Failing Upwards

Politics from the outside

Ok, maybe not "the outside" but definitely not from an informed source. I've never really "gotten" politics I keep trying to become more informed and more active and more and more I just get frustrated with the hate, ignorance, pettiness, and agendas that I just stop caring. Mostly I've been of the mind that I know what I like, and what I don't and I'll debate with my friends; people who, by and large, are reasonable- hell even when we disagree we can find some common ground. A concept that mainstream U.S. Politics is sorely missing.

But, as it's election day and I stupidly let my registration lapse (Sorry, I forgot that voting is when counties matter, just because I'm still in the same state why should I be able to vote easily?)I thought I'd jot down some thoughts. If my political muscle can't be flexed at the polls let it be flexed in the global community, such as it is

PROP 19

I guess I'll begin with the least polarizing issue of my peer group California's proposition for the legalization of marijuana I'm all for this. I'm not a pothead, nor even a drug user but from the potophiles that I've known, and there are many, I see zero reason for this to be a drug any more than caffeine. And, with the amount of money people spend on the stuff, were it to be taxed and regulated the state might get some much needed money. California already has medical marijuana, and frankly it's too easy to get a medical card. I know many, MANY people with them and know for a fact that they have no ailments to speak of. In my opinion, these people are defrauding a program designed to help people and that's despicable. But, were marijuana legal, not only would there be no fraud to worry about, the people that do legitimately need the drug could obtain it easier.

There are problems of course, I don't think it's a good idea for people to be able to grow their own. As stated above, it would need to be regulated. It's also still Federally considered an illegal drug which would have to be reconciled in some way. But, really, it should be decriminalized. What's the worst thing pot has led to? Napping? Weight gain? I personally don't get why people are so up in arms over pot. It used to be called a gateway drug, but studies have recently shown that to be untrue and in fact in my own experience the drug users I know have by and large been all pot all the time. And, of those users I would say most of them have had worse problems with alcohol than any other substance.

GAY MARRIAGE

This should be a no-brainier but I'm for it. Honestly if you're not for it than you're basically for people being treated differently based on circumstances that they can't control. It's exactly the same as when interracial couples couldn't marry in the 1960s, and it's part of a larger agenda of fear-mongering. People claim that it will damage the institution of marriage or that so-called traditional marriage would be less sacred. I've even heard that it would lead to a slippery slope in which people could marry barnyard animals, furniture, vegetables, etc. All of these arguments are patently idiotic as between straight people with the 50+% divorce rates and the current fascination with multiple person marriages (Sister Wives, Big Love, et al) “traditional” marriage is diluted and less sacred already. Hell, if you can do it at a drive-thru, it's not sacred. As far as the slippery slope...laws apply to humans, shut up

OBAMA

What president has changed the world in his first 2 years? Obama had a lot stacked up against him when he took office quite honestly the constant in-fighting and party-centric circle jerking would stop anyone from making vast sweeping changes. Also, he's a man, not a God. People need to lighten up on the guy. That's not to say that I'm all for him. While he did have my vote in '08 I do think that's he's trying to hard to be everyone's friend and not fighting for what he believes in, and what all of his supporters believed in. I'm still waiting for my healthcare, while daily praying that I don't get sick, or fall, or get in anyway injured. For people, especially the rich, predominately white, citizenry in my area to be completely ok with the idea that if I get sick, I could die because, although I have a job and work my ASS off I still have no insurance so tough shit makes me sick to my stomach. I would GLADLY pay higher taxes if some of that money went to helping people get the medical treatment they need. And before you say “county medical”, please apply for it, and try to see a doctor. The we'll talk. Wanna opt-out and pay for your own insurance? Ok, from what I've seen the Obama-care plan allows for that. I'm literally red-faced about this issue above all else. I thought this was America, the land of opportunity. Little did I know it was the opportunity to die form an easily curable infection because I'm not on the list. Silly me

As for Don't ask don't tell, I thought it was offensive and ridiculous when it was enacted and still do. I hear there are strides to get it pulled but courts keep blocking it. Why? Scared right-wing white men who are afraid that their secret Latin boy toys will be exposed if they seem pro gay. Let's move on

As to the assertions of socialism/fascism. Enh, in a perfect world socialism has tenants that are in fact good. That the ideology has always historically been linked to meglomanical crazies I think is bad luck more than anything. However, socialism is pretty screwed by human nature which causes people to always want more. Fascism, by the definitions I've read appears to be something both parties are after to a large degree. Is Obama either? Maybe, but in this nation where everything must be voted through committees, and votes and endless debate even if he was it wouldn't amount to anything, this leads me to...

PARTIES

Not all Democrats are Liberals, nor are all Republicans Conservatives. And even those who associate with those labels move around the political spectrum wildly . So why is that people seem convinced that ALL Democrats think alike? They don't. Ironically, when someone goes against their party it's seen as a a huge betrayal even though vote you conscience is also a tenant of politics. A party is a set of core values, not a brainwashing organization. Honestly, the party system makes me sick, only in that people tend to affiliate with a group and then solely associate with that group. How are you to get new ideas when you're constantly in a homogenous environment? It's like genetics, spread the genes around and you create a well-formed society, keep the genes together (by, say, mating with a sibling) and you get defects, mutations and disease. This is hardly new news people.

Similarly, this Bill O'Reilley vs The View thing. What he said was dumb, but it's a dumb many people agree with. But let me say this: to say “Muslims killed us on 9/11” is ignorant and is lumping people into unfair groups. Much like the terrorists involved with 9/11 who seem to believe that all Americans are the same so it doesn't matter quite which ones you kill. Just because there are a lot of [INSERT RELIGION HERE] extremists, doesn't mean ALL of even the vast majority of practitioners are extremists.

THE TEA PARTY

The newest offshoot of the Republican party (they claim to be non-partisan, which may be true but they appear to be predominately Republican), The Tea Party has a anti-incumbent pro-traditionalism standpoint. Sarah Palin is their figurehead in many respects, although anyone who doesn't think that she's, as a side job perhaps, just trying to stay socially relevant until her new reality show premieres is seriously missing the boat, and they named themselves after a historical act of rebellion against tyranny. These things all sound good, but why does everyone politically associated with this organization seem to: have major skeletons in the closet, be stupid, be racist, or have nothing really going for them except being photogenic. Seriously:

• Sharron Angle (R-NV): Gained national attention when one or her ads against rival Harry Reid was aired on “The View.” The ad, about immigration, showed scared white people cowering over shots of terrifying, twisted Hispanic men in “gang” garb. Anti-abortion (it's “against God's plan”,) anti-gay, alleged Scientologist.
• Ken Buck (R-CO) Anti-abortion, and anti gay. Said of Homosexuality"I think birth has an influence over it, like alcoholism… but I think that basically you have a choice." Really Ken? When did you decide to be straight? Not a bigot, which in fact is a choice, but when did you consciously decide you liked women?
• Carl Palladino (R-NY) ...let the internet tell you: “He personally opposes same-sex marriage. He has spoken negatively of the concept of gay pride particularly the sexual demonstrations at gay pride parades, which he believes are unsuitable for children. Innnn a speech to a group of Hasidic Jews organized by Yehuda Levin on 10 October 2010, Paladino said, “I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t.”He later stated that he did not agree with the statement and had not fully proofread the speech before he read it” He has a 10-year daughter from an affair.
• Nikki Haley (R-SC) Multiple allegations of affairs, including with disgraced former SC governor Mark Sanford. In her favor though she is of Sikh heritage and has fought hard against racism.
• Christine O'Donnell (R-DE) Constant late-night joke, alleged former witch, anti-masturbation, recently alleged to have had a tacky drunken Halloween one-night stand, and doesn't believe that separation of Church and State is laid out in the Constitution, a document I doubt she's read. (POINT OF ORDER she claims she was pointing about that the words separation of church and state do not appear in the first amendment, which is true, it was a phrase codified by Thomas Jefferson in a note written during his presidency, but the idea is affirmed in the Constitution as anyone who even barely paid attention in 8^th grade social studies knows)

I'm not saying that they don't have a point to a degree, As I said earlier spreading the ideas around is a good idea and some incumbents may need to go. But should they be replaced with the stellar choices above? Doubt it.

BULLYING

I'm going to take a different track on this, maybe if the self-hating closet case lawmakers would own up to who they are and stop making anti-gay laws while secretly providing half of the gay ghettos of the US with hooker fodder maybe this country would lighten up on the bullying. I am so sick and tired of watching the news and hearing some combination of the following: Straight, white, Republican, Preacher, Married, vehemently anti-gay, or Senator immediately followed by sex-scandal, rent-boy, underage boys, men's room, hookers, etc.

• Mark Foley
• Larry Craig
• Ted Haggard
• George Rekers
• Roy Ashburn
• Eddie Long

And several parties are trying to forcibly out Senator Lindsey Graham. If these men, powerful in their professions, had the guts so many of us have and would come out and admit who they are, maybe laws and attitudes would begin to change. But no, they are viciously anti-gay and in many cases make laws that keep us down while secretly being AT LEAST BISEXUAL. Be honest with yourself, and the world and and own up to your own thoughts and ideas, to do anything else is a lie. Also, as was always told to me when I was being bullied in school “He who screams faggot the loudest, sucks the best d**k”

I said earlier that I'm not too well informed about this stuff, and I'm not. But, as my not-legal-but-in-all-other-ways Husband said this evening when he was young he learned to ask “why”. And, though he might never get a real answer to “why” he'll never stop asking. That's where I'm at. I know I'll never know enough to be a political powerhouse but I do hope to always question, always learn and grow and most of all, to spread my ideas around and gather information, thoughts and ideas, And rail against those who don't

Review: "The Losers"

I firmly believe that no knowledge of the source material should be required when watching an adaptation film. Frankly, even knowing that there is source material seems pointless as they're wholly different universes. The comic book adaptation "The Losers" not only doesn't care if you know the source, it really doesn't care if you're paying attention. 

It's the typical story of an elite special forces team who gets screwed over by their enigmatic boss and  plots an overly complex revenge. As always the enigmatic boss is a meglomaniacal psycho so you can really root for the heroes as they try to take him down. Throw in some minor betrayal, a more-than-she-seems hot chick, and some major whatever technology and you have a movie.

But, what "The Losers" excels at is taking those elements that you've seen before and, through a director that was clearly having a great time, displays them in weird and interesting ways. Slow motion kick-ass fight in a flaming room? Sure. Blasted apart mirror reflects the action from other angles? Ok. Random parkour? Why not? Director Sylvain White throws it all at you to keep you visually engaged in a film that is in no way mentally enganging.

On the whole "The Losers" is a comic book on film. I had no idea it was a comic before seeing it but every facet of the film reminds you. You don't need to know the plot, the characters, or even really their motivations, but if you turn your brain off and drink in the visuals you'll have a pretty good time. C

Wasted Waves: The Marriage Ref

NBC's "The Marriage Ref" sounded all right on paper: Jerry Seinfeld produced panel comedy in which a comedian along with 3 celebrities "solve" a problem in a real marriage. After seeing a few episodes I suspect the paper that it looked good on has long since been burned.

Firstly, the comedian that they picked to host, Tom Papa, isn't well-known enough, amiable enough, or- worst of all- funny enough to carry a show on his own. His 2004 failed sitcom, the punnily titled "Come to Papa", should've shown us this. He's just...not funny. I'm a huge fan of stand-up comedy and even in comparison to working comedians out there right now- his contemporaries as it were- he's not even the mid-level funniest out there. He got the job because he's a FOJ (Friend Of Jerry) and that's it.

The celebrity panel is also just odd. As Papa mentioned in the premiere, the only criteria for being on the panel is essentially fame and ability to spell marriage. This is why people like Alec Baldwin (NOTORIOUSLY messy divorce/parenting skills), Donald Trump (Womanizer, much married), Madonna (Really?!), and Kathy Griffin (Husband embezzled from her) have been panelists. The panel spend most of the too-long runtime zinging each other and making fun of the (admittedly weird) marrieds under the pretense of solving their bizarre issues (eating of duck eggs, Betty Boop statue in the kitchen, taxidermied pet dog, roller derby) by majority rule.

Throw in the "Just the facts ma'am" NBC journalist Natalie Morales (career nadir for her!) and the inane sound effects and you have a whole hour of lame television. The most interesting part of the show is the real couples' odd real-life fights- A vaguely entertaining concept in an "America's Funniest Home Videos" way- and to have Papa just decide "who wins" (Power of Seinfeld!) just kinda kills it. And, for the most part, the celebrities are so far removed from the mundane crap real people fight about that they mostly just bitch about how weird people are. So, they make fun of potential fans.

Bottom line, whether the judgments stick or don't the couples all get a vacation and got to be on TV for a minute so it's win win. The only losers are the viewing audience who wasted their electricity on this dreck.

The Power of Madonna

Like most of America (I assume. Overnight ratings aren't available yet) this evening I was enthralled with "Glee"'s "Power of Madonna" episode. Some of the greatest hits of a music icon being used as the musical framing device of one of my favorite new shows- it was a combo that came out even better than I had hoped.

The music of Madonna has always been very important to me. Make whichever stereotype joke that springs to mind, but her music more than any other was the soundtrack to my childhood. At the time of course, I didn't get her theme of personal and sexual empowerment I just heard high-energy fun song after fun song. I didn't even know what "Like a Virgin" was about until I was in the double digit ages, but no matter I would belt it out. And, while her later albums ("Ray of Light" on in my opinion) lack much of the catchy punch of her previous work are to this day some of my favorite songs of all time.

"Glee" managed to do something with this much hyped episode that few shows really pull off well- a useful stunt episode. All the hype, press, and build-up and yet among all of that this episode fits perfectly into the overarching plot of the show. There was movement on several continuing plots, new plots, and the sharp wit we've come to know as "Glee"s trademark. 7 uber-produced musical numbers weaved beautifully through the story perfectly- opening with the New Directions girls recreating 1989's "Express Yourself" VMA performance and culminating in a near shot-by-shot recreation of Madge's 1990 "Vogue" video and a rousing version of "Like a Prayer" 

I've spouted a bunch of hyperbole about this single hour of television since it aired a few hours ago. Adjectives like "amazing," and "awesome" and in fairness I probably thought "transcendent" at some point but really it was an extremely well-done single episode. A new Gleek, and those of use who've been hooked since last May's preview, all had things that we could latch onto. And, as the freshman FOX hit's first theme episode and first big, well-publicized stunt episode I'm hoping it sets a pattern for continuing great  episodes. 

The soundtrack for "Glee"'s "The Power of Madonna" episode is available on iTunes for the bargain price of $6.99

Capsule reviews: Nominees '10

Before I say anything I want to point out I am aware that I'm late on these but I did just see them. This is by no means a complete list of the 10 Best Picture nominees (I've yet to see all 10) but this past weekend I crammed in 3 of them and had a few thoughts to share.

"District 9"

A gripping tale of the racially divided city of Johannesburg, South Africa with a twist! When a giant  spaceship filled with refugee aliens appears in the sky above Jo'burg, the South Africans do what they do best- ghettoize them! ( I tease, but the comparisons between the human/alien conflict and the various racial tensions that the South Africans have been dealing with for decades are far too clear) First-time actor Sharlto Copley plays Wikus van der Merwe, a company nice guy who, through an act of nepotism, gets put in charge of relocating the Aliens from their current slum District 9 to the newly created District 10, a concentration camp-like place where the aliens can be both out of sight and out of mind for the populace. But when Wikus becomes a wanted man only the residents of District 9 can help him.

Filled with phenomenal effects, a moving and exciting story and an amazing debut from Copley, "District 9" is a wonderful film that shows the dark side of humanity while also showing that humanity isn't a solely human concept. A

"The Hurt Locker"

The newly minted 82nd Best Picture is a tough movie for me. While it's good, well acted, and wonderfully directed (by Kathryn Bigelow, the first woman EVER to win a Best Director Oscar) "The Hurt Locker" is at it's core a war movie. It doesn't particularly break new ground in the war genre, nor does it really say  anything new about war. What it does do is reinforce the "war is hell" motif while emphasizing war as a different experience for all involved. The story is secondary really to the reactions of the 3 main characters. As the film unfolds, all three (Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, and Brian Geraghty) begin to show cracks in different ways and we find for one, war may in fact be his crack. Revolving around the last rotation of an elite army bomb squad, "The Hurt Locker" is well worth watching but the hype around it baffles me. Was it the best picture of the year? Maybe or maybe not but it is extremely well done. As a side note, while Jeremy Renner was good as the leader of the squad, his co-stars were robbed of nominations as their emotional journeys were well rounded, believable, and phenomenally well performed. B+

"Inglourious Basterds"

Quentin Tarantino's fantastic WWII fairy tale is a witty, fun, and intense ride. The fact that the history doesn't hold up is secondary to how much fun the movie is. Tarantino's signature style of long dialogue-heavy scenes unspool as we meet the extremely disparate characters: Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) the leader of a Nazi-killing army made up of Jewish soldiers who gleefully slaughter any enemies they encounter (in full Tarantino-esque violence-porn glory), Nazi Colonel Hans Landa (Academy Award winner Christoph Waltz in an AMAZING performance) a brutally effective detective, and Shoshanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent) as a Jewish escapee and movie theater owner who comes to the attention of an up-and-coming Nazi propaganda star (Daniel Brühl) and formulates a plan to take down the party.

Tarantino has a very specific sense of humor and film-making style. His films are not for everyone, but the performances alone make this gleefully deranged film worth a watch. A

3 Episode limit: "Deep End" and "Caprica"

As you might know, all new shows need time to grow. In my years of watching and studying television I've determined that the time it takes to decide if a show is worth your time of not is 3 episodes. After that, you can leave it, or add it to you TiFaux. But, you've gotta give it 3.

"The Deep End"- Sure, there have been so many "quirky lawyer," "newbie lawyer," and "sexy lawyer" shows over the years that the ground is well-trod. It's not like ABC's new drama "The Deep End" is aiming to break new ground. The characters all fit into wonderful little boxes and the plots are so far all nice and pat. But, what is setting it apart, at least at this early juncture, is the actors inhabiting these could-be-cliche roles. Take Addy Fisher (Tina Majorino) the fresh-faced idealist doormat: in the first 3 she's shown growth, humor and the beginnings of a spine. Easily my favorite character. Then there's Mechad Brooks' Malcolm Bennett, a far cry from Brooks' last role (as mentally controlled sex pot Eggs on "True Blood"), the sole guardian of his younger brother and completely out of his element in that role but with a clear command of the law. Even the requisite man whore Liam Priory (Ben Lawson) has a sensitive twist to him that was pretty unexpected.

What works:

• Unexpected characterizations in expected archetypes
• Easy chemistry between the cast
• Ridiculously bright, open set.
• A sense of history in that the established lawyer characters clearly have a history
• Clancy Brown's return to TV (after HBO's "Carnivalé")
• Daddy issues personified in Tom Amandes' Don Branford

What needs work:

• Two idealists too many (Addy Fisher and Dylan Hewitt (Matt Long)
• Billy Zane
• The improbably named Norbert Leo Butz plays a character improbably named Rowdy Kaiser
• The bar they go to A) looks like a set from "Melrose Place" B) has a pool?

Fully worth a look. Brighter than "The Practice" less quirky than "Ally McBeal."

"Caprica"- How do you tell a story that's a prequel to one of the greatest modern Sci-Fi shows that itself begins with humanity's destruction? Why with a rave of course! "Caprica" is the story of religion, family, and technology but for fans of "Battlestar Galactica" it's also the story of how humanity got to where they were when we saw them exterminated by the cybernetic Cylons. 58 years prior to the start of "Galactica" Esai Morales stars as Joseph Adama (father of "Galactica's Commander William Adama) a less-than-upstanding lawyer originally from the colony of Tauron reeling from the loss of his wife and daughter in a terrorist attack. He meets ultra-rich scientist Daniel Graystone (Eric Stoltz) who's daughter Zoe (Alessandra Torresani) was lost in the same attack. Or was she? Incidentally, Graystone is the inventor of the Cylons.

What works:

• Torresani's Zoe is amazing
• Polly Walker's Sister Clarice Willow
• robobutler Serge
• The glimpse into the life of the Colonies. Especially the interaction between them (racism against Taurons for example)
• Alessandra Torresani
• The opening title sequence is beautiful, and tells you everything you need to know about the show (embedded below)
• Total free openness of gays exemplified in Sasha Roiz's Sam Adama, part psychokiller for the mob and part loving Uncle and husband (his husband is pretty cute too)
• Did I mention Alessandra Torresani? 'Cause she's so good

What needs work:

• "Galactica" was famed for their slow-burn plots which is still fine, but "Caprica"'s pacing is somewhat glacial
• Magda Apanowicz's Lacey needs to get with the program a little (in episode 3 "Reigns of a Waterfall" she begins but isn't quite there)
• Mob plots are...problematic at best. But one steeped in a different (fake) language with little full exploration so far is grating.
• Didn't Apollo and Adama refer to Joseph Adama as...a good, idealistic and moral man? or did I imagine that?

The sci-fi aspect is sort of lacking so don't let that scare you away, and non-"Galactica" fans will find something to grasp. Very, very cool show with loads of potentential

You may notice a new title. Failing Upwards is A) sort of as aspiration. Not the failure so much as if you're going to fail, at least gain something from it (on the other hand, a spectacular failure can be fun). And B) It abbreviates to "FU" and that's just so very much fun. So Enjoy!!

Review: "Up in the Air"

Honestly, to my mind it's hard to review "independent" movies (can we even call them independent anymore? I mean, they're not really independent. They still show at festivals, but so do many other things. "Art cinema"? "Mood pieces"?) because in general the plot doesn't really matter so much as the acting and the message. Think about it, most movies that fit into this genre (and oh yes, it's a genre unto itself) are not about the story so much as the story is a flimsy structure on which to get the point across.

Such is the case with "Up in the Air" a film on the surface about a man who has created an insular life  for himself and judges his success based on the number of miles he accumulates. But moreover it's a film about the difficulty find a connection in an uncertain world. George Clooney plays a man who flies across the country as a corporate downsizer, his life is the road (or, more accurately, the sky) and the loner life he's carved out is perfect for him. In his spare time he flies all around the country (sense a pattern?) doing motivational speaking engagements which are thinly disguised speeches about how he lives his life. 

It's also about how his life is thrown up in the air (ha) by two very different women: Alex (Vera Farmiga) the sexy frequent flying business woman whom he bonds with over a shared desire for closeness in their equally transitory lives. And, Natalie a new woman at his company who wants to change the business model and permanently ground him. Both teach him valuable lessons, ask tough questions, and become very important in a somewhat Jiminy Cricket way.

I'm sorry, does it seem like I'm undervaluing this film's greater message? I'm not, really, it's just that the-value-of-human-connection motif is a well-worn path in films- especially the artsy-set. To overlay that message over the current economics crisis' unemployment explosion seems somewhat overkill. But, as there are correlations and the whole affair is really well-acted I'll somewhat let it slide.

The 2 biggest gripes I have with this movie is how thoroughly predictable it is, although as I mentioned the "plot is secondary" I guess I should ignore that, but, even if the plot is fifth on the list, this level of predictability is just sad. Secondly, the message is so beaten into our heads. Stupid people rarely watch  art films, and those that do don't like it and don't care. So why dumb down the message?

All in all "Up in the Air" is worth seeing for some wonderful acting, Anna Kendrick is particularly sensational, if a less than remarkable story. C+/B-

Review: "Sherlock Holmes"

 It's always tough to take on an iconic character. You'll want to put your own spin on it, make it your own, but still be faithful to what made the character popular to begin with. The essence. The thing about the character of Sherlock Holmes is that his essence is deductive reasoning and intellect. Subtle details making or breaking a case. How do you maintain that while also entertaining the masses? This is a question director Guy Ritchie has yet to answer.

Ritchie's "Sherlock Holmes" is a loud, quickly edited gray-tinged mess. Some scenes move too fast to get what's happening while others, the overly expository fight scenes as an example, are as plodding as they are repetitive. Literally, they play twice. The back and forth non-linear storytelling wouldn't even be so jarring if it was at least consistent. But no, through much of the movie you move along through normal time and then, BAM! time travel. Some of the film happens in the past, then the present, even sometimes the future before slamming into another time.

Speaking of inconsistent, the main characters of Holmes and Watson- played admirably I must say by Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law who tried so hard- are one second best friends, then colleagues, then drowning in homoerotic subtext. As characters, Holmes is the lovable scoundrel equally intelligent and rakish, if seemingly wandering and annoying. Watson on the other hand is calm, controlled and always analytical. Then there's the woefully miscast Rachel McAdams who fumbles through her femme fatale role almost as much as she fumbles through her period wardrobe. 

The plot is so convoluted as to require a truly comic booky explanation scene to tell the audience what the heck has been happening for the past 100+ minutes. Is it clear and internally consistent? I suppose so, but they could've told me that alien seahorses had built Big Ben and I would've gladly agreed. So much of this movie was long stretches of quasi-cerebral nattering on punctuated by awkward fight scenes/ridiculously forced action or seemingly inconsequential close-ups of, say, soot. 

Ritchie, or rather his production designer did however excel at creating a stylized industrial revolution London. Part "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", part fantastic CG the visuals are great. I would suspect that the lack of attention to...every other aspect of the film was refocused into production design. At least they put the money into something that turned out well. D+

Review: "It's Complicated"

I could begin by talking about the myriad romantic comedies out there or the well tread tropes that they espouse. Or, I could talk about the older-man-younger-woman paradigm and how prevalent it's become in media and reality. But, I think I'll start by saying Meryl Streep has amazing hair.

Really, it could be another cast member in "It's complicated" the story of a 10-years divorced couple who give it another go. Between Streep's hair and the Pottery Barn/Williams-Sonoma/Food Network orgy set I could see why EW called this film "femme porn". But, I am going to take another tact and point out that this film is about the actors.

Face it: romantic comedies can only say so much about life, love, people and relationships. The plots of these films generally don't even matter too much and they're generally just a vague collection of circumstances that drive 2 opposites together. Here though we have 3 seasoned actors (Streep as well as Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin) embodying archetypes of our age: The independent mother/divorcee, the cheating ex with the new young wife, and the newly divorced sensitive guy and playing them for all they're worth. They dance, laugh, and flirt with wild abandon and you can tell just by watching them that they are having a blast. Their energy is infectious and it raises the caliber of all of the actors in the film to their bests.

On that though is the sole downside of this fun romp, the supporting cast- with the lone exception of the delightful John Krasinski, is less than stellar. Their best is only 1/20 as good as the megastars they share the screen with and they simply drag down the film. Special mention goes to Weeds' Hunter Parrish as the recent graduate son for having possibly the least expressive face of any actor on the planet. He was like a talking blond wall through most of the film. And, the deeply pinchy Lake Bell as Agness, the young new wife, spends so much time scowling you forget that her role is to be ostensibly hot arm candy.

As a romantic comedy "It's complicated" is a cute fun ride that doesn't quite go where you expect it to go. But, as a vehicle for some stellar actors to have a great time it's even better. B+