A Good Day

Busy getting coffee while my computer booted up, making small talk with coworkers. I sit down and open Explorer, wondering if there's anything special about today that might make Google alter its logo. Do a double-take. The logo looks pretty normal, but I notice below: 09/09/09 09:09:09. My eyes wip to the clock at the bottom of my screen to see the time change from 9:08 to 9:09. Success!!!

A good day.

I'm going to celebrate by ordering a Threadless T for $9. This one, to be precise. It's called "A Simple Plan."

Throw Hester Under the Bus Some Passes*

If you're a Bears fan, you're as disappointed as I am about the Bears first preseason game. Some of you are panicking, some of you have brushed it off, but I can't believe anyone isn't disappointed. We all wanted to witness Cutler firing missiles around the field, hitting his receivers, giving us confidence in them. Instead, we saw a few nice completions and a whole bunch of passes to Hester. (And let's not get all excited about the 30-yarder to Dez Clark. That's what Dez brings to the team. I've seen Grossman and Orton make nearly the same throw with the same result.)

And that's where it gets confusing to me. Why Hester? If there wasn't really a gameplan, why focus so much on him? Cutler believes in Earl Bennett. Why not try and convey some of that confidence to the fans? Well, I don't think Jay feels beholden to the fans. I do think the very fact that he trusts Bennett is the reason he didn't look to him. And conversely, he looked to Hester so much because he doesn't trust him.

At its best, this means Cutler was trying to establish a bond with his #1 receiver in a game situation. At its worst, Cutler was pointing out to the coaches he can't work with this guy and here's why. The truth? Who knows. What do I think? I think it's somewhere in the middle.

Cutler and Hester looked off in their communication. Cutler oftentimes seemed to want to throw sooner but wasn't sure his receiver was ready. Or he'd throw to a spot he thought Hester was supposed to be in.

And then the interception. Yes, it was a horrible pass. It was classic Grossman (except Jay stepped up...before he threw off his back foot). But as that ball sailed away from him, I'll bet Cutler's thought was, "Come on, Hester. Fight for it." I imagine it's what Brandon Marshall would have done in Denver. I imagine it's what Cutler feels Bennett or Aromashodu or Rideau would have done, those receivers Cutler mentions the most. I saw it with my own eyes in camp: they go up for the ball.

What did Hester do? He watched with all the excitement I had sitting on the couch.

No, Hester's not a huge guy. But if you want to play receiver, you've got to give your quarterback...and the fans...more.

* A little Amish syntax humor.

The Hangover (2009)

***1/2

Directed by Todd Phillips
Written by Jon Lucas & Scott Moore

Bradley Cooper ... Phil Wenneck
Ed Helms ... Stu Price
Zach Galifianakis ... Alan Garner
Justin Bartha ... Doug Billings
Heather Graham ... Jade

Rated R
Runtime: 1 hr. 40 mins.

The Hangover is outrageous. And I don't mean gross-out (though there's some of that). But flat-out, jaw-droppin', "I can't believe this is happening" outrageous. Why can't more comedies be like this? Why can't more comedies have this sense of glee and utter abandon? Why do so many comedies feel so damn...written? Well, because they've been shoved through studio execs who think that if they can't reach every single demographic they won't have a job. That creates fear and timidity and it's ruining Hollywood. I'd thank God for the success of The Hangover but we've got a year, tops, until the lukewarm rehash. Until then....

The set-up: 1 man is getting married. 3 men accompany him to Vegas for his bachelor party. The celebration begins on the roof, shots of Jager going down like college. The next morning (afternoon?), they awaken to find their suite trashed, a chicken roaming free, a tiger locked in the bathroom, and a baby in a closet. Other maladies are revealed slowly like a missing tooth (found fairly quickly, the explanation lagging). And, oh yeah, their friend, you know, the one getting married? Yeah. They can't find him.

There's a noirish element to the film. Certainly not in the sunlight, but to the mystery. There's a certain elegance to a movie that not only raises the stakes so high but also provides answers.

And we're led through these adventures by three incredibly capable comedic actors as the friends: Bradley Cooper, he of whom is oft asked, why is he not more famous? Yea, verily. Ed Helms, as the whipped, and cuckolded dentist and Zach Galifanakis, the dim bulb who I'm pretty sure does not curse. Though he is wont to do any number of other things.

So what else is there to say? Not much. Kudos to you, director Todd Phillips and writers Jon Lucas and Scott Moore. Seems like you got to make the movie you wanted to make. To critics other than Ebert, what is wrong with you? Don't you like to have fun? To the rest of you, have fun. Go see it.

The Foxiness of the Foxy Megan Fox

I've discovered a profound respect for Megan Fox.

OK. The obvious: she's hot. And that's the perfect word: hot. Hot connotes a beauty that is not subtle. It is evident in every aspect. Facial features are striking in a slightly severe way. Bodies are skinny except for the chest. Sexuality is blatant. This is Megan Fox. She's hot. Not the look I go for, but that's not what we're talking about here.

I respect her, and here's why. When Transformers came out, the internet was ablaze with her hotness. Who is this Megan Fox? People couldn't get enough. Transformers came out nearly two years ago. An eternity on the blogosphere. But she still remains the hottest. No one has replaced her.

This came out in a discussion with my roommate when he asked who the girl in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen preview is. As I began explaining, I realized really what she has accomplished.

Now, I'm not looking through People Magazine every day, but my perception is that she carefully regulates the amount of exposure she has. No tales of wild partying or drunken, public incidents. Not even something as innocent and seemingly prerequisite as bikini photos on vacation. Photos are from magazine spreads and current sets only.

And suddenly it dawned on me what she's done. She's been able to maintain an aura of mystery. She is letting her films be where admirers can define her personality. And see her.

So kudos to you, Megan Fox. May your reign be long and successful.

Away We Go (2009)

**1/2

John Krasinski ... Burt Farlander
Maya Rudolph ... Verona De Tessant
Carmen Ejogo ... Grace De Tessant
Catherine O'Hara ... Gloria Farlander
Jeff Daniels ... Jerry Farlander
Allison Janney ... Lily
Jim Gaffigan ... Lowell
Maggie Gyllenhaal ... LN
Josh Hamilton ... Roderick
Chris Messina ... Tom Garnett
Melanie Lynskey ... Munch Garnett
Paul Schneider ... Courtney Farlander

Directed by Sam Mendes

Written by Dave Eggers & Vendela Vida

Rated R
Runtime: 1 hr. 38 mins.


You might love this movie, and I don't begrudge you if you do. I'm happy for you. I wish I could love it, and if I had seen it on another night, I might have, but not tonight. I couldn't reconcile the wildly shifting tones, nor the fact that these characters whom I love, Burt Farlander and Verona De Tessant (John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph respectively), were so often supporting characters in a movie about them.

So, the good. Again, Burt and Verona. Here is a real couple. They've been together for long enough to understand that they love each other. Expression isn't always necessary. No official tally here, but I only recall one kiss and one time they hold hands. One of my favorite details was watching them aggravate and embarrass each other, but it never blows up into an argument. Here are two people who have been together long enough to understand what it means to be with this other person, and accept what comes along with that.

The movie opens in a surprising and hilarious scene that I don't want to go into detail about. Suffice to say, the end result is Verona pregnant. Several months later, they have dinner plans with Burt's parents.

This has been the good. The bad begins with Catherine O'Hara as Burt's mom. That's a difficult sentence to write. The instant I saw her, I smiled. She's that level of actor able to make me smile in anticipation. So what's wrong? Well, she doesn't do a bad job. But her character is so outlandish, it's jarring after having spent time with Burt and Verona who are so real. She says inappropriate things about how big Verona is and then drags her inside and plops down beside her on the couch, laying her head on Verona's stomach to hear the baby's heartbeat. And then Jeff Daniels comes in as Burt's dad. As the family sits down to eat, he prays to the great food-gatherer or something and constantly says "outstanding" or "super" and stumbles, hilariously, over the word "indigenous" as he describes a pricey statue sitting behind them. Oh, and they're moving out of the country a month before they grandchild is born.

OK. All this is funny and well-performed, but is it necessary? Burt and Verona react as we do: we can't believe what's going on. But just because they react in a natural manner doesn't make what's happening on screen any more real to us as an audience. It just makes it even more incongruous. It also relegates Burt and Verona to mute witnesses.

This sets up the Homerian structure of the movie. Burt and Verona moved to the house they currently live in to be close to Burt's parents. Verona's parents passed away when she was 22. But now, they wonder if there's any reason to stay. And so they travel about the country, reconnecting with people: Verona's former boss in Arizona, her sister, Burt's old childhood friend in Madison, college friends in Montreal, and an unplanned visit to his brother in Miami.

As Tom and Munch Garnett, Burt and Verona's friends in Montreal who have a beautiful, mixed family but a deep hurt, Chris Messina and Melanize Lynskey create the only truly real people that they encounter. The rest are either only somewhat successful or as outlandish as Burt's parents. Or even moreso as when we meet Maggie Gynllenhaal's character breastfeeding her toddler. Yup.

What also happens is that places, people, and situations that are supposed to foster character development, actually, by their uniform link to the past, become exposition. Yes, we learn more about Burt and Verona, but they don't grow. The growth happens as they travel from place to place.

But even this is handled poorly as another movie succumbs to the sirens of the pop music soundtrack. Delicate scenes of wonderful, heartbreaking dialogue collapse as some unknown singer-songwriter emotes in the background. I know, it's not his fault his songs are playing too loudly and at the wrong time, but I want to take it out on him. A scene that calls for stillness and attention has a chugging soundtrack that's telling me the next scene is comin' right up.

I hold director Sam Mendes partly responsible as he seems to have let his actors go too far. But I also hold the writers, Dave Eggers and his wife, Vendela Vida, responsible. Dave's a great writer, but a first-time screenwriter. Needs to aim for a bit more consistency in tone next time. Not taking him to task, just something to be aware of.

All this to say people in the theater didn't notice, as there were tears galore around me. I'm also using strong language for something that didn't offend me, just disappointed me. If I've pointed out things you don't pick up on in movies, please, go see it. I don't want to dissuade you from what might be a truly moving experience.

In Bruges (2008)

Written & Directed by Martin McDonagh

Colin Farrell ... Ray
Brendan Gleeson ... Ken
Ralph Fiennes ... Harry Waters
Clémence Poésy ... Chloë
Jérémie Renier ... Eirik
Thekla Reuten ... Marie

Rated R
Runtime: 1 hr. 47 mins.


Thank you In Bruges for startling me out of my 2008 movie funk. Now I have an inkling of the joy audiences must have felt when Pulp Fiction assaulted their numbed senses that year at Cannes that changed movies.

I mean, really, it's been a pretty boring year. I haven't compiled a Top 10 list yet. People may think I'm procrastinating, as I have in past years, but the God's honest truth is, I just don't feel compelled. I write a Top 10 to give weight to some great films, some you may have been reluctant to see. But, well, you are probably familiar with most of the movies that are considered good this year, and I haven't really seen any others that I'm dying to get people to see, so...meh.

Then along comes In Bruges. Suddenly I'm excited about movies again. Suddenly there's a film that I want you to see. I told everyone about it yesterday. One person responded, "Isn't that the movie that looks like every other movie?" Yeah, probably. But the amazing thing is it's not like any other movie.

I can tell you the story and you can roll your eyes: Two hitmen are sent to hide out in Bruges, Belgium after a job. The one loves the quaintness of the place and the other just feels stifled. You know, the odd couple with castles. They mess things up and the boss has to come in and fix things with guns.

That's the bare bones plot, but it's not the movie this is. This is the advantage of having a playwright, Martin McDonagh, writing scripts. Humanity comes through. People actually reveal themselves in what they're saying. Their words mean something. The relationships are vibrant and alive and complex. But please don't think of this as a play. Martin McDonagh has adopted the language of film. This isn't some piece that feels like it's been opened up. Well, perhaps. If you think of the entirety of Bruges as a stage.

Will it scare you away if I say that the movie's success is predominantly based on Colin Farrell's performance? I haven't seen a comedic performance this funny in a while. I've never thought of Farrell as a comedic actor. He's hilarious here. His character, Ray, is always one step behind what's actually going on, but not for lack of trying. The performance plays on what our perception of Colin Farrell has been all along: a lost little boy. And I haven't seen all of the Oscar-nominated performances, but considering I'd be rooting for him and Mickey Rourke equally if Farrell had been nominated, I'm willing to bet there's another performance I'd like swapped out.

Contrasted is the presence of Brendan Gleeson as Ken, best known as Mad-Eye Moody from the Potter films. Ken's been at this game a lot longer than Ray and feels a strange fatherly bond to him. There's a great scene where Ray's getting ready for a date, checking himself in the mirror: to button or unbutton the top button? Ken watches with amusement and finally just tells him he looks good. At that point, we're not sure how that's going to be taken, but Ray accepts it. And there's their relationship.

And then there's Ralph Fiennes, ever the reliable crumbling, uppercrust gentleman, here he's Harry, a vile, violent man who runs hitmen. Something about him gave the indication of decay from the inside out. I love a good entrance by a character and he's got a great one.

I haven't told you much, and I apologize. There are plenty of others reviews if you need more. But I want you to discover the movie as I did. To experience the wildly careening shifts from hilarity to pathos to violence. I want you to laugh as the movie surprises you with what the characters do and say and the situations they get themselves into. Here's a sit-com in the highest sense of the word. And I want you to be surprised by just how deep the movie goes.

Let the Right One In

Directed by Tomas Alfredson

Written by John Ajvide Lindqvist based on his novel

Kåre Hedebrant ... Oskar
Lina Leandersson ... Eli

Rated R
Runtime: 1 hr. 54 min.

An apartment building courtyard covered in snow. A boy stabs at a tree with a knife, imagining it's the bullies at school who torment him. The camera tracks around him to reveal a girl standing atop a jungle gym.

It's a simple shot, a horror film convention. The monster revealed, standing in an unusual place, watching a character, oblivious to their presence. At the same time that we react to this shot as we've been programmed to, it stays just long enough for us to consider it and realize that the threat we often feel is, if not absent, subdued. She looks at the boy not with hunger, but with curiosity.

It's these paradoxes that rule the movie. Horror scenes happen between schoolmates and love scenes are played in the midst of blood. Horror film conventions are employed, but never as short cuts. They are used as they were originally employed: to underline the story being told.

That story involves Oskar, the boy stabbing the tree, and Eli, the girl standing atop the jungle gym, a vampire. Oskar lives in the apartment complex and is looking out his window, again imagining a stabbing, when Eli and her father arrive in a taxi.

The heart of the movie is Oskar and Eli's courtship. It is tentative and sweet. Innocent on his end. Guarded on hers. He asks how old she is. "Twelve more or less." How could it be more or less, he wonders and then when asked his age answers with years months and days.

In the realm of the movie, her vampirism is metaphor within their relationship and reality outside of it. One of my favorite scenes is their conversation after he's discovered she's a vampire (itself a remarkable scene; terrifying, but not as you may suspect). She knocks on his apartment door. We've learned before that he must invite her in, but are not told why. Feeling betrayed in learning her secret, he refuses to invite her in. She enters anyway to horrifying results. It's a startling portrayal of that moment in relationships when the warm feelings are in danger of evaporating and we're forced to consider this person before us.

The success of the movie is dependent on its two young actors. Kåre Hedebrant as Oskar is very good but Lina Leandersson as Eli is amazing. Makeup has helped a great deal (has a 12-year-old ever looked so tired?), but she does convey an aged quality. Even her voice sounds as if it has been used for perhaps centuries.

Earlier in my review, I've taken to task films that use shots as cheats. That's not to say shots can't be used to create atmosphere and mood. But that can't be in place of an actual movie. Director Tomas Alfredson and his technical team have created an amazing atmosphere that creates another level to an already fascinating story. So often, snow in films conveys isolation, and while it does so here as well, it also is very comforting. Like a pillow has covered the ground. It even makes the courtyard, a location I wouldn't normally think to spend time, somehow comforting.

While I want to encourage people who may not usually see a vampire movie to see Let the Right One In, I don't want to lead you into the theater thinking there won't be gruesome moments. There are horror elements outside of conventional horror camera shots. Eli must feed. It's this need and its encroachment on their relationship that eventually forces the characters and the movie to reconcile the metaphor and reality. Again, much as in real relationships when they must be defined in terms of real life.

Paul Blart: Mall Cop

Directed by Steve Carr
Written by Kevin James & Nick Bakay

Kevin James ... Paul Blart
Keir O'Donnell ... Veck Sims
Jayma Mays ... Amy
Raini Rodriguez ... Maya Blart
Shirley Knight ... Mom

Rated PG
Runtime 1 hr. 31 mins.


"Are the funniest parts of the movie in the preview?"

"No."

And there you have it, my shortest review ever.

OK. I suppose that that hinges on whether you've seen the preview for Paul Blart: Mall Cop. If you have and you've found it entertaining, go see the movie. If the preview looks painful to you, don't go.

The rest of this review is for those who haven't seen the preview. Or who just want more information.

Do I have to? Oh all right, you greedy people.

So who is this Paul Blart fellow? Well, he's a mall cop. Oh, that's right, you want more. Well, he doesn't want to be a mall cop. Problem is, he's hypoglycemic, causing him to fall asleep at inopportune time. Say the just before the finish line to the obstacle course to qualify for the New Jersey State Troopers.

So he's a mall cop, taking his job far too seriously for both his supervisors and the new guy who's shadowing him. He flirts with Amy who works at a kiosk selling those hair clips that fool people into thinking you have enough hair to make a bun. And when the mall is taken over by bad men with guns and sketeboards and bicycles and the ability to leap really well, he-

Whoa. Getting ahead of myself. The mall is taken over. They take hostages including (gasp) Amy. So our hero, Blart, decides to stay and protect the mall because of the oath he swore. He also wrote it.

Paul Blart is a testment to creativity over money. Outside of Kevin James, there's hardly a recognizable actor here (though I was happy when Peter Gerety, an alum of The Wire, got a laugh from the entire audience). Star power's not needed in a movie like this. Only talent. So I was gald to see some lesser-known actors given a chance. And instead of hiring a bunch of actors to play what are essentially single-line roles as the crooks, they hire extreme sports athletes creating some really neat stunt work.

So why is this movie funny? Well, Kevin James for one. He's just got a loveable, funny presence. The movie also understands the importance of context in comedy. So often, we're simply shown something that we are to think of as "funny." Very few things are funny simply on sight. Context often makes things funny. For instance, when you see Paul Blart sneaking through one of those line corrals you see at the DMV, the ones comprised of those interlocking elastic bands, that's amusing. To know what the stakes are makes it funny.

The movie also consists of the best extended set-up joke since the biker dude attending the pageant at the end of Little Miss Sunshine. Through a contrived set of circumstance, Blart acquires the phone of a young lady whose Indian boyfriend is intent on winning her back with incessant calls. All this, and more, for a 2-second shot that's not only funny in and of itself but also makes a statement about minorities in big budget movies.

Oh course, if this is a little too much analysis, Kevin James bounces off a glass door.

Larry Fitzgerald is a Beast

You've probably seen him play by now. But I keep on flashing back to what one of my favorite sports writers, Jason Whitlock, wrote about Larry Fitzgerald earlier in the year. About mid-season, Fitzgerald had something like a 5 reception, 75-yard game. That following Monday, Whitlock wrote that few people had seen the game, but that it was an amazing performance and that Fitzgerald was going to revolutionize the position.

I believe that now. Yes, he goes up and outleaps multiple defenders. But that's not what is so impressiveto me. All that the Kurt Warner needs to do is get the ball within his reach. If you can get it there, if you can get it within his reach, his hands seem to generate a gravitational force. It's amazing to watch. He's become one of my favorite players to watch.

Also, I'm going to pick the Cardinals to win. I just think that they have more to prove and that the Steelers are taking too much for granted. You can't talk about the Steeler's defense. The Cardinal's defense has stepped up in the post season. If they had played this way all year, how would they have been ranked?

That's my prediction.

The Wrestler

Director by Darren Aronofsky

Writte by Robert D. Siegel


Mickey Rourke ... Randy 'The Ram' Robinson
Marisa Tomei ... Cassidy
Evan Rachel Wood ... Stephanie Robinson

Rated R
Runtime: 1 hr. 55 mins.


Thinking on this movie makes me profoundly sad. But that's on me. The characters in the movie make choices that I'm not sure are right, that may in fact cause themselves more hurt, but I'm not sure that they're unhappy with these choices. I suppose that's what life is. A bunch of people trying to find their way. And who can tell someone else which is the best path to take?

Just ask Mickey Rourke. He turned his back on a, well, it was more than promising, it was a flourishing career. For what? To box. Regrets? Now, yes. Perhaps at the time it needed to be done. It brought him to this moment, and if I can be selfish, I am so glad. It's rumored that the studio wanted Nicolas Cage in the role. I'm not going to judge whether he would have done better or worse. That performance isn't the one on screen, so how could I? What I can say is I can't imagine any other actor in this role.

It's pointless to try and say how much and when Rourke draws on his personal story. Only currently do we have that luxury. When I first saw The Verdict, I immediately knew Paul Newman gave an incredibly brave, incredibly vulnerable performance. Only later did I learn that he had struggled with alcoholism, certainly informing his role. I believe Rourke's performance will stand in a similar way.

This role is Randy "The Ram" Robinson, a professional wrestler. Professional in the strictest sense: he's getting paid. For his wrestling? Ostensibly, yes, but in reality, it's for his past glories. Which is OK because he hasn't been able to leave them behind. He's never left the profession. In a sense, he's ageless. In one of the film's most heartbreaking scenes, we watch as he looks around and it dawns on him just how long ago those days might be.

During the week, he does autograph "conventions" which are little more than wrestlers sitting at folding tables in V.F.W. halls. He also works in a storeroom at a grocery store. He's having trouble making rent and asks the store manager if there are more hours. Only on the weekends, he's told. But that's when he's wrestling. In his free time, he plays Mike Tyson's Punch-out with the neighbor kids in his trailer park. Occasionally, when funds allow, he visits the strip club and his favorite dancer, Cassidy (Marisa Tomei).

This tenuous, strung-together life crashes when he has a heartattack. He's told by his doctor he'll have to quit wrestling. Where does he turn? To the only person whom he sees fairly regularly: Cassidy. He tries to bring the intimacy shared in the strip club to the outside world. She sees a hurting man, but she's seen them before and she needs to keep her job.

I'd like to pause and recognize Marisa Tomei. Rumors still abound that she didn't actually win the Academy Award for My Cousin Vinny. That her work after "proved" she didn't deserve it. I hope that this third nomination and her excellent work in last year's Before the Devil Knows You're Dead can finally put this to rest.

Cassidy too has been in her profession for too long, another profession that hinges upon perceived wear-and-tear, and is beginning to see that perhaps it is passing her by. However, where The Ram is trying desperately maintain, Cassidy's stuggle is questioning, "What's next?" It's this inner struggle that Tomei is so effective at conveying. And the little moments, like when she makes a wrestling doll speak for her. It's an adorable, girlish moment from someone whom we hadn't thought of in this light. Perhaps those are her glory days.

Ruminations, ruminations, ruminations. The movie invites them, asks them to stay and talk over coffee.

Evan Rachel Wood, also often written-off (that Aronofsky, I think he knew what he was doing) as a wildchild and Marilyn Manson's ex, once more displays the chops so evident in Thirteen. She plays Randy's daughter whom he tries to reconnect with, a part of his life he abandoned. She only has three scenes, but they are incredibly raw and powerful.

With this movie, Aronofsky establishes himself as a master filmmaker. Pi and Requiem for a Dream are incredible, but their success was more dependent on nailing the technical aspects. While the brutal fights are well-done and an incident when The Ram works in the deli reminds us of Requiem's climax, it's Aronofsky's handling of the subtler aspects (casting, acting, story) that demonstrate how skilled he is. Perhaps his greatest accomplishment is keeping the film from being overwrought, a trap for a story that can be described as a melodrama. It can't hurt that your movie has three of the best performances of the year.

Che

Che: Part One

Directed by Steven Soderbergh

Written by Peter Buchman
Based on the memoir "Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War"
by Ernesto 'Che' Guevara

Che: Part Two

Directed by
Steven Soderbergh

Written by Peter Buchman and Benjamin A. van der Veen
Based on Bolivian Diary by Ernesto 'Che' Guevara

Benicio Del Toro ... Ernesto Che Guevara
Rodrigo Santoro ... Raúl Castro
Demián Bichir ... Fidel Castro
Catalina Sandino Moreno ... Aleida March

Rated R
Runtime 4 hrs. 23 min.


The revolution began at a dinner party. Ernesto “Che” Guevara sits as a guest at a dinner table in an apartment in Mexico, waiting for Fidel Castro. We hear he is always late. He arrives and dinner is served, conversation and alcohol flow and cigar smoke fills the room. The conversation turns to the problems in Cuba. As I sat and watched these opening moments, my initial surprise at how mundane this all was gave way to the thought, “How else is a revolution supposed to begin?”

This opening scene sets the tone of the next 4 hours. Jokes have been made about this being a t-shirt biopic. In others’ hands, it very well could have. I mean, really, he’s a revolutionary, how much do you need to tell us? Just show us some guns and the rising up of those oppressed, some pretty speeches. Boom! Movie magic. Oscar gold. What Soderbergh understands is that these are short cuts. He’s not interested in telling us a good story as much as he is in presenting us with a fascinating individual.

Before I go further, I should let know that I was able to see the Special Roadshow edition which presents the entire 4 hr 23 min movie with a 15 minute intermission. Soon, the movie will be released as two parts. I don’t know that it will affect my review, but just know that you probably won’t have the opportunity to see it in this fashion.

The first part is concerned with both the Cuban revolution and Che’s visit to the UN in New York City. As much as I responded to the opening dinner scene, I still expected Che to find his footing in the jungles. To become the revolutionary we all expect to see. Soderbergh knows we expect this. One of the first images we see of Che in the jungle is him leaning on his rifle, wheezing from asthma. It’s these details that not only undercut the myth that has come to surround Che, but also to humanize him. One of my favorite details was Che’s seeming fascination with pockets. I don’t know how else to describe it. About halfway through the first part, I noticed that his shirt pockets were significantly fuller than they had been at the beginning. At the end of the second part, I noticed he had sewn pockets onto his pants that were stuffed as well.

The early scenes in the jungle show us a Che growing into a revolutionary. We see him bumble, lacking in confidence, being chastised by Fidel. Is it because he’s Argentine? Does he wonder what he’s doing there? It’s after the first significant battle, taking on a Cuban military base, when Che comes into his own. Fidel wants to move on. Che, a physician, wants to take care of the wounded. Get them to somewhere safe. He does so. It is at this point, as he states in the movie, that he becomes a revolutionary. When he realizes that the romance attached to the word is not always the reality. Or even necessary.

In an interview, Soderbergh has said his focus was originally Che’s time in Bolivia. It feels this way. Though the first part is longer, because of its divided and somewhat episodic nature (excepting the climactic battle in Havana), we get the sense this is prologue. We learn, through Cuba, what he did, and through the UN, we learn what he believes.

It leads us to Bolivia. For Fidel, the success of the revolution was enough. For Che, it had gotten into his blood. He tells Fidel he wants to bring revolution to the rest Latin America.

The second part is much more headlong in its execution. We know Che, we know how this works. We are immediately immersed in Bolivia, aware of the similarities. And more importantly, aware of the differences.

It’s difficult for me to sum up how I feel about the movie. Both parts begin with what is essentially an overture while maps of Cuba and Boliva, respectively, are highlighted, showing us regions and cities, giving the impression that these are places that will be important to the story. If this is the case, I’m not sure it was successful. I wasn’t always aware of where the rebels were in relation to anything. As I write this review, however, I feel that matters very little. So many biopics show us scenes hoping that they add up to a life. The problem is that the subjects are barely characters in their own stories. Where so many others have failed, Soderbergh succeeds. The logistics may have been lost on me, but I came away with an incredible picture of a man, Ernesto “Che” Guevara.

The House Bunny (2008)

Directed by Fred Wolf

Written by Karen McCullah Lutz & Kirsten Smith

Anna Faris ... Shelley Darlingson
Colin Hanks ... Oliver
Emma Stone ... Natalie
Kat Dennings ... Mona
Hugh M. Hefner ... Himself
Christopher McDonald ... Dean Simmons
Beverly D'Angelo ... Mrs. Hagstrom

Rated PG-13
Runtime: 1 hr. 37 mins.


I like to be thought of as one who has good taste. I don't know if I'm thought of that way, but we're talking about what I'd like which has little to do with reality. I try to seek out things that are considered by others to be "the best." I still watch movies I "should" watch, hence my attempt at trying to figure out Bergman for myself. I've always been this way. It's why I started reading movie reviews. It's since broadened into books, food, beer. Basically anything that can be qualified. But I've got to be honest with you. Every once in a while, I love a good PBR from the can. It kind of clears the senses, gets you thinking simply about "beer," don't need to worry about "savoring." You just drink it. Happens with movies, too. Usually comedies that make me laugh in spite of myself. Most recently (oh the shame!) it's Paul Blart: Mall Cop. Before this, The House Bunny. I can't speak on Paul Blart yet, but I have seen The House Bunny. I'm sorry, I apologize, but I liked it.

Much of the credit rests with the two leads, Anna Faris and Emma Stone. Ms. Faris plays Shelley, the titular house bunny. (After several seconds of consideration, I will let that sentence stand.) It's a bimbo role which is how Anna Faris plays it, but she imbues Shelley with an innocence that makes her incredibly charming. Every situation is new and fascinating. It also doesn't hurt that Ms. Faris was gifted with incredible comedic timing. What?

Shelley's a resident of the Playboy Mansion until she's kicked out before her dream of posing for Playboy can be fulfilled. If Shelley had posed nude, there may have been more options for her. As it is, she's at a loss as to how to function in the real world. That's when she happens upon sorority house row. Thinking they look like a bunch of mini Playboy Mansions, she feels right at home. Until she tries to join, by, you know, asking the most stereotypically snobby sorority. Told she's too old to be a member, she learns of being a house mother and that the sorority down the road has a vacancy.

You know where we're headed now, right? Shame on you if you don't. It's at this point that the movie begins to click. The leader of the sorority is Natalie (Emma Stone). Stone's performance is the other key to the movie's success. Her Natalie is awkward and shy but doesn't quite know it. The sorority needs 30 pledges before-Dum, dum dum!-and she buys into Shelley's shtick before she really knows what it is. I guess that's what makes both actresses so successful. They fully commit to these characters being out of their respective elements that when they stumble, it's much funnier than perhaps it has any right being.

For instance. Shelley decides a carwash may be a good idea to get some pledges. It certainly brings the boys over which seems to be a part of getting pledges. I think. Anyway, Shelley tries to encourage Natalie to be sexy. Natalie obliges by uorposely pouring water down the front of her pants. Not let's break this down. First off, again, the actress fully commits with a husky voice saying "sexy" things. Secondly, the pouring of the water is done purposely, which is a lot funnier than ye olde accidentally wetting pants and meeting someone creating an embarrassing situation. Three, it's something that if someone didn't know what "sexy" was, they might think pouring water on the front of your pants might be.

OK. I've probably driven everyone away. I don't know what to tell you. This is not a good movie. The male characters...you can't even use the word characters to describe them. They are physical manifestations of plot points. The plot itself is telegraphed before you even start the movie, but I can't say we ever arrived at any of the required points because there isn't really a journey. I'd say we're apparated there. Poof! Here we are! The end is typically cloying. The beginning, awkward. All that said. I'd watch it again in a heartbeat. It's funny. I laughed out loud. That's what I can say.