The Descendants Review

The Descendants (2011) Review

When you look at the films of 2011, especially those who were competing for Oscars  there is nothing quite like The Descendants. The Descendants is a simple film, very straightforward in plot and execution, and it contradicts the general theme of this year's films. However, simplicity is not a bad thing in a movie like this, because the earnestness and sincerity of this film is one of the many things that makes it excellent. That, alongside great acting, writing, and visuals. I couldn't see this film winning Best Picture, but there were awards it got that it definitely deserved to win and in this review, I will tell you why.

The Descendants is about Matt King (George Clooney), a real estate lawyer who lives and works in Hawaii. At the beginning of the film, his wife gets in a boating accident and ends up in a coma. It turns out their marriage was not in the best shape, as Matt was working all the time, whether at his law practice or dealing with the fact that he is the  trustee to a large tract of land split between him and his many cousins (who are all descendants of Hawaiian royalty, hence the film's title). The issue with the land is that Matt has decided to sell the land to a developer, giving him and his cousins all the money that the trust was worth (the money which he didn't want to use) that would expire in seven years.

See. This guy and the charmers that Clooney normally plays are completely different people. Which is why this may be his best performance

The first act of the film is just Matt trying to keep his head above water and trying to take care of his mischevious younger daughter Scottie (Amara Miller), who he learns has been acting out since the accident. Upon receiving news that his wife's coma is permanent and as per her living will, they will be taking her off life support in a few days time, Matt goes to get his eldest daughter Alex (Shailene Woodley) from her boarding school to help with Scottie and help him tell all of his wife's friends and family the news, which they do fairly early on in the film, before the main plot kicks off.

To say that Alex is messed up is a bit of an understatement.

We learn that she is in the boarding school due to her drinking and drug problems, and she seems to have a penchant for older guys and fighting with her parents, much to the disapproval of her father. It's pretty safe to say that all the women in Matt's life are pretty screwed up, and it is those characters that make the film so interesting, especially Alex, who is just as interesting a character as her father, if not more so, thanks to Shailene Woodley's fantastic performance (which we'll talk about later). It is also through Alex that the main plot for the rest of the film is set up.

Their faces are because of Sid. I won't tell you why, but it is one of the film's cringe-funny moments

In one of the film's key scenes (which comes after another of the film's key scenes), Alex tells her father the news that will drive the rest of the film, which is that her mother was having an affair prior to her boating accident. The rest of the film is spent tracking him down and quite frankly, that's all I want to say, because the beauty in this film is how the events unfold on eachother, like an array of carefully placed dominos. Character traits are revealed, connections are made, and it all plays out brilliantly in the film's magnificent ending, which is certainly emotionally satisfying and speaks to the acting ability of George Clooney, and which I won't spoil for obvious reasons. But what I can say is that the end to this film was one of the best endings of any film this year.

The film has three fundamental conflicts, the wife in a coma and her affair, Matt struggling to bond with his daughters, and of course, the issues with the land. Of course, there's also the issue of breaking the news to Scottie, where they had kept her oblivious yet hopeful before due to her young age and already bad behaviour.  All of the issues are equally interesting and coexist very well, and though we have seen the family-bonding-in-light-of-absentee-parent storyline before, the story is brought up by the fantastic writing and acting. The characters are all interesting and finely shaded, all flawed yet very human people dealing with difficult circumstances as a family, albeit a very dysfunctional one that, by the end, is hopefully on the way to being a bit more functional.

Don't fuck with Mr. Thorson. He will hit you.

These characters speak to the brilliance of the screenplay of Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, and Jim Rash. They imbue each character with some likability and some flaw, and there isn't a single flat character. Even Sid, who starts out as a total ass, ends with some likability as we get to know him better. However, a good script isn't just about good characters, it's about writing a good story and writing good dialogue, and the film does both of those things extremely well. However, I don't get why everyone says this film is funny because aside from a few scenes, it was a very serious film and I would definitely call it a drama as opposed to a dramedy. Needless to say, the film had one of the best scripts of the year and it definitely deserved to win the Oscar it just won.

However, the script is only one element of the film's greatness. It would just be a brilliant script without a movie if it weren't for the film's brilliant acting. The first performance to gain acclaim was that of George Clooney, and rightfully so, because Clooney's performance was terrific. Though Dujardin deserved the award 100%, Clooney was a worthy runner-up and he deserved the nom nonetheless. He embodied the character of Matt King fully and perfectly, portraying the quiet stoicism and emotional complexity of his character extremely well. The role works because the normal self-deprecating charm that Clooney oozes is turned off, making this performance extremely outside the type of character he normally plays. Matt King is not a charming guy, he's not supposed to be, but he's still a likable enough guy and we do sympathize with him as the film progresses. I have not seen enough of Clooney's work to deem this the best performance of his career, but I can say that this is definitely the best thing I have seen him in and this is certainly a performance for the ages in terms of Clooney's career.

You know what, don't fuck with cousin Hugh either. As Clooney says in the film, some of the most threatening people in Hawaii look like bums and stuntmen. Don't worry, that's not spoiling anything

However, the true star of the film (in my opinion) is Shailene Woodley as Alexandra. She was absolutely phenomenal, and considering that her character's return is the catalyst for the rest of the events in the film, I'd say that the film would not have been as good if it did not have her in it. I can see why she was considered to have been snubbed for an Oscar, but I am extremely happy that Melissa McCarthy was nominated because she gave a truly awesome performance. However, if there were a sixth slot for Supporting Actress, Woodley would certainly be in it. I feel similar to her snub as I did with Andrew Garfield's the year before, except I was much more pissed about his. Needless to say, she was brilliant, one of the best performances by a young actress of the last ten years.

A few more standouts in the cast are Amara Miller as Scottie, who does a good enough job alongside Clooney and Woodley, though there were times where I found her character too annoying to bear. The same can easily be said for Nick Krause's performance as Sid, though I warmed to him eventually. Namely, after his key scene with Clooney. But the two I was most impressed and surprised with out of the supporting cast were Matthew Lillard as Brian Speer and Judy Greer as Julie (to reveal her last name would be to spoil). They didn't get much screentime, but I was thoroughly impressed by each of their spotlight scenes, especially since I only knew Judy Greer from her roles on Two and a Half Men and I only knew Matthew Lillard from Scream and the live-action Scooby-Doo films. Needless to say, they were both phenomenal in their respective scenes.

That picture could be used in a tourism ad

The last thing I want to talk about with this film is the cinematography. The film was filmed on location in Hawaii, and it shows, because even the most simplistic shots are absolutely gorgeous. So gorgeous that they could be used in a Hawaii tourism commercial. It's not just the landscape shots either, there is not one single shot in this film that is ugly, even during some of the film's uglier moments. The film was nominated for editing and it definitely deserves it, as the film was very well put together. The only way I can really describe how excellent the cinematography was is to say that the scenes in the movie are exactly as good-looking as the scenes in the trailer (which is rare, because trailers often lie and mislead nowadays).

All in all, The Descendants is my fourth favourite film of 2011, and it has made me want to explore Alexander Payne's work, because he is a director I have not seen much of. In fact, this is the only of Alexander Payne's films I have seen. This film is not without flaw, but it is extremely well-acted, well-written (well worth the Oscar) and well-filmed and it is an overall worthwhile viewing experience. I wouldn't call it essential viewing just yet, but it has the potential to become a classic and a bright spot in George Clooney's body of work. Plus, it will hopefully get Shailene Woodley more good roles outside of playing a pregnant teenager on television. So in short, if you haven't seen this film already, I suggest you do, as it is one of the best of the year.

9/10-  Highly Recommended

An interesting poster design



** I have decided, since I found a website full of minimalist posters, that I would put one up at the end of each of my reviews, since there's pretty much one for every movie.

*** Also, let me know if I get too long-winded in my reviews. 

Midnight in Paris Review

Midnight in Paris (2011)

My Oscar countdown continues on, this time with Midnight in Paris, which also happens to be my first film of Woody Allen's. This film is a particularly interesting entry into Allen's long body of work, as it is a surprising success after a series of misfires. What I mean is, depending on the person you ask, Allen hasn't made a good film since either 2005's Match Point or 2008's Vicky Christina Barcelona. I have not seen either of those films, so I am looking at the film objectively, and for what it is, it's a pretty damn good film. It was also a surprising commercial success for Allen, in fact, his highest grossing film to date (surpassing Hannah and Her Sisters). But enough about how it rejuvenated Allen's career, let's talk about the film itself. Midnight in Paris is in no way a perfect film, but it is a solid one, and it has its moments of inspired genius as one of the best films of the year. It has its weaknesses, but rises on the strength of its original concept and its array of brilliant supporting performances. For Allen fans I'm sure it will satisfy, but for a newbie like me, it served as a great introduction to a director I hope to explore further in the year to come.

One of the many examples of gorgeous Parisian scenery in the film.

Midnight in Paris is about Gil (Owen Wilson) an American writer who is vacationing in Paris with his fiancee Inez (Rachel McAdams) and her parents. Inez and her parents are thoroughly shallow and unlikeable characters (who I will talk about later), and they all think Gil has a screw loose for the following reasons. Inez dreams of living in the Malibu suburbs and bores easily in Paris, whereas Gil dreams of living in Paris and giving up his Hollywood script-writing career (for which he calls himself a hack) to write actual literature and become one of the literary greats, such as Hemingway or Fitzgerald. From the moment we meet him, we learn that Gil longs to live in a different world, namely, 1920's Paris. Any other film would likely paint Inez sympathetically, but Allen does not do that. His script paints her as a shallow unlikable spoiled bitch, so much that we sympathize with Gil where we would not otherwise.

Example #2 of Parisian scenery

The story proper kicks in when Gil goes out for an evening walk and gets into a strange car that leads him to a strange place. This strange place happens to be the very place he's dreamed about, 1920's Paris. It is there where he meets such legendary figures as the Fitzgeralds, Ernest Hemingway, Gertrude Stein, Luis Bunuel, and Salvador Dali, and he gains inspiration to finish his book. He goes back night after night and distances himself day after day, much to the chagrin of Inez and her parents, who are as jerky as she is. He also meets a woman named Adriana (Marion Cotillard), Picasso's mistress and muse, who he finds himself instantly attracted to. Gil and Adriana are very similar characters, in that they are both unsatisfied by the present and wish to live in a rose-coloured view of the past. Whereas Gil would rather live in the 20's, Adriana would rather be a costume designer in 1890's Paris.

Marion Cotillard, Allison Pill, Owen Wilson, and Woody Allen respectively

The message of this film is not exactly subtle, but it is one that needs to be stated. Everyone has felt, at least once, that they were born in the wrong time and that they may have been happier in another decade. Wilson states the film's message in a speech near the end of the film in a speech that I'm sure will become somewhat memorable (especially the bit about novocaine at the dentist). The lesson that Gil needed to learn was that although past may be home to artistic legends, there was no penicillin (until 1928), no modern medicine, to prevent the many diseases of the time, and life would pretty much suck for anyone who is not a white man (which Gil is). Not to mention, France would be torn apart again in about twenty years with a little thing called the Second World War. Also, the twenties were only one decade. I'm not sure how badly the Depression affected France, but the twenties were fleeting and unless Gil was living in a stable time loop that went back to 1920 on New Year's Eve '29, history would march on, with or without him. However, accepting the present for what it is doesn't mean one has to live in misery, like Gil certainly would with Inez, and the ending definitely enforces that (though I won't spoil).

Ladies and Gentlemen, the second-greatest thing about this movie. Corey Stoll as Ernest Hemingway

One of the film's greatest strengths is the series of segments that take place in the past, where Gil meets all the creative greats of the time. The present-day segments aren't really that interesting until Gil's visits to the past start to affect the present and change him as a character. Inez and her parents are not very interesting characters, but that is kind of their point, to provide foils for Gil while insulting him at every turn and just being jerks. They are the film's antagonists, were the film to have clear antagonists, and it is them that make Gil a sympathetic character. Adriana is also a foil for Gil in the results of their characters, which I shall not spoil. The film also introduces the idea that nobody is satisfied with their present and everyone is drawn into the allure of another time. It is these things that show the true genius of Allen's script, and the reason why it will certainly be walking home with Best Original Screenplay come Oscar time.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the most memorable thing about the movie.

 

Speaking of original, another one of this film's strengths is its concept. Although time-travel has been done before, and jumping into another world has also been done before (in Allen's own Purple Rose of Cairo in fact), Midnight in Paris manages to maintain some sense of originality simply because it hasn't been done this way before. Simply put, there has not been a movie where a writer travels back in time through a magic car and meets the artistic and creative legends of the time. It is not a remake, sequel, or reboot, and it shows that there is still some original thought in Hollywood nowadays. This film is truly one of a kind and a film that deserves to be rememebered as one in the filmography of an (allegedly) classic director that needed a really good movie.

The other element of this film that will no doubt turn this film into a classic is the performances. Owen Wilson does a decent job as Gil, providing a sympathetic and interesting lead in a role that I'm sure Allen himself would have played if he were not...say, forty years too old for the part. Wilson plays the nebbish writer type, but Allen mercifully downplays the neuroticness in favour of nostalgia and constantly being annoyed by the shallow people he is surrounded by. Instead of being an insufferable starving artist like he very well could have been in the hands of a different writer, Gil is a reasonably entertaining character and a likable protagonist, though this is exacerbated by the horrible people he has surrounded himself with in the present day. I am not a huge fan of Owen Wilson, but I can't deny that he gave a good performance that was worthy of the Golden Globe nomination that he got. The other present day characters are Inez and her parents, who are played with supreme jerkiness by Rachel McAdams, Kurt Fuller, and Mimi Kennedy. I may hate their characters with a burning passion (because Allen wrote it so I would), but I can't knock their performances, which are pretty good. The only other present-day character worth noting is Paul (played by Michael Sheen), a pseudo-intellectual friend of Inez's, whom she is enamored with but Gil (rightfully) can't stand. He gives a good enough performance, one of the many in this film.

I wish I could crack witty jokes that go along with pictures....

However, the acting that really makes the movie is that from the supporting characters. They are the main reasons why the past segments are more interesting, more witty, and generally more awesome. Some of the more famous members of the supporting cast include Kathy Bates as Gertrude Stein, Tom Hiddleston and Allison Pill (of Thor and Scott Pilgrim fame) as Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, Corey Stoll (of Law and Order LA) as Ernest Hemingway, and Adrien Brody as Salvador Dali. Those are the recognizable past characters and the ones that are seen most often, but there is a whole slew of unknowns playing various denizens of Paris. All that I mentioned did great jobs, but the two standouts are definitely Corey Stoll's Hemingway and Adrien Brody's Dali. Stoll was worthy of a Best Supporting Actor nomination in my opinion, as he captured the commonly perceived image of Hemingway perfectly while being downright hilarious...in an abrasive kind of way. He could have easily been nominated in Max von Sydow's place because though he was in the film very little, he totally knocked it out of the park and gave one of the film's most memorable performances. The other extremely memorable performance is Adrien Brody as Salvador Dali. He was in the film even less than Stoll and he is easily the most memorable character to come out of this film. I won't spoil his awesomeness, all I will say is..."rhinoceros". The one original character in the past universe is Adriana, played by Marion Cotillard, and while weaker than the rest of the actors, she definitely did okay. Needless to say, the film was packed with solid performances throughout.

Wilson, McAdams, and Sheen as Gil, Inez, and Paul respectively.

The film also has brilliant visuals, having also scored a nomination for Art Direction alongside Director, Original Screenplay, and Picture. The film opens with an array of shots of gorgeous Parisian scenery (similarly to how Manhattan opens so I hear, except Manhattan is with New York) and it is an utterly perfect beginning to the film, signifying the warmth and joy that this film has to offer. The cinematography is utterly gorgeous, providing some great shots of Paris both past and present, and the sets are impeccably designed. I don't see it taking home the Oscar (which will probably go to either Hugo or The Artist), but it is as visually sumptuous as it is intellectually satisfying. It could have easily scored a nomination for cinematography, but art direction is good enough.

Exhibit A: Why this film scored an Oscar nom for Best Art Direction

 

All in all, Midnight in Paris is a terrific movie, and I have praised it to death for a reason. Though it does have flaws (albeit very minor ones), it was one of the best films of 2011 and one of my new favourite films of all time, which I look forward to watching again. It features dazzling Parisian scenery, an original concept accompanied by a brilliant script, and a series of fine performances with Owen Wilson giving the single greatest performance of his career. Those who are fans of Allen will love it I'm sure, but it served as a good introductory film for me and I'm sure it will do the same for other Allen newbies. Regardless, I give this film my strongest recommendation, especially around Oscar time. I can't wait to watch more Allen films in the future, and this one has certainly convinced me to do so.

P.S. Personally, I don't long for a past. I'd rather be an older version (by older, I mean early-mid twenties) of myself in the present day. That way, I would have a bit more freedom and I would have the means to travel (namely, to go to England and see Les Mis on the West End).

 

9/10- Must-See,  Instant Classic 

The Artist Review

The Artist (2011)

The Oscars certainly feel nostalgic this year, don't they? I mean with films like Hugo, Midnight in Paris, and The Artist all heavy hitters (the first and last more so than the middle) for the Oscars, it seems pretty obvious. This is why The Artist truly feels one of a kind, although its story is nothing really new. It feels one of a kind because it came out this year, yet seeing it on the big screen made me feel like I was back in the twenties, back when silent films were the huge thing in Hollywood and before the dawn of the talkie. In the wrong hands, The Artist could have felt gimmicky, like they were making a silent movie just for the gimmick as opposed to a genuine throwback. However, it is in the hands of Michel Hazanavicius that this film is a true gem and a must-see for all film buffs. It has everything that a silent film should have. It has the comedy, it has the seriousness, and most importantly, it has a sense of joy and nostalgia even in its most melancholy moments. As of now, it is my personal pick for Best Picture and Best Actor, and I can bet that the filmmakers will be taking home many more awards come Oscar night. Out of all of its ten nominations, there is only one that I feel the film doesn't deserve, but we'll get to that later, onto the review.

The Artist centres around a silent film actor named George Valentin (Jean Dujardin). Valentin is the reigning star of the silent movie world and adored by both the studio and the public. One day, through a meet-cute where she drops her autograph book and accidentally bumps into him while getting it, Valentin meets a young woman named Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) who is amongst the screaming fangirls and initially acts towards him like any young woman who has a crush on a movie star. She shows up to the studio where Valentin works to audition as an extra for one of their films, and through more circumstance, she and Valentin end up working on a picture together and he helps her get her start in the movies, which quickly escalates into superstardom.

Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo in the scene of their first meeting.

What I have described may seem like a plot for an old-fashioned screwball romantic comedy, but there is much more to this film than that. Like Singin' in the Rain dealt with the transition to talkies in musical format, The Artist deals with a similar topic, except it deals with it very differently. In Singin' in the Rain, Don Lockwood adapted very easily to talkies. In The Artist, George does not adapt so easily. In fact, it is his unwillingness to adapt that results in Peppy's star rising (although it rose with his guidance) and his star fading. This rising star/fading star conflict is what drives the movie and what makes us feel sympathy for our protagonist. As Peppy's life gets better, George's life gets phenomenally worse and for him it's just one humiliation after another, so much that the only companion he has left (besides Peppy, whom it takes him a little while to warm up to after an incident that I'd rather not spoil) is his utterly adorable dog.

Berenice Bejo and Malcolm McDowell in his brief cameo

Although it is through his stubbornness and insistence that sound is merely a fad that made those things happen, I can't help but feel sorry for him. There could be several reasons why he was so resistant towards the dawn of sound. It could be simply that he is afraid of change, or it could be insecurity about (maybe) not being able to speak English very well. If the last was true, it is a perfectly realistic insecurity and it gives the character a bit more humanity. However, Dujardin himself is such a phenomenally attractive man that he could pull it off. Seeing as Dujardin is French and French is his native language, this is one of the great examples of the actor's nationality influencing the character for the better. However, it's not like he was hiding a high shrill voice or a thick Brooklyn accent like Lina Lamont in Singin' in the Rain. Quite the opposite in fact, his voice is not unpleasant at all and being in the talkies would not damage his ability to play a romantic lead.

I don't want to spoil any more of the plot for you, but I will say that it borrows many plot and character elements from Singin' in the Rain, not enough to call it copying but enough for me to consider the two films companion pieces. First of all, George Valentin reminded me a lot of Don Lockwood, the king of silent films who has to deal with the transition to talkies. They are both noted for their talent, they are both pretty damn good dancers, both adored by the public, and both incredibly charming. Plus, Dujardin looks like he could be Gene Kelly's french son (or, judging by their ages, grandson). But whereas Lockwood adapts to the talkies, Valentin instead goes through what I presume to be any actor's worst fear (namely, becoming a forgotten has-been and losing the fame and admiration they once had). Peppy Miller also reminded me a lot of Kathy Selden, even in a direct scene where she is one in a group of showgirls that even wore costumes reminiscent to Debbie Reynolds' in that particular scene (those who have seen Singin' in the Rain know what I'm talking about). Plus, there's the whole showgirl becomes actress and rises up through the ranks of Hollywood that their characters have in common, though Selden rises up in a different way. They even make the film actress played by Missi Pyle look like Lina Lamont at the beginning, though she is not an antagonist and has no bearing on the plot at all. The last act of the film also resembles Singin' in the Rain in a way that I'm not going to spoil. However, this borrowing does not make me like the film any less. In fact, it makes me love it more because Singin' in the Rain happens to be my favourite film of all time.

Seriously. French grandson.

The story is not particularly original, and yet the film maintains some sense of uniqueness and originality in that it is the first silent film to come out in wide-ish circulation since Mel Brooks' Silent Movie in 1976, and it will likely be the first silent film to win Best Picture since the twenties. It also has an element of uniqueness in its nostalgia, how it's a throwback to the classic films of the twenties, and how films like this normally wouldn't be made in this day and age. This, however, brings me to the one Oscar nomination that I felt The Artist did not deserve. That nomination was for Original Screenplay. Seeing as this film was completely silent, title cards were used to express dialogue. However, they weren't used very often and although they did get some good deadpan one-liners in, the rest were rather unremarkable. Not bad, just unremarkable. The Academy could have easily given Diablo Cody a second nomination in The Artist's place, or any other original screenplay in general. I don't think it'll win though, and though I feel The Artist is undeserving for that one Oscar, the rest of the nine awards it was nominated for were wholly deserved.

First of all, the performances were phenomenal, so much that this film has my personal choice for Best Actor. I am sincerely hoping that Dujardin will win the Oscar come Oscar time and I have a feeling he will, as he has received a tad bit more praise than Clooney (who is the other popular choice for Best Actor) and though Clooney is a bigger name in the States, Dujardin's performance is generally looked upon to be the better one. Of course, I haven't seen The Descendants, so I can't be a fair judge, but I still hope that Dujardin wins the award because he truly deserves it. He embodied all of the emotions of his character, all the flaws, all the likability, and all the charm. Seriously, there is so much that he can convey with just a smile, which is so irresistable in itself that it can melt hearts, my own included. He's also a throwback in and of himself, which is one of the many things that makes this film unique. He's the old-fashioned leading man. He's the Errol Flynn, he's the Douglas Fairbanks, he's the Gene Kelly.  Plus, another reason why he will likely take the award over Clooney is that he had to convey the thoughts, feelings, and interactions of his character without words, entirely through his actions and his facial expressions, whereas Clooney had the advantage of being able to speak. In that, Dujardin's performance is the most substantial (both in the happy and sad moments of the film) male performance I have seen this year and one of the greatest things about this film, thus making him my personal pick for Best Actor.

One of the funniest scenes in the movie. You wouldn't be able to tell by the picture though.

However, his performance was not the only good performance in the film. Berenice Bejo also received an Oscar nomination for her performance in the film and though she doesn't have much chance of winning, she gave a great performance nonetheless. She had the flair, the pizzaz, and for lack of a better word, the pep (funny, because her character's name is Peppy) necessary for this performance, and she makes an excellent foil to George with her star rising and his star falling. She's a fundamentally good person, and though her rise to the top could have made her conceited and ungrateful, she does not forget Valentin and how he gave her her start, and she sticks by him the entire course of the movie when she could have abandoned him (not in a romantic sense, but in a friendly sense). She and Dujardin worked extremely well together and they were backed up by decent supporting performances, such as John Goodman as the cigar-chomping studio exec and James Cromwell as Clifton, Valentin's driver. Another humourous albeit brief turn is the one by Missi Pyle as Valentin's Lamont-ish costar. Needless to say, a slew of solid and delightful performances all around, one that will be taking home the Oscar.

But the slew of great performances is just one of the fantastic things about this movie. It also got nominated for a ton of Oscars below the line (by which I mean below the line of the screenplay awards in the technical section) and it deserved them, being an overall visually pleasing film. The film's cinematography is excellent, making good use of each shot and embracing the old-fashioned by filming in 4:3 as opposed to the standard widescreen, and the film on a whole is presented beautifully. I don't see it taking home the award (which will likely go to Janusz Kaminski for War Horse judging by the photographs I have seen), but the film was definitely well-shot. It has a chance at winning for editing, and there is a definite chance that it could win for art direction because the sets were superb, from Valentin's colossal mansion to Miller's mansion to the shops in the city. For now, it is still my favourite for Art Direction. The one award I am absolutely certain it will win is Best Original Score (Kim Novak controversy aside), because with no dialogue, this film is entirely dependent on the music because if there was no music, there would just be dead awkward silence. The music is simply delightful, probably the best score I have heard all year and though the film used little sound, the uses of sound were extremely clever. I won't spoil them for you, but they are extremely clever. Overall, The Artist is a visual delight as well as a delight in many other fashions.

Dujardin again and the film's second brightest (and certainly most adorable) star, Uggie the Dog

In short, The Artist is truly a phenomenal film and a gem, considering it came out in today's society. It is a must-see for all film buffs and though it may decrease in popularity when the Oscars are over, it will be remembered amongst the film buffs as a classic. The Artist is an utterly perfect film and has the honour of being my favourite film of 2011 and my personal pick for Best Picture and Best Actor amongst other things. It is a sheer delight through and through, featuring beautiful visuals and black-and-white cinematography, excellent performances through and through, and a refreshingly old-fashioned (though not entirely original) story. I recommend a viewing before Oscar time, especially if you want to formulate a good Oscar ballot and I recommend seeing it just for the experience, as there is nothing in this for a movie fan to dislike.

10/10- Must-See, Potential Classic

SO.MUCH.ADORABLENESS



My Review of Zombieland

Zombieland (2009)

You know how I said Shaun of the Dead is my favourite zombie movie of all time? Well, here's the film that falls into the second spot. Zombieland is an absolutely excellent movie, a movie that has often been compared to an American Shaun of the Dead. I don't think that's entirely true. While they do have some similarities, Zombieland is a very different movie. Shaun of the Dead is about a man trying to improve his relationships in the face of a zombie apocalypse, but Zombieland is about a loner who finds a family in a ragtag team of survivors. Zombieland offers up tons of good humour as well as excellent gore effects and some pretty good acting in an overall awesome package.

In the world of Zombieland (which is name-dropped a couple of times), zombies have outnumbered humans thanks to a mutated version of mad cow disease and the world has gone to absolute shit. Our main character and narrator, Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) has managed to survive all this time despite his extensive phobias by having a list of rules that pop up over the course of the movie.Some of the rules include the double tap, bewaring of bathrooms, checking the backseat for zombies, and the simple act of wearing a seatbelt. He also manages to survive because he has been a loner all his life and has no close family or friends. He is on his way to Columbus, Ohio to see if his parents (who are paranoid shut-ins like himself) are alive. Which is a perfect time to explain why his name is the same as his hometown. There are no names in Zombieland, your name is either where you're from or where you're going. Which also explains to first-time viewers why the other three main characters are named Tallahassee, Wichita, and Little Rock.

Columbus runs into Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), easily the most awesome character in the movie, and they agree to accompany eachother east. Tallahassee is armed to the teeth and he has two things on his mind: killing zombies and getting his hands on a Twinkie. While stopping at a grocery store to achieve goal #2, they are introduced to two mistrusting sisters, Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin). The sisters are on their way to Pacific Playland and after a series of scams, Columbus and Tallahassee join them.There's another reason why Columbus decides to go with them, but to say so would be to reveal spoilers, and I don't want to do that. The rest of the film is a road trip story, where the four get to know eachother on the way to Pacific Playland. Tallahassee and Little Rock bond over guns, Wichita and Columbus experience growing sexual tension, we learn the true motivation of Tallahassee's zombie-killing ways, and of course, some zombie ass is going to get kicked.

This is a departure from most zombie movies (even apocalyptic movies in general) because the zombies are not any sort of political or social metaphor, like in many other zombie movies. No, in this zombie movie, the zombies are just a means to show off awesome gore effects and something to have fun killing. It is also a movie about a loner finding his place in life and finding a family as he never had one of his own (just like Shaun of the Dead was about fixing a broken relationship in the face of danger). The film is not at all devoid of character development. Columbus learns that some rules are made to be broken, especially when the safety of people he cares about is on the line. Tallahassee learns to come to grips with what I can't tell you, and the two sisters learn to trust people besides eachother. They also grow as a sort of family.

One of the funniest scenes in the movie

Zombieland serves up loads of good humour alongside the zombie-killing scenes and some excellent dramatic moments. Some of the funniest parts of the film come from anecdotes, like how Wichita and Little Rock conned before Zombieland, how Columbus let his hot neighbour into his dorm room after being bitten by a homeless guy (AKA his first zombie encounter), and how Sister Cynthia Knickerbocker won Zombie Kill of the Week. There is also a cameo from Bill Murray once the group hits California and of course, being Bill Murray, hilarity ensues. It's also kind of funny to see the normally badass and tough Tallahassee go fanboy over Bill Murray. There are a whole bunch of other comedic gold nuggets in the film and it's sure to have you laughing throughout. There are a few memorable quotes in an awesomely tongue-in-cheek script, and the relationships between the characters also bring for some funny moments (especially the comparisons of Wichita and Columbus' 1997's, and the moments between Tallahassee and Little Rock).

For all the laughs, there is a heart behind all of the blood and guts. It's a movie about togetherness, about a young man who spent so long being alone that it took a zombie apocalypse for him to find a family. It's also a movie about survival, and the isolation that comes with survival. In order for this to work, the four lead actors have to have chemistry with eachother. Fortunately, the four lead actors have great chemistry (as well as great individual performances) and thus, the audience believes they can survive together as a family. The first performance of which to speak is Jesse Eisenberg as Columbus. It still surprises me that in all his future movies, he can be billed as "Academy Award nominee Jesse Eisenberg". Granted, he was great in this and he was fantastic in The Social Network, but it seems shocking that a year after this was made, he came close to winning an Oscar, mostly because he seemed to be the next Michael Cera-esque typecast awkward guy. Good for him for getting out of that, at least for now. Here, he makes a sympathetic lead and a great narrator. This proves once again that Eisenberg is a fantastic actor, and I will like him more than I will ever like Michael Cera. He is one of Hollywood's great young talents and I hope he will continue to get great roles in the future, although his latest role in 30 Minutes or Less proved to be a return to his typecasting.

The other three actors rounding out the leads are Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, and Abigail Breslin. Harrelson is positively badass as Tallahassee, one of his most enjoyable performances by far. He nails the roles of the zombie-killing badass (with multiple chainsaws and a snakeskin jacket to boot), the jerk with a heart of gold, and the funny guy perfectly, making for an extremely memorable performance (probably the most memorable of the four leads, outside the Bill Murray cameo). Emma Stone is pretty good as Wichita. She conveys the mistrusting nature of her character perfectly, and she and Eisenberg have reasonable chemistry together. Her shining moment came during the flashback where she was conning a hapless gas station clerk. Lastly, Abigail Breslin proves once again why she is one of the best child actresses of our time, turning in a wonderful performance as Little Rock. Her interactions with Woody Harrelson are just hilarious.

All in all, Zombieland is an excellent movie and a modern classic, and it is definitely one of the best films of 2009. Zombieland features brilliant gore effects (although the squeamish will want to avoid this movie for just that reason), great acting, a great story with a very entertaining and tongue-in-cheek script, and some great zombie ass-kicking scenes. I highly recommend Zombieland to any and all fans of the genre (whether just zombies, horror-comedy, or horror in general) and besides the squeamish, Zombieland should do something for just about everyone. I bought this film today and I'm glad I did because this film definitely warrants multiple viewings. In short, see it. You won't be disappointed.

9/10- HIGHLY Recommended



My Review of Juno

Juno (2007)

When I think of great films of the 2000's, there is one comedy that definitely comes to mind for me. That comedy is Juno, one of the best movies of its year and one of my all-time favourite movies. Nominated for four Oscars (winning Best Original Screenplay for a reason), Juno is a sharp and witty look into the life of a pregnant teenager and the couple whose lives she gets a bit too involved in. Besides the wonderful script, there is a cornucopia of brilliant performances, including the Oscar-nominated turn by Ellen Page as Juno herself. It also reigns as one of the most quotable movies of all time as well as one of the best dramedies. Dramedies are a tricky breed of movies, as too much of one element can make the other feel out of place, but Juno blends the two genres perfectly, making for a brilliant and memorable film.

Juno starts.....with a chair. Actually, it starts with Juno MacGuff (Ellen Page), a funny and smart-mouthed teenage girl who finds out that she's pregnant by her best friend Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera). The only people who know at this point are her friend Leah (Olivia Thirlby) and the hilarious convenience store clerk played by one-scene wonder Rainn Wilson. After considering abortion and rebuffing the choice, Juno has to fess up to her dad (JK Simmons) and stepmom (Allison Janney), as well as Bleeker. Thankfully Juno and Leah found a nice couple in the Pennysaver who will adopt the baby.

That couple is Mark and Vanessa Loring (Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner), a typical cookie-cutter suburban couple. The film follows Juno over the course of her pregnancy, exploring her relationship with Bleeker as well as her interactions with the couple. The film's interpersonal conflicts begin when Juno and Mark begin to bond over horror movies and rock music and she begins to spend too much time with the Lorings'. It doesn't take a genius to spot that Mark is unhappy and repressed in his marriage. It also doesn't take a genius to know that he is not ready to father anything. However, it is

Vanessa that insists upon having a baby and Mark appears to have no choice in the matter.

This would almost make Mark sympathetic except for the fact that he is a petulant manchild with a hinted-at yet never explicitly stated attraction towards Juno. Creepy. Regardless of whether he's into Juno (or if she's into him for that matter), it is made clear that he would rather go back to living as a teenager and would rather pursue his rock-star dreams as opposed to grow up. This dynamic between Mark and Juno is played brilliantly by Page and Bateman. Of course, this is one of two perspectives to take on the character, and that's what makes the film more interesting. You can see him as a petulant manchild who's a thorn in the side of his mature, realistic wife or a henpecked represed husband who happens to be married to a total tight-ass. The viewer's interpretation of him depends on their opinion of Vanessa. That is why I find him the most fascinating character in the movie, although not the most memorable, and that's why I have so much respect for Jason Bateman's performance in this movie, which is my favourite of his to date.  Just a brilliant character written by a brilliant writer, helped by an excellent performance which I honestly think Jason Bateman deserved an Oscar nomination for.

The script by Diablo Cody is simply brilliant not only in plot but in dialogue, perhaps one of the funniest scripts put to film. The script is sharp and witty, and rather than blather on about how great it is, I will share a few choice lines from the film:

"That ain't no Etch-a-Sketch. This is one doodle that can't be un-did, homeskillet."

Mac (Simmons): "No, I know I mean who's the father, Juno?"
Juno: "Umm... It's Paulie Bleeker."
Mac: [in amusement] "Paulie Bleeker?"
Juno: "What?"
Mac: "I didn't think he had it in him!"
Leah: "I know, right?"

Juno: Can't we just like kick this old school? You know, like I stick the baby in a basket, send it your way, like Moses and the reeds?
Mark: Technically, that would be kicking it Old Testament.

That's only a taste of the dialogue in this movie, there are dozens of ingenious lines. The film won Best Original Screenplay, the only Oscar it won, and it was entirely deserved (despite its worthy co-nominees). Despite the hilarious nature of the film, the dramatic elements are excellent as well. In essence, Juno is a story not about pro-life-ism or any spectrum of the whole pregnancy debate, but about growing up. It is about Juno growing up over the course of the film, as she starts out as a typical immature teenage girl, but becomes more mature over the nine months. It's also about Mark's unwillingness to grow up, and while Juno is successful in her coming-of-age story, his story is yet to be told and if it was ever told, I don't think it would end well.

Ellen Page plays the role of Juno, and she gives a phenomenal performance, both comedic and dramatic. She is a very talented actress, and Juno is probably her most iconic role and likely always will be, as it earned Page her first (and hopefully not her last) Oscar nomination. She has decent chemistry with Michael Cera, who also gives his best performance here. Anyone who knows me well knows that I am generally not a huge fan of Michael Cera. I don't think he's a bad actor, I just think he's a one-trick pony, and he hasn't done anything to convince me otherwise. Here, his one trick works best, as he plays Juno's best friend and the father of her baby. He's decently funny and although he doesn't stretch far in terms of acting, it strangely works.

The secondary cast is amazing as well. First, there are two awesome performances from typical awesome secondary character-actors JK Simmons (Jameson from the Spiderman movies, who has made a career out of being awesome) and Allison Janney. He plays the supportive father and she plays the far from evil stepmother, and both are hilarious as well as heartwarming. Olivia Thirlby is great as Leah (who seems to be the ditzy cheerleader, but is still a loyal friend to Juno), Bateman is great as Mark (as I priorly said) and Jennifer Garner is excellent as Vanessa as well. All in all, this has a fine ensemble cast with a slew of amazing performance.

When it comes down to storytelling, Juno is a coming-of-age story, and a damned good one at that. It is one of my favourite movies of all time, definitely in my top 20, and I give it my strongest recommendation for anyone who hasn't seen it, as well as anyone who has. I wouldn't say it is without flaw, but I would say that it is a dramedy masterpiece and one of the greatest teen films since the Hughes days of the 80's. It's nice to see smart teenagers, not the vapid teenagers (teenage girls especially) that are so present in films nowadays. There are brilliant performances, a fantastic Oscar-winning script, great characters, and I forgot to mention, a pretty good soundtrack. In short, Juno is not a must-see, but it is damn great and I give it my highest recommendation possible and if teenagers watch more films like this, we may have smarter teenagers.

9.5/10- EXTREMELY highly recommended





My Review of I Love You, Man

I Love You, Man (2009)

Judging by his offscreen reputation, Paul Rudd could easily win the title of nicest, most relaxed man in Hollywood. Second place for that title could likely go to Jason Segel. So, why not put them in a movie together? Well, they did, and it worked out brilliantly. I Love You, Man is an excellent comedy with a quasi-original story that rises on the great chemistry of its leads (Rudd and Segel, as well as Rudd and Rashida Jones) as well as the strength of its script, which is oftentimes hilarious. Compared to the flashier comedy that came out that year, a little comedy called The Hangover, I Love You Man is much more realistic and much sweeter although still raunchy, making for a slightly better comedy.

I Love You, Man starts out with our main character, a real estate agent named Peter (Paul Rudd) proposing to his girlfriend Zooey (Rashida Jones). All his life, Peter has been a girlfriend guy, and it takes Zooey agreeing to marry him for Peter to realize that he has no close male friends. This will prove a problem as Peter needs a best man. However, if one were to liken this film to real life, this would not be a problem. Women can have men of honour, one would think it would work the same way for men. Peter enlists the help of his gay brother (Andy Samberg) in finding guys to go on platonic "man-dates" (casual lunches or after-work drinks) with so he can find a best man.

After a montage of disasters (including a really hilarious guy from Reno 911 that actually turns out to be gay), Peter finds a viable choice in Sydney (Jason Segel), whom he meets at his open house. The open house is a subplot that appears throughout the movie, as Peter needs the money from the Ferrigno estate (yes, that Ferrigno, Lou Ferrigno in a hilarious bit part) to pay for the wedding. Sydney is a pretty cool guy, and it is with his help that Peter learns to loosen up and over the course of the film, Sydney helps him become more confident in himself. You see, Peter starts out as a very wound-up character, mostly because he has no male friends.

It is my belief that everyone, both men and women, needs friends of their own gender. No matter how well you get along with your guy friends if you are a woman or your lady friends if you're a man, there will always be limitations on what you can talk about. With friends of the same gender, you can completely let loose, like Peter and Sydney do in Sydney's man-cave. Peter and Sydney bond over Rush concerts, screaming like gorillas, and talking about sex. He inspires Peter to take more risks, and in turn, Peter helps Sydney overcome some of his flaws. Although Peter thinks that Sydney ruined his life at a point in the film, it turns out that Sydney has improved his life. This is what friends are supposed to do for eachother, make eachother better people while appreciating the eccentricities of the other person.

The story, when one thinks about it, is somewhat original, although it plays out much like a romantic comedy. The exact story of a man who realizes he has no male friends who tries to remedy that by going on several platonic dates has not really been told in any other movie. Despite the idea being somewhat original, it runs exactly like a rom-com meaning it is extremely predictable and you know the ending from a mile away. That is one of my few problems with this movie, mostly because one of the things I hate most about the rom-coms that this parodies is their utter predictability. Another problem I can see coming out of the movie is the fact that since all of the characters are extremely reasonable, there is next to no conflict. I actually think it works in the film's favour because it feels like how real people act as opposed to characters in a movie. Peter, Zooey, and Sydney feel like real people, not caricatures, and that to me gives this film a refreshing touch not often present in movies.

Predictability aside, this film rises on the strength of its actors as well as the oftentimes hilarious script. This film is incredibly well-written, providing for some great laughs as well as good characters. The script, however, brings us to another flaw and another thing that prevented me from ranking this film higher. Some of the raunchy humour feels out of place due to the nature of the film. Some of it works, but a lot of it doesn't and it sometime shifts the film into extremely awkward territory. There are some crudely hilarious moments that kind of appeal to my childish side, like Paul Rudd projectile-vomiting all over Jon Favreau. However, most of the humour works, some prime examples being Lou Ferrigno putting Jason Segel into a sleeper hold and Paul Rudd slappin' da bass, as well as the fact that whenever Peter leaves Sydney voicemails, he flubs his speech almost like a little boy talking to the girl he likes on the playground . It's not the most hilarious movie ever made, and the humour is sometimes awkward, but it is mostly consistent and that's pretty much all I ask in a comedy nowadays. As long as it consistently makes me laugh, I will generally be pleased with it.

Jobin. If you've seen the film you'll get that joke

The actors, especially the three leads, all do excellent jobs. I have a feeling that if different actors were cast in the roles of Peter and Sydney, the movie would have lessened in quality because the film is dependent on the chemistry between Paul Rudd and Jason Segel. Thankfully, the two actors work brilliantly off of eachother and have great chemistry, each of them turning in excellent performances as Peter and Sydney respectively. I am a huge fan of Paul Rudd and after The Muppets, I am growing to be a huge fan of Jason Segel as well, and it is great to see two of my favourite comedic actors of all time in a movie together. Rashida Jones was excellent as Zooey, Peter's fiancee. She and Rudd have excellent chemistry together as well and they make for a relatively realistic couple in that they have a relationship based on mutual love and respect, unlike the romantic comedies that this film satirizes. The supporting cast is brilliant as well, like Andy Samberg as Peter's brother, JK Simmons as Peter's father, Thomas Lennon as the one of Peter's man-dates that turns out to be gay, and especially Jaime Pressly (AKA Joy Turner on My Name is Earl) and Jon Favreau as Denise and Barry, Zooey's friend and her complete ass-hat of a husband. His mere presence in the movie makes it no question why Peter wants to hang around with women. If you were forced to hang out with Barry and his friends, who wouldn't want to hang out with women? All in all, a strong cast that elevates the film to the quality that it is.

All in all, I Love You Man is a sweet movie that kind of flew under the radar because The Hangover came out that year, despite the fact that this film came out before The Hangover. It has an excellent cast and an excellent script, which are what gives the film any semblance of memorability. It is not a classic, and not a masterpiece, but it made me laugh consistently and I enjoyed the main characters, which is enough to want to watch this movie again and enough to recommend it. I Love You Man is a genuinely funny and genuinely touching look at friendship filled to the brim with great comedic performances, and it is definitely worth a DVD rental sometime in the future.

8.5/10-  Highly Recommended

My Review of Shaun of the Dead

Shaun of the Dead (2004)



With this review, I have decided to start a new style of review. Though I will still be doing long reviews, I am going to be doing this as a mini-review. Anyway, I absolutely adore Shaun of the Dead, arguably the greatest horror-comedy since Scream and my current favourite zombie movie. It is a wildly entertaining masterpiece of a film that has awesome zombies and kick-ass action, but it also has memorable and fleshed-out (no pun intended) characters played by great actors to back it up. This is my second taste of the Pegg/Wright/Frost combo, and it is a winning combo for sure, making me want to see Hot Fuzz all the more.

Shaun of the Dead is often described as a "rom-zom-com", that is, a romantic comedy that happens to take place during a zombie apocalypse. The film is centred around the titular Shaun (Simon Pegg), a deadbeat who lives with his equally deadbeat friend Ed (Nick Frost). After plans for a date with his girlfriend (Kate Ashfield) go south due to his incompetence, he is dumped, which merely adds to the shitty things in his life. He has a crappy job, a crappy relationship with his stepdad, and he's treated crappily by pretty much everyone he meets. Shaun was entirely asking for it, as he happens to be an incompetent dolt at the start of the movie. The only person that seems to be nice to him is Ed, who's still a total douchebag and inadvertently keeps screwing things up.

Things have only started though, because Shaun and Ed are attacked by a girl in their garden who they think is drunk, but turns out to be dangerous and only stops her attack when Shaun hits her in the head with a cricket bat. Shaun also walks through his normal morning routine too hungover and oblivous to realize he is in a zombie apocalypse. Ed and Shaun first deny that anything is going on ("Don't use the Z word"), but after hearing the news, they wise up to the fact that something is wrong and make their plan. They are to go and get Shaun's mother (who has told him that his stepfather was bitten and feeling a little 'under the weather'), take care of Philip (the stepdad) and then go to Liz's apartment and make sure she is okay.

The rest of the film is a survival story, where Shaun, Liz, Ed, Liz's annoying roommates David and Dianne, and Shaun's mother and stepfather. The entire second half is them at the Winchester (Ed and Shaun's favourite pub which Liz grew tired of after being taken their night after night) fighting the encroaching zombies. This half of the film gets more serious, whereas the first half was more comedic in satirizing zombie films like Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead. Shit starts going down and that's pretty much all I can tell you without my words being rife with spoilers, so the plot summation will stop here. Being honest, the film is not so much about story so much as characters, and these are characters we grow to like over the course of the movie.

The first of these characters is Shaun, played by Simon Pegg. He starts out as an incompetent fool but grows to become more competent as the movie goes on, eventually turning into the only competent person in the survival team. I shouldn't say that, Liz is extremely competent as well, but it is Shaun that is the most sympathetic and likeable character. He goes through so much that we can't help but feel sorry for him, especially near the end, when the film looks bleakest. He feels his failure to fortify the pub is just another one of the failures in his life, and this is one failure too many, as Shaun faces the ultimate despair. This leads to a truly excellent performance from Simon Pegg both during the comedic and dramatic parts of the film. I had only seen him in a few comedic roles before this and I never knew how brilliant an actor he was until now. By far his best performance.

The rest of the cast rounds out brilliantly. First, there is Nick Frost as Shaun's deadbeat roommate Ed. He seems to always play second fiddle to Pegg and one day he should definitely play first fiddle, because he is an extremmely talented comic actor as well. Pegg may give the best performance, but Frost certainly comes close, making Ed just as memorable and sympathetic as Shaun, despite the fact that Ed keeps screwing things up. Kate Ashfield is good as Liz, the only other sane character in the film, and she and Pegg (as well as Pegg and Frost as always) work very well off of eachother. The rest of the cast includes Penelope Wilton as Barbara (Shaun's mother), Bill Nighy as Philip, Lucy Davis as Dianne (one of Liz's roommates) and Dylan Moran as David (her other roommate). Dylan Moran deserves special attention because he plays David as such an asshole that (SPOILERS) when he gets ripped apart limb from limb and disemboweled through the same window he broke when there was a back door to get into the pub (END OF SPOILERS) I actually cheered because I was wishing for his eventual fate. Moran played him very well though, especially during the mexican standoff scene with the rifle and several broken beer bottles.

The script, written by Wright and Pegg, is absolutely brilliant in both the fields of comedy and drama, and especially in the field of character writing (as I had priorly mentioned). It is equal parts hilarious and heartbreaking. Some of the particularly hilarious scenes include Ed and Shaun throwing records at the zombies while bickering on which ones to keep and which to throw, Shaun and the gang running into near-exact doppelgangers of themselves (except with a woman as the leader), and Shaun and Liz beating up zombies with pool cues while Queen plays in the background. There are a lot of funny lines as well, and the film is as entertaining as it is well-written and occasionally horrifying.

All in all, Shaun of the Dead is a total masterpiece in the fields of both horror and comedy, as well as in the field of character writing.  The characters are memorable, the zombies are cool, the gore effects are amazing, the actors are brilliant, and the movie is just straight-up awesome in general. Another thing I loved about it was the ending. I won't tell you what it is, but it's likely one of my favourite endings to any comedy. I highly recommend it to fans of zombie films, as well as fans of the Pegg, Frost, and Wright combo. This now reigns as my favourite zombie film as well as my second favourite horror movie (Scream just barely inching it out) and is definitely in my top 20 favourite films of all time. I thought I would like this, but I didn't think I'd like it this much, and I just can't run out of excellent things to say about it. So in short, see it. Plain and simple.

10/10- Must-See

This prat deserved his fate for being a whiny little know-it-all and a complainer at every turn. May that fact be shouted from the rooftops





My Review of Bridesmaids

Bridesmaids (2011)



From late December all the way until Oscar time is the time that I use to catch up on all of the films I haven't seen in 2011 so I can make informed ballot choices come Oscar time. I have decided to start this time of year with Bridesmaids, one of the best movies of the year and certainly the best comedy. The simple fact of the matter is that Bridesmaids is hilarious, often painfully so. It is also incredibly dirty, but unlike most dirty comedies, it actually has a solid story, characters, and dare I say, heart to support the dirty jokes. The film is a comedy through and through, but it also serves as an interesting character study with some dramatic themes about friendship and hitting rock-bottom. 

Some have called it "The Hangover" for women, but I honestly disagree and I think saying that does both films a disservice. They are not at all similar plot-wise, and to be honest, Bridesmaids is way funnier. The only similarity is that The Hangover features an almost entirely male cast with few female characters and Bridesmaids has an almost entirely female cast with few male characters. Other than that, these two movies couldn't be more different. They have different messages, they have different storylines, and they have different executions. They are both good on their own merits and deserve to be viewed as entirely separate movies and not distaff counterparts in any way. Besides, I know women who like The Hangover, and I'm sure there are men who like Bridesmaids. But enough about that, I'm not writing an essay about separating Bridesmaids from The Hangover, I'm writing a review about Bridesmaids, so I should continue with that.

Bridesmaids starts out with a sex scene between our lead Annie (Kristen Wiig) and Ted (played by Don Draper himself, Jon Hamm in a hilariously douchey uncredited role). Annie and Ted are having an apparently one-sided casual fling and since Ted is a total ass, Annie feels like shit whenever she leaves his place. In fact, Annie is a mess in general. She ran a bakery that went under in the recession and the failure of her businesswas so crippling that she gave up baking entirely. She is in a meaningless rleationship with a man who doesn't like her, she sucks at her job at a jewelry store, and her roommates (a brother-sister pair played by Matt Lucas and Rebel Wilson) belittle her at every turn. The one person she can really depend on in her life is Lillian (Maya Rudolph), her childhood best friend.

Lillian announces that she is engaged, and she wants Annie to be the maid of honour at the wedding. Annie is overjoyed at the news and it is at Lillian's engagement party that we meet the rest of the bridesmaids. First of all, there's Lillian's cynical cousin Rita (Wendi McLendon-Covey) who spends most of the movie being a hilarious foil to Lillian's newlywed friend Becca (Ellie Kemper, AKA Erin from The Office), who happens to be extremely adorable. There's also Lillian's future sister-in-law Megan (played by a scene-stealing and award-worthy Melissa McCarthy). The last of the bridal party is Lillian's other best friend Helen (Rose Byrne).

Annie automatically feels threatened by Helen and how she seems to want to take over Annie's position not only as maid of honour but as Lillian's best friend. This tug-of-war is the core of the movie, and it exposes the true vulnerabilities of both Annie and Helen. There are several set pieces that the movie goes through to get to the wedding, like the dress fitting combined with a bout of food poisoning, which physically pained me it was so hilarious and a bachelorette party trip to Vegas that gets interrupted by Annie's hilarious antics. These set pieces are hilarious and all thanks to the natural comic timing of Kristen Wiig, as well as the rest of the cast and the hilarious script by Wiig and Annie Mumolo. However, there are serious repercussions to Annie ruining everything comically.

SOME SPOILERS MAY BE PRESENT

You know how I said earlier that Annie is a mess? Well, over the course of the movie, she screws up her life even more over the course of the film. Her comic antics get her into deep shit with Lillian, who lets Helen take over the maid of honour duties. Her roommates also kick her out of her apartment, forcing her to move back in with her mother (Jill Clayburgh in her last film role). She also runs away from the potential of a good relationship with a nice Irish cop (Chris O'Dowd) who pulls her over earlier in the movie because she's so used to bad ones. Last of all, she still refuses to bake. This pent-up rage all comes out at Lillian's bridal shower after Helen upstages her once again with a trip to Paris and Annie goes berserk, resulting in her leaving in shame. Annie refuses to do anything about this, just sitting at home and wallowing in her own self-pity. This kind of stops when Megan visits her house and smacks her in the face both literally and figuratively, telling her to get over it and "fight for her crappy life" as opposed to wallowing in it.

Annie seems to take Megan's advice to heart, trying to fix things with Officer Rhodes (the Irish cop I was talking about earlier) by baking him a cake and getting her taillights fixed (a joke from earlier in the movie that is brought up several times). However, he doesn't seem to accept these gestures and remains mad at Annie (which he has every right to be in my opinion). Later, Helen shows up teary-eyed at Annie's door saying that Lillian is missing. What follows is a deconstruction of Helen's character, where she tearfully apologizes to Annie and explains how lonely she is, being trapped in a loveless marriage, hated by her stepchildren, and how she plans parties because she is so insecure that she feels this is the only way she can keep female friends. The counterpoint between her and Annie really provides an in-depth look into the female psyche and how I am entirely mystified by my own gender.

END OF SPOILERS.

The film is utterly hilarious, oftentimes painfully hilarious, and that is due to the excellent script by Annie Mumolo and Kristen Wiig. This film has already been nominated for several scriptwriting honours and I hope that it gets even more, and it could possibly get screenwriting honours come Oscar time, one of the only honours comedies can generally get at the Oscars and even then, dramedies have a better chance (such as Juno and Little Miss Sunshine, both Oscar winners). Then again, Bridesmaids definitely has dramatic elements so it could have a fighting chance.

The jokes are gut-bustingly hilarious, but there is actually a story and characters to back them up, unlike many comedies that came out this summer (coughBadTeachercough). I suppose people think Bridesmaids is so revolutionary because it proves that raunchiness knows no genre, allowing women to swear and talk dirty whereas in other raunchy comedies, they are usually the beleaguered wives that henpeck their husbands and roll their eyes at the antics of said husbands. In here, women are allowed to be funny, and it is not fair to call this a chick flick because it does not fit the basic definition of a chick flick, instead being leaps and bounds over in quality. It is not base, it is not pandering, it is not at all poorly-written, and most importantly, it does not treat women, or men for that matter, like idiots.

I've spent so much time talking about what this film isn't that I suppose it's time to talk about what this film is. It is peppered with excellent performances, everyone in the female-driven ensemble cast holding their own. First of all, there are two excellent performances from SNL alums Kristen Wiig and Maya Rudolph. The two have believable chemistry as childhood friends and work well off of eachother brilliantly. The third leading lady is Rose Byrne as Helen, who appears to be the typical rom-com villainess but turns out to be much more similar to Annie. The moments I mentioned in the spoiler warning definitely speak to Byrne's acting ability, and it is a bit of a surprise as she is kind of under the radar and I had not been impressed with her in the stuff I had seen her in prior to this. Melissa McCarthy (of Gilmore Girls and Mike & Molly fame) also stars as Megan, and she steals every scene she is in, having most of the funny lines and dirty talk. One of her funniest lines comes from when they are planning Lillian's bachelorette party and she suggests a female fight club theme. McCarthy has already gotten award attention for her performance and she deserves all of it, being very wise and sincere as well as funny. Rounding out the female ensemble cast are Wendi McLendon Covey and Ellie Kemper as Rita and Becca, who serve as foils to eachother as the cynic and the idealistic young newlywed. They both give fantastic performances and definitely hold their own against everyone else. There are also some funny minor turns from Jill Clayburgh and Rebel Wilson that round out the cast nicely.

The comedy is driven by women, but that doesn't mean that there are no male characters. There are two main men in the movie, two men who couldn't be more different. The first is Ted, Annie's casual sex partner who happens to be a total dick. Ted is played in a hilarious uncredited role by Jon Hamm, who shows off his comedic talent that those who have seen his role on 30 Rock (or pretty much anything outside Mad Men) already know he has. Ted is a slimeball through and through, but Annie always seems to go back to him. Truth be told, people end up in these situations most often because they allow themselves to get there, and many bad things that have happened to Annie have been by her own hand. It is Ted that prevents Annie from entering into a happy relationship with the other male main, Officer Rhodes (Chris O'Dowd). Officer Rhodes is a nice guy, a nice guy who can't seem to catch a break until the third act and in the second act of the movie, he is easily the most sympathetic character. Both men give excellent performances and they take advantage of their spots as the only two major male characters in the movie. There are minor male characters as well, like Annie's roommate Gil, Lillian's father and Lillian's fiance. The only thing that I might have liked the movie to do is flesh out Lillian's fiance a bit more, but hey, it's a minor problem in an otherwise brilliant comedy.

Movies marketed towards women have gained a bad rap and for good reason. However, Bridesmaids does a service to the genre, and if this is a so-called "chick flick", then it means that chick flicks don't have to suck. It is an excellent movie through and through, and I highly recommend it. The film is well-written, well-acted, and extremely hilarious. I know I was about seven months late to the game, but I'm glad I finally saw this and that I bought it, as this film warrants multiple viewings. In short, Bridesmaids will likely become a comedy classic in the next, say, ten years, mostly because it kind of broke new ground by being an entirely female-driven comedy. Critics might compare every future women-based comedy (both in movies and on TV) to Bridesmaids, but for those who just want to be entertained, Bridesmaids will serve just as well. But for those who want to see one of the funniest comedies of the year, I'd say give Bridesmaids a shot.

9.5/10-   Highly Recommended