Movie Review: Our Idiot Brother

First off, this movie officially wins the award for casting.  There are so many hilarious, hugely underrated people in this film, and the ensemble is what carries an at-times flat plot.  Paul Rudd leads the way as Ned, the idiot brother to whom the title refers, and Zooey Deschanel, Emily Mortimer, and Elizabeth Banks play his neurotic and self-involved sisters, each of whom has her own drama to deal with.  Rashida Jones and Adam Scott make distractingly impressive appearances as Deschanel and Banks' romantic interests, respectively.  Seriously, if the film had focused on those two couples and had Rudd's character as a background player, it would have been an equally good (perhaps even better) film.

I think what I struggled with was the fact that the film does focus so much on Ned, who becomes a bit wearing and repetitive as you watch.  His character doesn't really change or transition, the point of the story is that he more or less stays the same while everyone else kind of comes to realize how much they like him the way he is.  And maybe that's a bit more true to life, but the lack of character development is a little frustrating.

Add to that the fact that a few smaller things are neglected in favor of focusing on Ned.  The first of these is the character of Ned's mother, who despite the drama fest of the three sisters, is the most depressing character in the film.  She just seems sad most of the time, and there are several shots of her drinking alone, though nothing about her or her state of mind is ever referenced.  I'm going to hope this is something that simply got trimmed down during edits and not blatant neglect on the part of the writers.  Additionally, as I've alluded, I was far more interested in the many subplots than in what was actually going on with Ned, to the point where I was anxiously awaiting the moments when they would return to them.  Both Deschanel and Banks' stories felt like they had more aborted conclusions than they deserved, and in favor of an ending for Ned that was somewhat anti-climactic. 

I guess I liked this film less than I thought, at least from a craft standpoint.  It really is very funny, and Ned is interesting to watch before the other stories pick up momentum, and even then it could certainly be worse.  This is a fun movie that will leave you wanting more, and if you're a person who is content with filling in the blanks in your head, then it should be perfectly enjoyable.

Movie Review: One Day

As book-to-film adaptations go, this one falls somewhere between extremely well done and tolerably done, and I can't really pinpoint where on the spectrum it fits.  I do think if a viewer hadn't read the novel before seeing the film they might have enjoyed it more than I did, simply because it was so fresh in my mind and I was busy cataloging omissions and alterations.  That said, I found it very watchable in spite of myself.

Most of my hunches about this film turned out to be right.  It was produced by Focus Features, which guaranteed a certain artistry and visual appeal, so I was not let down there.  Anne Hathaway and particularly Jim Sturgess gave solid performances, and Sturgess was particularly heartbreaking in his portrayal of Dexter's downward spiral.  Additionally, the under-utilized Patricia Clarkson was great as Dexter's ailing mother, and I definitely wouldn't have been opposed to seeing a bit more from her.  I knew going into the movie that it was going to be difficult to translate a lot of the character's interiority that we get to see in the novel, and that is probably where the film suffers the most.  Someone mentioned in another review that it was hard to figure out at times why these character stuck by one another for so long (particularly Emma once Dexter started evolving into a grade-A jerk), and I could see how this was a problem-- the book just does a much better job explaining why they each need each other so much, but in a way that couldn't really have been put onscreen unless they inserted a lot of monologue-ing, which would definitely have gotten old.  For similar reasons some of the movie's segments felt rushed, like they were jumping from year to year too quickly and not giving us enough time to immerse ourselves in each episode individually. 

All these problems were minor for me because I'd more or less expected them, and if you do the same you'll probably enjoy the film for what it accomplishes, which is a convincing portrayal of a modern love story, complete with realistic obstacles and outcomes.  One thing that was very frustrating for me, however, was how one-sided the writers/directors made things in the first third or so of the film-- it definitely looked as though Emma was (even a bit stupidly) head over heels for Dexter while he had her firmly in the "friend zone," when in the novel this was not the case.  There is a great "almost" moment regrettably omitted from the film in which we see Dexter drunkenly compose a lengthy letter to Emma during these very early stages of their romance, confessing some of his feelings and begging her to meet him in India.  In the novel he never sends the letter, but the feeling of "what could have been" achieves a very strong sense of emotional connection that not only helps the reader stick with Dexter when he slides the slippery slope into douche-dom, but also establishes a fear on both characters' parts of actively pursuing their love for the other, one that lingers for many years to come.  I think this might have been the most grievous omission from the film, because it could have conveyed so much in such a brief and simple way.

For all my complaining, though, I enjoyed the film.  It was equal parts romantic (and at times cheesy) and funny, just like the novel.  The way the last few chapters of Emma and Dexter's story were handled was particularly affecting, and it will probably tug more than a few tears from you.  But perhaps the best part of the film is that it really does retain the "real" factor of the book, allowing the audience to feel a larger connection with these two very ordinary characters who happen to stumble upon something much larger than either of them.

Book Review: One Day by David Nicholls

This novel is yet another in the alarming trend I've begun of reading books that hit entirely too close to home.  Yes, One Day is on the surface a love story, a romance between two people told over twenty years, but it's about so much more than that.  Nicholls examines the condition of young people in the modern age with such stark honesty and unapologetic truth that, for the recent college grad only beginning to embark on the "rest of my life" path, a lot of the story (most particularly the parts that aren't intended as tragic) read with a profound sadness.

Emma and Dexter officially meet on the day of their graduation from university, July 15th 1988.  They spend the next 24 hours getting to know each other (no, not in exactly the way you're thinking, though there is some snogging), and their relationship is revisited on July 15th of each subsequent year, during which they always have some sort of significant interaction or event taking place in their respective lives.  Each of them veers down a misguided path at different points, and though many readers would probably jump to vilify Dexter for the caddish drunk he becomes in his late twenties, there is something even more regrettable about Emma's descent into boredom and complacency, her refusal to take chances and for a while, to pursue her true ambitions.  Both characters spend much of the story lost in this manner, unsure of themselves as they attempt to navigate the transition from adolescence to adulthood with little initial success.  They are utterly miserable and you feel miserable reading about them, especially as it becomes clear that the lone bright spot in either of their lives is the other, a fact that they spend entirely too many pages refusing to realize.

There is also an overarching theme of wasted time, and the opportunities we miss out on in life and in love.  We see several moments when Dexter or Emma very nearly takes the plunge, trying to change the status of the relationship, but they are foiled again and again by their circumstances or their own respective cowardice.  This is a story that, contrary to what the advertisements for its film adaptation (more on that in a bit) would have you believe, does not have a happy ending.  What I loved so much about it though was that I didn't want it to.  This story has a painfully real ending, and it is everything these two characters both do and don't deserve.  Nicholls takes us on a journey that we can empathize with because it could so easily be my story, or yours or his or hers.  It's universal, this struggle to be that we watch Emma and Dexter endure, and the book concludes on a bittersweet note, one that has stuck with me (and, I expect, many other readers) as a lesson, or perhaps a glimpse of what our own futures might hold if we aren't careful.  One Day is a snapshot of life as most of us know it, and it is a better story for making no apologies for that.

As for the film adaptation, which opened in theaters yesterday, I am definitely interested to see how it pans out.  I can already tell where there might be some creative liberties taken, and those changes may or may not translate well on screen.  There are several factors, however, which encourage me to think it might be a reasonably good adaptation:  the performances of Jim Sturgess and Anne Hathaway, both of whom are more than capable of delivering the kind of emotional connection this novel begs; the fact that Nicholls himself wrote the screenplay, thus hopefully ensuring that the original intent of the story will not be lost; and most importantly the fact that this film is being released by Focus Features, which for me is as good as a guarantee of it's quality.  Some of the reviews I've read (I don't like to read too many going into a movie, at the risk of biasing myself) have been very negative, while others have indicated that it might be right up my alley.  I am determined to find out for myself, hopefully soon, and will have my full thoughts here once that happens.  In the meantime, I encourage anyone looking for a heartfelt, genuine read to give One Day a chance.

Movie Review: 30 Minutes or Less

Reviews of this movie are all over the spectrum, and this one is another addition to that fuzzy middle ground area.  I read another moviegoer's (somewhat pretentious) thoughts on it, and was more than a little offended by this quote:  "this is the kind of movie enjoyed by the idiots who went home at watched Jersey Shore afterward..." (I probably paraphrased a bit, but you get the gist).  I'll have you know, person I can't remember, that I wouldn't be caught dead watching that show on purpose, ever.  That said, I did (for the most part) really enjoy 30 Minutes or Less.  So either I'm about a closeted tanning/fist pump enthusiast, or your comparison doesn't add up.

Here's what I think this particular reviewer, and probably the other critics who panned the film, was bothered by:  this isn't Citizen Kane.  It isn't Oscar bait and it isn't even really a sophisticated or deftly scripted movie.  It's a summer movie in every sense of the phrase:  easy to follow, relatively lighthearted (despite the whole bomb scare), and filled with explosions and raunchy humor.  If you go into it as I did with the expectation that this type of movie is exactly what you're going to get, there is no need to be offended by the overall lack of class or craftsmanship.  If you can refocus your critical eye for the ninety minutes or so it takes to watch 30 Minutes or Less, you'll find that its charm lies in the humorous tone and the performances of its lead actors, Jesse Eisenberg and Aziz Ansari.

Whoever cast these two together is a genius, because it's a pair I would never have put together in my own head, and yet it works so well.  Eisenberg shows he can put his considerable acting talent to use effectively even in an at times dopey buddy comedy, and Ansari proves what I've known all along, that not only is he hilarious but he is also more than capable of carrying a major role in a film.  Ansari's antics were for me a definite highlight of the movie, and I think that is definitely a testament to his talent as well as his off screen personality-- he has stated that a lot of improvisation happened during the shooting of 30 Minutes or Less, and it is perhaps this that had me thinking as I watched the movie that this was exactly how Aziz Ansari the actor/comedian would handle himself in this very situation.  This may sound like a flaw, and in a more complex film it probably would be, but in this one it works perfectly.

My only complaint about the film really is that I wish we could have gotten even more of the Eisenberg/Ansari antics, and considerably less of the crass and often unfunny Danny McBride and Nick Swardson.  I get that there is certainly a demographic who would appreciate the appeal of this duo over the other, but I think it's probably that demographic who are making people who enjoyed this film look like idiots.  McBride seems to favor the loud, obnoxious strain of comedy of which I personally am not very fond, and so his character didn't seem very believable or redeemable in any way.  Yes, he was the villain, but even some truly terrible movies have put forth a villain who is at the very least interesting to watch.

To sum up:  see this film (maybe a matinee), but leave most of your discernment at the door and allow yourself to enjoy the sheer absurdity of the scenario, as well as the neat way it resolves itself in under two hours.  Perhaps Eisenberg and Ansari will charm you (as they did me) into forgetting the less than stellar writing and plot that would be a death sentence for a film released almost any other time of the year.

Book Thoughts: Notes from Underground by Fyodor Dostoevsky

I just finished this book, and I'm struggling a little to put my thoughts together.  It's by far my favorite of the books I've read this summer, and perhaps the most surprisingly so.  Don't get me wrong, I already knew Dostoevsky was a genius having read Crime and Punishment twice for school and analyzed the many many dimensions therein, but this little book made a much heavier impact on me.  Maybe I'm just surprised because it was a little tricky to jump into at first, with me reading a page or five and then ditching it for other forms of entertainment (usually tv or movies), but today I forced myself to sit still and really focus on it.  I was rewarded with the most intense reading experience I've had in quite some time.

It's not that Notes is by any means a thrilling tale-- it's literally one guy narrating bits and pieces from his dismal little life in 19th century Russia.  The narrator isn't likeable (intentionally so, but all the same...), and you're not really rooting for him in the way you might expect.  But the examination of his interior monologue as well as his interactions with the world around him is hugely satisfying.  Dostoevsky is just fantastic at sketching psychologically intriguing characters who are almost frighteningly relateable (though this narrator slightly less so than Raskolnikov, because he at least commits no murders).  Something that I always have as a goal with characterization, and something I admire in all my favorite writers, is to have a moment (several if the writer is truly gifted) where, no matter what the character's circumstances, personality, et al, the reader thinks to him/herself "Yes!  I know exactly what he/she means!"  Take me, for example:  I am obviously not an impoverished, largely misanthropic man living in 19th century Russia, but there are countless moments in this book where the narrator articulates nearly verbatim thoughts that I have had in my recent life (though of course, given that it's Dostoevsky, his are much more eloquent).  The second half of the book in particular, when we move from the narrator's musings to seeing how his views impact his interactions with other people, hits home in a way that, given some of the waxing philosophical in the book's opening, I wasn't necessarily expecting.

The other thing that really got me about this book is how quietly tragic it is.  I found myself tearing up during the last 20 pages or so, and it took me some time to figure out why.  It was the attitude with which the narrator closed the book that really got me, his discussion about the way people want the world to look as opposed to the way it actually is, and our collective tendency to get caught up in notions of heroes and good stories and be bored and disappointed by our reality.  And it dawned on me was that I was a mess precisely because this character and his thoughts were so relateable, and then he arrives at this sort of hopeless conclusion about life and how we're destined to live it.  Way to bring me down, F.D. (don't worry, it was in the best way).

Additionally, I firmly believe that this should be on the curriculum somewhere for college students.  It's a coming of age story-- well, not really, it's more of a coming to consciousness story, I guess-- but it grapples with the very kind of existential crisis that us post-adolescent intellectuals face.  So get on that, professors of America.

Another Fan Stands Up for Harry

I've found another beautifully articulated article on the Harry Potter series and the books' impact on its readers.  HelloGiggles' Julia Gazdag takes a look at some of the major lessons Harry and company have to teach us, and explores the magic behind the plot.  I agree with everything she discusses here, and though I'm sure I could think up a laundry list of additional things I've learned from these books, she sums up the most critical points in a very poignant, eloquent way.  Take a look!

Harry Potter's Influence