenced by being British, and it's important to keep that authentic. Anyway, I think the film is fine on its own, but it's much more fun to know the history on the characters in the novels. I feel the characters in the novels have a bit more history than their on-screen counterparts but it may be just because I know it. It was also fun while watching the behind-the-scenes to see the interactions between the cast members, particularly the younger ones, talking about crushes on set and so forth. VERY much the same high school atmosphere of the books. I thought that was very cute!
________________________________
Pink Flamingos (1972)
Written and Directed by: John Waters
And now for something completely different. Wow. I went to see this film showing at the local movie house and I was warned about Divine eating dog poo but I still wasn't quite prepared for this very interesting film. Let me say, this is the second most scarring film I've seen. The first is Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom (1975) which I briefly reviewed here. Oh and I guess Blue Velvet (1986) is in third. When I think John Waters, I know to expect a bit of camp but this was ... different. I'm very glad I saw it in a theater full of other people who more or less knew what to expect (they must have seen it before). If I would have seen it on my own... I may not have finished it. It's sometimes hard for me to watch films that are just rotten but this one was intentionally so. I remember watching Waters' original Hairspray (1988) and just being pained at how awkward it was with the poor timing as far as editing goes. But after watching this film, it makes a bit more sense. If you are a very brave soul, you might try this movie. But there are all sorts of scenes meant to make a person incredibly uncomfortable. And they succeed. P.S. If you watch the trailer below, I heartily agree with the guy in the cowboy hat at 1:41. ;)
________________________________
Okay, so here is the section of my current post that will be dedicated to the Harold and Kumar movies. I'm glad that my professors in film school had a healthy appreciation for 'low brow' comedies. It makes it feel like I have permission to like movies with fart jokes and such and claim it is scholastic research. As my professors would probably tell you, 'low brow movies' are just as important to our society because they are indicative of a large sector of the population. And if my teachers, both with doctorates, like these movies, hell, I'll admit I do too! I really like Kal Penn, not only because he is 'ridiculously good-looking' but because he is a scholastic as well. I'm intrigued to know more about the class he taught about Asian representation in the cinema, as I spent several years of my undergrad discussing movies (and continue to do so) aaaaand because I have a healthy adoration for Bollywood films. From what I can tell, I find Kal Penn to be not only a versatile actor but an intriguing person as well. Okay, enough gushing about Mr. Modi (oh, sir, if you are reading this, feel free to contact me... I have a 60 page thesis about Minority Directors that I pretend you want to read. haha)
I'd been looking to buy the first two movies for a while but every time I
went to Target, it was one or the other but never both, until I found
them as a double pack on the Target website for a VERY nice price. So
anyway, I bought the set and watched the first one Monday, the second
one Tuesday and then went with my brother and a friend to see the third
in 3D. Twas quite fun.
Okay, I'm going to briefly discuss these movies but not as much as I would were it for a class paper.... I believe I've had some readers chance upon my blog who may have used some of my thoughts for their OWN work. Having no proof... onward I warily go.
Director: Danny Leiner
Writers: Jon Hurwitz,
Hayden Schlossberg
This is the one that started it all! Stoners go on an unexpected road trip to get some noms. I don't know how they thought to put Neil Patrick Harris in these movies but it has been tons of fun. Probably because we all love Doogie. This movie sets us up pretty well with an awesome cast of memorable characters and the crazy scenarios in which Harold and Kumar find themselves. It also set the stage for the common theme in all the movies to not put faith in stereotypes of other cultures. The stereotypes were flipped around to show how ridiculous they could be. It's nice to see that done in a set of movies that is supposed to be 'low brow'. Sure, they can be rude and crude but they don't rely on reinforcing stereotypes to get laughs but more so by showing the opposite.
___________________________________
Written and Directed by: Jon Hurwitz, Hayden Schlossberg
We rejoin H&K, not 4 years later, but basically 4 seconds later where the first movie left off. Insert love story for Kumar and you have a deeper bit of characterization (besides his innate medical abilities). Let me just say, Weedy is the best. Oh and NPH. Both made a return. The storyline remains more or less the same as the two battle the odds to make it out okay in the end. What, did I spoil it for you? I like the look at G Bay. As you can tell, comedy can often be a very subversive genre as it can show make a statement about the conditions in which terrorists or suspected terrorists are held without coming off as political. And of course, the movie yet again plays with ethnic stereotypes and comes out ahead.
_______________________________
Director: Todd Strauss-Schulson
Writers: Jon Hurwitz,
Hayden Schlossberg
This one I will cover a little more because it's new and many of you won't be as familiar with it as the previous H&K movies. This movie was definitely different. More grown up in the fact that there wasn't as much focus on weed but we got to explore more hard core drugs. There was plenty of humor to be found in that as well. The H&K characters were more grown-up and the NPH 'coming out' was most definitely addressed, as well as his death in the previous film, and both were pretty funny. I really liked all the tongue in cheek references to the 3D format itself because it meant they didn't take themselves too seriously and that's important in a comedy. Wafflebot was pretty damn funny too. I just re-watched the trailer (actually that was the first time I'd seen the trailer... I didn't need to see a trailer to know I was gonna see this movie!) and I recalled the claymation part which was awesome and reminded me of the Claymation xmas episode from Community last year. In general, I'm not a big x-mas person and many times holiday movies can be too much for me but this was perfect because it was irreverent but in a fun way. I personally am happy to see this as the cap to the H&K legacy. As a writer myself, I have a hard time envisioning what territory is left to be tackled. I know they set up the characters for having kids but I think if it's not broke, don't fix it. I think it's always important to know when to stop. I feel like the H&K crew has done a fantastic job on all these movies and I'd like it to end on a high note... (pun partially intended).
So, for all three movies, I would like to say... Bravo! These movies are a lot of fun. Likeable reoccurring characters (pretty sure I saw Bobby Lee in all three... KM, he was in the wedding scene as a guest in #2, right? He's not credited but I could have sworn I saw him there), constantly making statements in a non-statement way about politics, stereotypes, familial obligations. And each movie opened on Harold. Wait, I think the third one opened on Kumar? Regardless, I had a great time with these films and was happy to see these talented actors get some screen time when many parts go to more ahem, white bread actors. Best to all of the H&K cast and crew!
Okay, back to our regularly scheduled blogging....
______________________________
Dhoom (2004)
Director: Sanjay Gadhvi
Writers: Vijay Krishna Acharya (dialogue),
Vijay Krishna Acharya (screenplay)
Ah, Bollywood. John Abraham makes my heart go BOOM and RAWR simultaneously... Xavs, you know what I'm talking bout. Me-ow. Anyway, also love Abhishek Bachchan how can you not? So as far as storyline goes, this one is mo def for the guys, more so than the usual B-wood themes. And that's cool. I can appreciate a sezy bike as much as the next gal... esp when Mr. Underwear Model is riding one. Okay, sorry, I'll continue back to my professional assessment of this film. What you have here is the action-packed film that doesn't completely pigeonhole the bad guys as bad. John Abraham's characters is quite idealized in a way as the noble bad guy who was capable of so much more. Not as noble as his good-guy-cop-counterpart, Abhishek, but close. I couldn't help but laugh my butt off when it came to the final sequence. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be laughing but I can't help it. The thing about Bollywood is that it is equal parts escapism as it is absurd. You relinquish a hold on reality in order to just let the movies capture your emotions. Somehow I find it easy to appreciate when it comes from Bollywood than when it's from the Hollywood machine. But that may be because I allow more dalliances from the norms from other cultures. That and B-wood is just too fun to take too seriously. Oh and btw, it took forEVEr to find the following trailer. There were tons more for Dhoom 2 and 3 though ;)
_______________________________
South of the Border (2009)
Directed by: Oliver Stone
Written by: Mark Weisbrot,
Tariq Ali So, I picked this movie up from the library and was very excited to watch a movie about the political arena of South America, especially because I studied in Chile for a semester 6 years ago. (And I'll be going back for a tour within 6 months, if all goes well! Hey KM, if you're still reading this...wanna visit my friends, Easter Island and Macchu Picchu with me? None of my friends have enough money lol) Anyway.... although Oliver Stone deserves respect and I very much agree with his distaste of the U.S. media, I couldn't help but be put off by his methods. He basically went around and talked to many of the political leaders and lumped them altogether as following out the 200+ year old Bolivarian idea of Revolution to reclaim the countries from imperialism. But it's not as simple as that. If you go talk to politicians, of course they will show you a good face and make you think they are wonderful people. At the end of the film, Stone walks down the street in one of the countries, basically monologuing about how great it is what these leaders are doing. To me that screams 'wealthy white man making oversimplified conclusions based on biased information'. It doesn't sit well with me. I do appreciate his call to attention the improper handling of Latin America by the U.S. media but when Oliver Stone tells the audience that Hugo Chávez, president of Venezuela, has teamed up with North Korea and Iran for nukes and that he has 'less human rights violations than Colombia' .... well, that doesn't sit well with me to promote Chávez as a well-intentioned ruler. I have a general distrust of politicians and national governments because I know they are run by individuals who are not as saintly as they like to portray. I think the politics of the countries of Latin America are much more complex than Stone indicated. He did well to show the hypocrisy of the U.S. Government when it comes to defining a democracy and helping support coup d'etat's in other countries. Stone only touched on the U.S. involvement in a coup d'etat in Venezuela but this has happened in 1973 in Chile in a VERY bloody manner, thanks to U.S. involvement. And Lord knows, it's happened in many other countries. The U.S. only supports democracies that do what the U.S. wants them to do. Okay, so this isn't a political blog and I'm not the most educated when it comes to politics either, especially not the politics of other countries. But I don't think Oliver Stone presented a complete look at the societal arena when it comes to politics. I agree with Stone that the U.S. media is not accurate and that these South American countries and their governments deserve more respect BUT I can't condone his acceptance and promotion across-the-board of these leaders without further delving into the not-so-pretty aspects of their governance. BUT it's a start to getting people to open their eyes to the people of South America.
_______________________
Being There (1979)
Director: Hal Ashby
Director: Hal Ashby
Writer: Jerzy Kosinski (novel and screenplay),
| Robert C. Jones | uncredited |
Okay, this is the last movie. It's now taken me over 3.5 hours to write this blog entry. This is what I go through for you ;) Appreciate me! Or don't. :P Anyway, I can now say I've seen this film. I really do like Peter Sellers so this was a nice movie to watch. I don't want to say 'fun', because it wasn't so much fun as it was slightly absurd. But not the same kind of absurd as I mentioned above for Bollywood movies. This movie, like the first I discussed (Our Idiot Brother), deals with a simpleton but one that gets mistaken for a genius. Of course, it's white people who find him to be a genius but black people can see that he's "not right" (one was a woman who raised him and another was a group of kids who talked to him on the street). There was a message spray painted on the wall as well that indicated this theme to me but I don't want to misquote it and couldn't find it. And the DVD is all packed back in the envelope ready to go. So you'll just have to trust me on that. Or if anyone has access to the movie, it's when Chance is walking around D.C. after being dismissed from the house. Anyway, this film was a delicate statement in subtext and let you draw your conclusions without completely hitting you over the head. It's interesting to see the portrayal of mentally disadvantaged man in this manner. It feeds into the cliché that there's something desirable about being a simpleton. Obviously, this film requires some suspension of disbelief. As someone who volunteers with special needs people, I can tell you that most people can decipher these differences. And if you say you'd like to be naïve of the ways of the world, you're not being completely honest. Still, the message of the film was well-presented.
______________________
Okay, 3.5 hours of my life is now in your hands. I hope you have enjoyed the ride. Feel free to comment below if you have any opinions to add or suggestions of films to watch. Peace out!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment