Review: Bridesmaids


I saw the Kristin Wiig vehicle a while ago and figured I would give my opinion of the film. The movie has done very well at the box office. It has been described as a female version of The Hangover. If you have not seen the film yet, let me tell you that it is not in any way close to The Hangover and that is a good thing. The film is far from perfect but it is a pretty funny take on the pressures of womanhood, weddings, family, and the consequences of eating tainted Brazilian food. I had my reservations about seeing this one because of a few reasons. 1. Kristen Wiig overdose. I am an avid watcher of Saturday Night Live and feel that the last two seasons has been saturated by Ms. Wiig. Don’t get me wrong. She’s a funny comedienne and she has a great delivery but enough is enough already. I want some other people to get their chance to shine. 2. The Judd Apatow effect. His movies usually walk the fine line between heartfelt and juvenile hijinks. Unfortunately, the movies also are usually 20 minutes too long, except for Superbad. 3. A predominantly female cast in a hard “R” movie could be disastrous. I don’t prescribe to the John Belushi philosophy of comedy in which females are inherently unfunny. I was just nervous that the ladies might try too hard to get a laugh and forget to have a sensible plot. Here is my breakdown of the film.


The Good:

The movie is actually funny. The movie, when it is clicking on all cylinders, offers a very sharp critique of the male/female dynamic. There is a conversation between Mya Rudolph, who plays the bride to be, and Kristen Wiig when they talk about the tendency for men to physically intimidate females into fellatio. I’m not going to lie, it was funny as hell and accurate. Melissa McCarthy, from Mike and Molly fame, steals every scene she is in. Imagine Chris Farley and give him bigger boobs and you have the tour de force that is Megan. She is foul and fierce. I have to give Ms. McCarthy credit for going all out for her character because she was WAY out there in this film. Wendi McLendon-Covey, from Reno 911!, was funny for her brief role as Rita. She had great chemistry with the cast, especially Ellie Kemper. I wish her role could have been expanded. The entire sequence when the ladies got fit for their dresses was hilarious. It got very graphic but it also produced the biggest laughs. The ensemble had good chemistry with one another. I was impressed.


The Bad:

While the movie was funny, there was definitely a disconnect for the men in the audience or at least that is how I felt. There were only two male characters of any significance and they were both clichéd stereotypes. You had the prototypical asshole, Ted, played to slimy perfection by Jon Hamm. Then there was prototypical good guy, Officer Nathan Rhodes, played by the affable Chris O’Dowd. Both men could be seen as “static characters”. There was no depth. I wasn’t really that impressed. The second complaint I had was with Rose Byrne as the antagonist to Kristen Wiig. I mean the lady is pretty and I saw that she was supposed to personify the perfectionist, über-groomed, trophy wife. Even when the audience was supposed to sympathize with the character because of the reality of her existence, I wasn’t buying it. She just came off as a snippy bitch. The third complaint about the film as that there was not enough focus on the other bridesmaids. As previously mentioned, I barely got to see Wendi McLendon-Covey. The major complaint I had was that the previews make it seem like there is some big bachelorette blowout in Vegas; some payoff that could actually equate to the drunken shenanigans of The Hangover. No dice! My girlfriend was distressed by the entire lack of female companionship in the film. Kristen Wiig dominated the screen and it was cool, but like Saturday Night Live, I think a less concentrated dose of Ms. Wiig could have helped. And there is a brother/sister sub plot in the film which is completely unnecessary. They are annoying and unpleasant on many levels.


The Truth:

Despite the nitpicking, I actually had a pretty good time seeing this one. It wasn’t the best comedy I have seen but it definitely made me laugh a few times. Were some of the scenes too long? Yep. Could the rest of the cast been developed more? Hell yeah. Did the movie leave the audience satisfied? I would say so. When I went to the movies, there were women singing and laughing in the theater. I am not the boisterous type, but the film was definitely geared for the ladies. If you are of the female persuasion, or have ever been a bridesmaid, you will probably think this movie is your Shawshank Redemption. My fellow brethren, if you are coerced into seeing this film, fret not, there are just enough laughs to keep you cognizant of the estrogen laced plot with just a dash of outrageousness.

What’s Love Got to Do With It


I recently got into an argument with a friend over what truly qualifies as romance and how movies are getting it wrong and sending messages that are counter-productive and just ignorant of all reality. The entire argument started over the movie Blue Valentine, which my friend saw and found to be very profound as to the true nature of romance. According to my friend, the entire idea of relationships and love is a façade because eventually it will end. I can’t argue with the fact that people are bound by their mortality and because of this all relationships eventually do end. I just think that the premise of love is not a total waste of time. In fact, I believe that by definition, love is supposed to be something that isn’t permanent. It’s just a feeling. Some would say that it can be manipulated, like all emotions, with the correct electric stimuli to the brain. I don’t think that it is that complicated in principle. Or maybe I should refine my statement. I don’t think attraction is that difficult. Maybe having a genuine connection is difficult.

I’ve heard the theory that people believe in one person for all their life, their soul mate, and all that stuff. I don’t know if I buy that. There are billions of people out there in the world and I think I have a decent enough personality to believe that I could get along with a couple of people. I kind of think it’s a bullshit statement to say that there is only one person who could stomach my crap. Well…………maybe that is true. But I’m sure if I went to either Germany or England I could find someone who could tolerate me. Probably Germany more than England, the rumor is that German woman are crazy about black dudes. But I digress, back to the whole attraction thing. Attraction is such a broad emotion and not really based on anything substantive. I love video games. Just because a female enjoys playing video games does not mean we should start dating. Besides, unless she can play NCAA Football we wouldn’t have much to talk about. The most flawed aspect of attraction is basing it on physical attributes. It’s almost impossible to avoid because the way someone looks is the first thing one notices and men just have a hard time turning down a cute face and supple endowments. I’m sure it is the same for women, but it isn’t a good thing. The most attractive girl I’ve ever dated was also the most vapid. It wasn’t until I was almost 30 years that I realized that a girls IQ is much more valuable than her bra size.

Let’s turn to the wide world of cinema and how the notion of what “true love” is has been totally perverted. What I mean by perverted is that it s something that is common and something that can occur within a relatively short span of time. “Love at first sight” is the biggest load of bullshit there is. I mean, what can you possibly know about someone in the span of a minute or two? “Lust at first sight” is more accurate and unfortunately can lead to both parties wasting a lot of time on one another. Take for instance the film Titanic, why is it so beloved? Because a girl turned down a life of passionless privilege for an opportunity at “true romance” with a guy who she has known less than a week? Even the most classic love story sets up generations on an empty definition of love. William Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” is considered the epitome of what romance is. Well, let’s examine this romance. Romeo, who had just been dumped by the fair Rosaline, goes to a party to stop pining and then instantly falls for Juliet. And Juliet, ever the virtuous young lady, refuses to put out until they get married the next day. Not to mention that both of these knuckleheads are 13!!What about asking some important questions? “Hey, I’m Romeo Montague. What’s your name? I’m into biting my thumb at my enemies. What do you do?” I mean, seriously, no wonder most of us are some jacked up when we can’t figure out what love is. Most of our sources are delusional and without merit.

My point is that it takes a significant amount of time to truly know someone and even then one can never really know if the other is genuine. Intimacy of emotions is definitely the more dangerous gambit as compared to intimacy of one’s body. Unfortunately, physical intimacy has become so readily available and so casual that it really doesn’t mean much of anything. I’m not saying I’m a priest. I’ve definitely had my fair share of adventures but they never really led anywhere. Or at least nowhere I ventured to stay for a significant amount of time. I don’t want to come off as preachy but when any relationship is predicated on sex, you are in big trouble. It’s important but being interesting is more so and being able to not embarrass the other person in open company by spouting off idiotic antidotes is pretty important as well. When someone confuses the NCAA with the NAACP, I don’t care how hot she/he is. Dump her/him fast!

My favorite romance films are Before Sunset, Bram Stoker’s Dracula, Love and Basketball, and The Truth about Cats and Dogs. I prefer my romances to have an IQ. More than that, the key in any relationship is dialogue. That’s why Before Sunset holds a special place in my mental rolodex. The film is a 90 minute continuous conversation throughout the streets of Paris. And there are real consequences for the characters. Moreover, past decisions are brought up and their significance is tangible to the viewer. The film just has the perfect blend of acting, dialogue, and setting. It all combined to create this lucid dream that transports the viewer to the streets of Paris and is not explicit in the direction of the plot.

Let me conclude this diatribe by just saying that I believe in the idea of romance and love. I do not think that love is a cyclical series of disappointment, betrayal, and confusion. I just think that it requires what most people are very reluctant to do and that is being honest with themselves. Most of the time, we are so dreadfully afraid of the real nature of ourselves we do what complete opposite of what we truly want/desire just to achieve the illusion of normalcy. I really have no prescription for being honest. Considering we are constantly evolving, both mentally and physically, I guess the truth is pretty fluid. I hope that artists don’t continue to corrupt future generations of people that romance is based on some dreadful formula. Film, music, and novels have been trying to express the feeling for centuries and rarely succeeding. Perhaps that is because something so rare and brief and extremely personal cannot be expressed. Not everyone wants a “happily ever after” and that is perfectly acceptable. I just wish that people were more accurate with their true intentions and expressed it with the phrase “happily currently”. It might resolve some of the mystique and pressure associated with the emotion.

Review: The Social Network

I have recently seen the latest David Fincher vehicle and came away very impressed. I suppose I was impressed mostly because even though the context of the story is rooted in a medium that has personified the 21st century the themes were very archaic. The story follows the evolution of Facebook and the legal ramifications of its creation by Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg). The story begins with Zuckerberg sputtering inane generalizations to his girlfriend and her subsequent rejection of him because of unique blend of arrogance/awkwardness/anti-socialist behavior. In order to exact a revenge of sorts he gets drunk (which is always a poor decision when one has their heart/ego damaged) and creates “Facesmash” in which he decimates his ex-girlfriend to the entire Harvard University campus.

Zuckerberg is then approached by the Vanderbosh twins(brilliantly played by Armie Hammer) who are the epitome of everything that the middle/lower class despise about the very concept of the Ivy League. Their idea is the create a social network called “The Harvard Connection” in which Harvard students can engage each other socially. The key component in their project is the elitism of it all. Only Harvard students can be part of the network because they are the only ones who will have the appropriate e-mail addresses.

The heart of The Social Network is the profound evolution of Facebook. I personally remember when Facebook was the grown-up version of Myspace. I didn’t want my students to know all of my business and ,at the time, it was just relegated to college students. I never had any idea, and I doubt Zuckerberg did either, as to the sociological phenomenon that Facebook would become. The very premise of Facebook is kind of……….stalker(ish). I mean e-mail, phone number, class schedule, pictures, and all other personal information is available. I’m not saying people use it for said reason but it is out there.

The film tries to establish itself as a Shakespearean drama with the escalation of Zuckerberg and his CFO Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) and their mutual betrayal. Justin Timberlake got rave reviews for his portrayal as supposed Napster founder Sean Parker. And he did execute a good job but Eisenberg stole the show. I always thought of him as the b-team version of Michael Cera and he definitely proves that he can play the sometimes assertive, hyper-intellectual, egomaniacal, genius that Zuckerberg probably is. A lot of people accuse him of being a self-absorbed asshole but I think that most people who create significant contributions have an ego and when you have to legally defend it as much as Zuckerberg has I feel you are slightly entitled to be an asshole.

Facebook has made a quantum leap in communications. Some would argue that it has made us more voyeuristic and detached and that is definitely a valid point. I just see its possible applications as fascinating. While “poking” and posting one’s relationship status as a means of validating it/justifying it to the world can be annoying, the other applications like similar interests in music and social causes, can be positive. I hope that as Facebook evolves so can people. I hope the critics of Facebook aren’t correct and predict the eventual social collapse of humanity based on our inability to effectively communicate without a keyboard.

The Wondrous World of Marvel

After a long hiatus, I have decided to try to write again. I am hoping that maybe through my writing I will come to some solace in the infinite abyss of life out there. My first subject is something near and dear to my heart. For those who are movie whores, like myself, you must have noticed to abundance of comic book based movies in the past decade. Starting in 2001 with Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man, the movies have been cranked out regularly to the populous. What is the reason for all the geekdom, masks, and capes? I think it is because people want to believe in something greater than themselves.

I’ll start with the Spider-Man phenomenon. The character of Spider-Man appeals to the masses not because of his abilities but because of his imperfections. His parents are dead, he is a nerd, he is poor, he pines for a girl he can’t get, he is riddled with guilt. The basis for the character is that he is a very ordinary person and he is given these amazing abilities. The first film was a box office success of gigantic proportions. Before the release of Spider-Man in 2001, Marvel comics was on the verge of bankruptcy. The very first weekend of its release, in which it broke the 100 million dollar mark, Marvel was saved. This lead to the second movie, which was released in 2004, and, in my opinion, is probably the best comic book based film ever made. It was the perfect combination of action, romance, and pathos. Even for those who do not like comic books, you would love this movie. The last 10 minutes alone is worth the price of admission.

For those that don’t know, there are two major comic book companies. The first is Marvel and the second is DC. DC comics is the grandfather of the comic book world, endowing the public with immortal figures like Batman, Superman, the Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, and the Flash. Marvel has produced the X-Men, Fantastic Four, Iron Man, Spider-Man, and my personal favorite, Captain America. Marvel movies are also doing quite well. DC has produced Superman Returns, Batman Begins, and The Dark Knight with the latter two movies being the major box office success stories. I liked Superman Returns a lot, but I am very “old school” and like the classic feel of the film and I thought Brandon Routh captured both Clark Kent and Superman. The Dark Knight is one of the most over-hyped movies out there. Heath Ledger was amazing as the Joker but Christian Bale and his monotone delivery bored the hell out of me. Batman Begins was the superior movie of the two.

Marvel movies and comic books have the advantage, in my opinion, of being more culturally relevant because the heroes and villains are both multi-dimensional. Stan Lee, who is responsible, along with Jack Kirby, for most of the Marvel characters has framed a fictional universe with more substance than most writers could possibly fathom. The X-Men were Stan Lee’s critique of the civil rights movement. The fight for mutants directly mirrored the fight for African-Americans in the 1960s. Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr are just Caucasian versions of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. I always thought that the comics brilliantly showed the repercussions of intolerance and the unwavering dedication required to make progress.

The other major facet of Marvel that is making it superior to DC is the continuity of the Marvel universe. Everything is connected and I think that gives the films and comics more validity and makes it more entertaining as well. DC does have the Justice League and there is some cross-over but Marvel has it down to a science. The “Civil War” series clearly demonstrates the intricate and vast universe that Marvel has created. Next year’s The Avengers movie should also be a huge payoff for those who have seen the long build up, starting with Iron Man in 2008. Each Marvel film revealing small clues that link the films to each other and the post-credit scenes which tie the film to the “Avenger initiative”.

I have always believed that the purpose of film was to entertain and to hopefully educate. The comic book film fascination has lead way to both. I do not think this trend will continue for much longer because, like most trends, it only lasts for a bit and then it eventually fades out. But I have thoroughly enjoyed the past decade in film. I think that Marvel has opened the eyes of potential new readers into the lessons it has to teach. The heroes and heroines have their titles not because of their abilities but because of the simple choices they make to act. It is the humanity at the core of each person that makes them special and which endears them to the audience.