Don't You Forget About Me **** (rave)

When I first started this blog 6 months ago, I made a list of possible topics I would maybe one day like to write about. Included in this list was " John Hughes films ." So when my friend told me she saw a great documentary on Rogers on Demand about a group of filmmakers from Toronto who drive to Chicago in 2008 (in the hopes of interviewing the elusive John Hughes), I couldn't have been happier to punch in my secret Rogers code and watch the movie on my big screen T.V. As soon as Simple Minds began singing, a smile spread across my face, and it stayed there for the hour and a half duration of the film. I loved this movie!

Yes, part of the reason is simply because I got to see many clips from all of my favourite teenage films from the 80s. Movies like The Breakfast Club (that made me want to kiss a "bad boy" because really underneath it all he's just misunderstood), Pretty in Pink (that taught me being different is okay but red-heads really shouldn't wear pink) and Some Kind of Wonderful (that showed me that tomboys can be desirable -which sparked in me a mad crush on Eric Stoltz that has been going strong for over 20 years now). All of these life lessons topped with a great day of playing hookie with a guy named Ferris. What more could a teenage girl ask for?

After watching Don't You Forget About Me, I realised that I was not the only one who cherished John Hughes movies. I assumed the other
(a-hem) 40-somethings would share some fond memories, but when I saw present-day teenagers being interviewed and expressing their connection to Hughes' beloved characters, I was surprised. And I couldn't have been happier.

This documentary is a testament to how Hughes' films have stood the test of time. Even with all the technological advances we've made in the last 25 years- and the effect that that has had on how teenagers today are socialized and communicate with one another- it seems that teenage angst really hasn't changed that much since I wore tight jeans with pumps and plastic turquoise earrings. (Just as I found someone in a Hughes film that I could identify with, and thereby help me with my angst, it seems his movies still have the power to do that today). One teenager interviewed in the documentary explained how Hollywood movies today really don't relate to real teens and real teens' issues. "I have never had sex with a pie" he states "But I have skipped school on occasion".

The disconnection between teens and teen movies nowadays is explored further throughout the documentary through interviews with various film critics (including Roger Ebert) and present-day filmmakers (including Kevin Smith). And their insights made a lot of sense to me. Because I don't watch a lot of teenage movies anymore, I wasn't aware of how much the formula had changed. But as one film producer explains, a movie like The Breakfast Club would never get made today. A script with age appropriate actors sitting in a room and talking for two hours would be deemed slow and boring. It wouldn't matter if the script was good. It wouldn't matter if the young actors were talented. It wouldn't matter if the subject matter was relateable to the audience. Teenagers talking in a room just doesn't pique anyone's interest anymore- or so the movie makers (or should I say money makers?) in the industry believe nowadays.

However, as the filmmakers of Don't You Forget About Me are on their road trip driving to Illinois (taking the occasional pit stop to explain how their 2 and 1/2 year journey has brought them to John Hughes' door) they continue to discount the theory that teens today don't want another Hughes' film. Sure the clothes and the great 80s soundtracks of John Hughes movies might be out-dated now (although those 80s styles do keep coming back - whether or not we want them to), the stories and the characters are still considered genuine. And when you think about it, this does make sense - What geeky guy doesn't want to get the girl? What popular girl doesn't feel social pressure? What kid from a 'not so perfect home life' doesn't want to lash out from time to time? And who wouldn't want to have one perfect day away from it all? ( I know I still do!). This documentary explores all of this.

I won't tell you how Don't You Forget About Me ends (whether or not they get the John Hughes interview) because I want you to punch in your secret Rogers code (or find the DVD somewhere) and watch the movie in the comfort of your own home. I will say though, that after seeing the movie it made me sad all over again about John Hughes' death, and it made me want to revisit ALL of his movies. Of course, I will start with my personal favourite (which, if you haven't guessed by now, is The Breakfast Club). I know we all have our personal favs and when people ask me why I pick this particular Brat Pack film I have to say that part of the reason is I distinctly remember where I was when I saw this movie for the very first time... It was 1985 and I was sixteen years old. I went with some friends from school. And I got all dolled up and gelled the sides of my hair back. When we got to the movie theater it was packed and we had to sit in the very front row with our heads looking up to the screen and our feet resting on the stage. When the movie ended and the lights went up I cheered like everyone else and I thought it was the coolest movie I'd ever seen.

25 years later... it's still on my top 20 list. Needless to say I've seen a lot of movies in the last 25 years (and I've got the movie blog to prove it!) But I guess what has stayed true to me, in all of this time, is I still believe that in each of us you can find a brain, an athlete, a basket case, a princess and a criminal. It is one of the many things John Hughes' movies has taught me. It is without a doubt the film I related to the most as a teenager. To quote (the then skinny) Anthony Michael Hall ..."Does that answer your question?"

John Hughes, you will be missed! SVFRRIS!

2012 *** (rave)

If you like disaster movies you will like this film. It has everything you'd expect from 'an end of the world' thriller - great visual effects and a weak story line - some familiar faces and a bunch of unknowns who have about 5 seconds to live - some crazy scientific explanation for the cause of all the destruction, and really exciting scenes of tidal waves rising up and crashing down on everything. 2012 delivers no more than what you'd expect, but it is a visual roller coaster ride that should be seen on the big screen and enjoyed like a fun day at a theme park.

This movie was directed by Roland Emmerich, an expert in the disaster movie genre who also brought us Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow. John Cusak and Amanda Peet are reunited again (both starred in Identity) as the stars of the film who play one of the family groups trying to survive 'the end of the world as we know it'. Oliver Platt (my personal favourite from Lake Placid) plays the selfish/bad-guy politician. And Danny Glover (who 20 years ago claimed he was "getting too old for this sh**t) really had to deal with it as the President of the United States. The film has many co-stars of all nationalities and varied life expectancies. Some play scientists, some live on a mountain top, some are entertainers on a cruise ship and some have paid a lot of money to try and ensure their survival. Not everyone endures the same fate, but when you know the world is coming to an end and fire balls are exploding all over the place, the odds for most aren't good.

The general plot of 2012 goes something like this... the Mayan people's prediction of the end of the world has come true. Scientists have found the something something earth's crust displacement theory something is happening, and happening much sooner than originally expected. Only a selected few of the world's population have been informed of humankind's impending doom and they have spent a whole lot of money to board a vessel when the time comes that will hopefully ensure their safety.

John Cusak's character, Jackson Curtis is separated from his wife and 2 kids but when he hears of the end of the world predictions from a conspiracy theorist hippie played by Woody Harrelson, Curtis immediately goes to collect his family and then they journey to find these rescue vessels. Meanwhile, the chief science advisor played by Chiwetel Ejiofor, is struggling to keep the White House informed and prepared while still maintaining a sense of decency and humanitarianism.

What I enjoyed most about this film was the fun and excitement of Jackson Curtis' family flying through all the disaster scenes. I was also pleased with all the special effects, and was happy that 2012 did not contain the really bad CGI created dogs that The Day After Tomorrow had to offer.

What I least liked about this film was the length. It felt too long in the end. Apparently, it wasn't enough that the world was ending and crumbling down before everyone, there also had to be multiple problems with a door on a rescue vessel. Personally, I thought the earthquakes, fireballs and tidal waves were more exciting obstacles and the rest just dragged the movie out unnecessarily.

Overall though, I did enjoy watching 2012. It was like a fun ride at a theme park. And, as long as you know what to expect, I would recommend that others buy a ticket.

Three Must-See Documentaries

With Halloween fast approaching, I thought I would review a spooky movie this week. Although I saw Zombieland (and found it entertaining) and re-watched a couple of horror classics, I wasn't inspired to write about any of them. Instead, I realized that the scariest thing I've come across over the years (through my love of documentary films) is the American judicial system. So I decided to rummage through my movie collection and recommend my three favourite crime-themed documentaries that should definitely succeed in scaring you sh**less.

Each film, in my opinion, does an excellent job at illustrating all the injustices that can occur due to shoddy police investigations, questionable eye-witness testimony, fear tactics and emotional juries. Although I highly recommend you watch these films (because they are all important and extremely well made), I don't recommend watching them with the lights off. These things really did happen to both the victims and the accused -which in itself, makes these stories all the more terrifying.

Two of these films show graphic crime scene photos. One of the films deals with the murder of three eight year old boys. But if you can brace yourself for some upsetting images, I hope you will watch these films and find them as fascinating and enlightening as I did.

THE THIN BLUE LINE (1988) *****

This documentary film directed by Errol Morris relays the details of how Randall Adams found himself convicted of the murder of a police officer in Dallas County in 1976. Adams, who was a drifter was picked up by a teenage runaway (David Harris) one night while walking towards a gas station. Their night together ended with a police officer being shot and killed on the side of the road. The events of that evening are described in detail through Adams' recollections, interviews with David Harris, the police, the lawyers involved in the case and the three eye-witnesses who testified against Adams.

Morris' style of this film incorporates re-enactments of the events of that night giving the film a very unique look into various possibilities of what may have happened. Adams, who was 28 years old at the time always insisted on his innocence. While Harris, a 16 year old juvenile delinquent convinced the police of Adams' guilt and became the County's star witness. This documentary was ground-breaking both in its narrative techniques and the effect this film had on Randall Adams' fate.

MURDER ON A SUNDAY MORNING (2001) *****

This film won an Academy Award for Best Documentary in 2001. The director, Jean-Xavier de Lestrade films the trial of Brenton Butler. Brenton, a 15 year old black male is accused of murdering Mary Ann Stephens, a white tourist visiting Jacksonville, Florida. She and her husband were robbed at gunpoint at their motel and when the robbery went bad, Mrs. Stephens was shot and killed. Although Mr. Stephens witnessed the murder (and identified Butler as the assailant) and Brenton signed a confession, his lawyers Pat McGuinness and Ann Finnell are convinced of his innocence.

This movie follows the court room drama as it unfolds, and interviews McGuinness extensively. Both lawyers, though public defenders, are passionate and determined to prove that Butler had nothing to do with this crime. Instead, they insist he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time when picked up by the police. As McGuinness gets closer to the truth through his own investigations and cross-examination skills, you will be left stunned by the revelations he uncovers one by one. If I were ever in need of a criminal trial lawyer in Jacksonville Florida, this guy would be first on my list!

* If you pick this movie up, make sure to watch the special features as well. The additional interviews are just as interesting as the ones that made it into the film. Interviews with some of the jury members are also included so you can find out what they thought about what they heard in court and why they delivered the verdict that they did.

PARADISE LOST : THE CHILD MURDERS AT ROBIN HOOD HILLS(1996) *****

This HBO film follows the trials of 18 year old Damien Echols, 16 year old Jason Baldwin and 17 year old Jessie Misskelley Jr. for the murder of three 8 year old boys who were found naked and hog-tied in the woods in West Memphis, Arkansas in 1993.

The State is convinced that the murder of the young boys was part of a Satanic ritual killing. The three victims were found beaten and sexually mutilated. The three accused teenagers were viewed as outsiders by their Baptist community- They wore black, listened to heavy-metal music and possessed books about the Wicca religion. They were picked up by the police one month after the murders occurred.

The film begins with the trial of Jessie Misskelley. Because the 17 year old (who has an IQ of 72) signed a confession to the murders, he is tried separately from the other two suspects. The film follows both trials and interviews both the victims' families and the families of the accused.

This film is fraught with grief, fear, out-rage, disbelieve and multiple theories of the events of the crime when there is little to no physical evidence at the scene of the murders.

The graphic nature of the three young victims' demise is extremely disturbing. The outcomes of the trials are astonishing.

Away We Go ***1/2 (rave)

This is a great quirky feel-good movie to rent! Sam Mendes (who directed American Beauty) did a wonderful job with this comedy. I didn't make it to the theater to see this one but while I was combating a cold and lying on my couch, it definitely perked up my spirits when I watched it a couple of days ago.

The movie stars Maya Rudolph and John Krasinski. Their characters Verona and Burt are living in Colorado and expecting a baby. When they find out that Burt's parents are moving away from Colorado before the baby is born, the two decide that it's time for them to move and figure out where they would like to make a home for themselves and their unborn child. They decide to visit other family and friends to see what kind of homes and families they have built for themselves. And as they reconnect with some people from their past, their travels take them to Arizona, Wisconsin. Montreal and Miami. With each visit Verona and Burt witness the parenting/relationship skills each of their friends possess and/or lack. And with each revelation of seeing what their friends are doing wrong, they hope to discover what will truly be right for them.

The supporting cast in this movie is awesome. Catherine O'Hara and Jeff Daniels who play Burt's parents set the tone as the first eccentric pair we meet before Burt and Verona set out for their travels. And the eccentricity doesn't stop with them. Allison Janney plays Verona's ex-boss who can't get enough to drink and can't stop talking about all the things that are wrong with her kids. Maggie Gyllenhaal steals every scene she's in as a pretentious hippie who abhors the use of strollers ("I loooove my babies! Why would I want to push them away from me?") and Melanie Lynskey's character does an impromptu dance to express her sadness that is slow, quiet and poignant.

But it's the strength of the relationship of the main characters that makes this movie work so well. Burt and Verona are a couple of odd-balls in their own right. Burt uses a fake persona when dealing with people at work and Verona paints images of people's brains. But as you watch them together and intermingling with others, there is no doubt that it's the two of them against the world and you can't help but root for them as they try to find their place in it. Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida who wrote the screenplay, incorporated hilarious and intimate scenes for Krasinski and Rudolph in the film that really allowed the audience to appreciate their character's connection and love for one another. Nothing about this movie was sappy. Instead it was lighthearted and genuine.

Like I said, I watched this movie a couple of days ago but I can't stop thinking about it. The characters have stayed with me and I find myself giggling to myself as I replay certain scenes over in my mind. Now I know I have a head cold but I really do believe it's the movie and not the cold medication that's keeping me happy. And I can definitely state you don't have to be sick to enjoy it (maybe just a little mental).

If you liked Garden State, you'll like this movie. If you like to laugh, and possess a kind of off-the-wall sense of humour you'll like this movie. If you like original scripts with quirky characters you'll like this movie. And if you need a great soundtrack playing in the background to really enjoy a film. Well let me assure you, you too will like this movie.

Surrogates **1/2 (rant)

Surrogates, the latest Bruce Willis film, was not what I had hoped it would be. (And I didn't have the highest of hopes in the first place). But what surprised me about this sci-fi /thriller directed by Jonathan Mostow is it fell short in a way I wasn't expecting...

This film is of course set in the future. And in this particular future the majority of citizens in the world have opted to have robots live their lives for them. Average citizens, from the comfort of their own home, plug into a neural contraption that allows them to control the 'better looking' robot versions of themselves out in the real world. Everything seems safe and perfect until the murder of one of these surrogates actually causes the death of the human puppeteer. Willis, playing Special Agent Greer and partner Peters, (played by Radha Mitchell) desperately try to solve this homicide case before any other human life is at risk (Even though every human now lies around at home in their bathrobe looking like complete crap -for the preservation of humankind, I'm assuming- it's still important to the FBI to save them).

Being a fan of Bruce Willis I wanted to see this film on the big screen because I hoped that even if the story line was weak I would enjoy Willis' performance. And I expected to be entertained and impressed by some of the special effects. Turns out the opposite was true. Although Willis didn't let me down (except for the really bad toupee), the story line did entail some interesting concepts and it kept the twists and turns of the 'whodunnit' investigation suspenseful. But surprisingly it was the special effects of the movie that really disappointed me. Certain scenes had great potential but everything looked fake and none of the action scenes had a 'wow' factor that CGI technology is more than capable of producing nowadays.

Now don't get me wrong, I didn't find the script to be particularly great or original. Actually, the premise reminded me of I Robot, starring Will Smith (robots made to improve human's quality of life but then suddenly turn dangerous). This association was clinched for me when I saw James Cromwell from I Robot once again playing the mastermind behind the future technology. (It seems Cromwell has been type-casted as a really smart futuristic guy). But the Surrogates script did have some uniqueness to it. While the FBI investigates who would prosper from either the robot technology or the demise of it, the movie shows the possible effects advanced technology could have on the military, powerful corporations and rebellious citizens. And it did a good job at showing how scary some of these effects could be.

Overall, I didn't hate this movie but I still can't decide if it's worth seeing on the big screen. One thing I can say for certain however, is Bruce Willis' latest movie is no "Yippee Kaye Mother F******"

The Time Traveler's Wife * (rant)

I really don't know why this movie was made. And I really can't believe it's still playing in the theaters. The Time Traveler's Wife, which is based on Audrey Niffenegger's best-seller, did not succeed as a romance film nor did it succeed as a sci/fi film. Maybe if it hadn't tried to be both, it would've succeeded at one...Maybe.

The story revolves around Clare (played by Rachel McAdams) and Henry (played by Eric Bana). Henry is a time traveler (due to some kind of genetic anomaly) and Clare, who first met Henry when she was a child, falls in love with him despite his condition and eventually marries him. The movie spans over many years of their lives together and as the plot unfolds we, the audience, are shown clips of the past (in the hopes I'm assuming that we'll piece together why the two fell in love in the first place) and are shown the struggles the two face in their present life together. -Struggles which include: will Henry be present for the marriage ceremony? (seeing as he has no control over when he leaves or where he evaporates to). Will he be around for Christmas this year? How does Clare cope with waiting for his return? And whether or not the two of them can produce a 'time travelling love-child'.

This movie was so wrong on so many levels. First, I still don't know why Clare fell in love with a man who's never around when she didn't strike me as the 'independent woman' sort. Aside from getting to see Eric Bana naked a lot (he always loses his clothes when he travels) he was a very serious and somber man. Clare is in love with him the first time we meet her and it seems only she knows why. Granted, I guess time travel can be a very serious business. But it's a business the movie never explains. There's a geneticist (played by Stephen Tobolowsky ) who apparently is there to help Henry and find out some answers. But after the doctor conducts one test, we never find out any real results nor is it ever discussed again. Instead, we watch as various Henrys from various times pop in and out of Clare's life. She never seems to know when he'll leave or appear again and yet she still manages to have clothes waiting for him in various locations. Lucky for him, I guess.

The love story wasn't convincing and the time travel parts weren't nearly as confusing as they should be. Not once did the film address whether or not Henry affects the present by revisiting the past. We are told that even though he can revisit certain places time and time again (I can't help the pun) he can't change the course of bad events that have happened. Apparently, he's unable to get there just in the 'nick of time'. Even Jean Claude Van-Dame's movie Time Cop addressed the possible confusing affects of time travel. The fact that this one just decided to ignore it was more than disappointing. (The fact that I've had to mention a Jean Claude Van-Dame movie as a means of comparison of something that is better is embarrassing).

I have not read Audrey Niffenegger's book but after seeing the movie version, I can only hope that many more questions are answered. For instance; how did time traveling affect Henry's childhood? Why is he always getting shot at or beat up when he travels? What does Clare really do for a living? Do Henry and Clare have any real friends? And I sincerely hope one important question is answered ...when Clare claims she had no free-will in deciding whether or not to spend her life with Henry, what the heck is she talking about?

Inglourious Basterds **1/2 (rant)

Although I'm a fan of Quentin Tarantino's, I'm sad to say I did not enjoy this film. With a running time of over two hours, the film felt long and dragged out to me. This movie is no where near as entertaining as Tarantino's previous work. And although there were a couple of exceptional scenes, I was left missing the extraordinary screenwriting skills I associate with his other movies.

Inglourious Basterds takes place in German-occupied France in the early 1940's. The film follows two stories: The escape of a Jewish woman Shosanna Dreyfus (played by Melanie Laurent) from the hands of a Nazi Colonel, Hans Landa (played by Christoph Waltz) and her eventual plans of retribution. And the Jewish-American soldiers, called "The Basterds" who hunt down and kill any Nazi they find (with the goal of scalping one hundred Nazis each). The Basterds are led by Lieutenant Aldo Raine (played by Brad Pitt) and once enlisted in "Operation Keno", their mission of destruction eventually coincides with Shosanna's.

This movie started out strong. The opening scene which introduces the Nazi Colonel was tense and I was transfixed by the dialogue. I don't believe any other present-day screenwriter can write dialogue as well as Quentin Tarantino. (The fact that he could make a movie about a diamond store robbery that you never see so absolutely riveting still blows me away. If you haven't seen Reservoir Dogs, you don't know what you're missing!) But in this film, once he introduced "The Basterds" I was disinterested in the story. Brad Pitt, as the only real "star" in the film, stuck out like a sore thumb to me. And I couldn't decide if I just didn't like his silly Tennessee character or if it was the way he was playing him that I found silly. I didn't care about any of "The Basterds" and I found it difficult to view them as "the good guys". - Which is strange considering they were a huge part in the plan to take down Hitler. I'm not sure if I was suppose to cheer when one of them beat a Nazi to death with a baseball bat, but I didn't. And I found the drawn out lead up to that scene - the clanging noise of the bat hitting the inside of a tunnel- not at all suspenseful. (I guess the close-up of Pitt making yet another stupid facial expression didn't help).

I did enjoy the story that revolved about Shosanna's plight, however. Laurent's acting was solid. And Waltz, as the maniacal "Jew hunter", kept me in a constant state of unease. Although there's a great scene in a basement club in the film, there were too many other elements of the movie that I didn't enjoy for this one scene to redeem the whole film for me.

After seeing Inglourious Basterds, I'm inspired to watch Pulp Fiction again. I haven't seen it in years and I still consider this to be Tarantino's best film to date. Although I can't rave about Inglourious Basterds, I am still a fan of Quentin Tarantino's and I will always look forward to seeing what he does next. I just hope Brad Pitt's not in it.