MOVIE: Sunshine Cleaning (2009)

Sunshine Cleaning
2009
direction: Jeffs, C.
screenplay: Holley, M.

quickie:
A former high school queen (and her sister) start a “biological cleaning” service in an attempt to make something of her life.

general impression:
Quite good. Not too bitter, not too  sweet.

lows:
A very specific Hinkle’s bathroom scene where Emily Blunt’s character Norah does a little monologue about how she does not need to be taken care of because she does this after she BURNS A HOUSE DOWN.

highs:
Amy Adams, Emily Blunt, Alan Arkin. Strong cast. Efficient use of humor. Well-wrote.

notes:
This movie had a really, really good poster. It’s the reason why I watched it. The fact that it had Emily Blunt and Amy Adams was enough to make me watch it.

I really, really find Amy Adams quite endearing to watch. She’s sweet and she has this certain depth that so many actors wish they had. She’s very charming. And then there’s Emily Blunt who has this amazing offbeat vibe about her. In a movie which relies on making the audience really feel for the character, it’s just absolutely necessary to cast the right people.

The story is simple but rather odd because crime scene clean ups aren’t really discussed very often anywhere. On top of that, we have two rather pretty girls doing this grunge work and it’s just… funny.

The better part of the movie is that it does not fixate itself on the job the women perform. It quietly integrates everything that we all deal with everyday: trying to earn money, trying to impress other people, trying to make yourself feel good and, of course, being with your family.

The flow of the film feels almost natural until it reaches that “confrontation” (in quotations because it wasn’t much of a confrontation) scene between Norah and Rose. There was something off about that conflict the writer threw in.

Otherwise, the movie just carries itself well. I recommend this to everyone (but more specifically, to the people who loved Little Miss Sunshine) because it’s such a sweet, sweet movie. Very quiet. Very cool.

FINAL RATING:
[4] out of [5]

MOVIE: Welcome to the Quiet Room (2007)

Welcome to the Quiet Room
(クワイエットルームにようこそ)
2007
direction: Suzuki, M.
screenplay: Suzuki, M.

quickie:
An aspiring writer living with a TV comedian wakes up to the bright lights of a psychiatric ward which is more like a rehab for girls with eating disorders

general impression:
Funny, Quiet.

lows:
Scenes are a bit disjointed, characters could have used more depth, the fact that the psychiatric ward only has anorexic and bulimic patients, offers no peace for people who can relate to Yuki Uchida’s character

highs:
Ryo as Nurse Eguchi, funny moments, doesn’t say anything about sanity or insanity

notes:
I suppose some might be tempted to recall movies like One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest or Girl, Interrupted. Movies have dealt with the whole concept of sane people having dysfunctions, subtly stating that we’re all crazy anyway.

Personally, I thought Asuka Sakura (Uchida) is one of those sane people with your average amount of dysfunction. She’s constantly trying to cope with some undefined obstacle by hiding in idiotic television shows, standing very close to the edge until she loses her balance and falls.

Although the movie still lacks that emphatic touch, it does evoke the sense of being lost. Where do these people go? They’re not crazy enough that they set their hair on fire but they’re not functioning well enough without alcohol, nicotine, sleeping pills or just a daily dose of stupid TV shows.

As the movie points out, we’re only sane if someone says so. In Asuka’s case, her claim to sanity is a pothead who shows his butt on television for a living. Does that make sense?

Miki’s (Yuu) logic presents the fact that you have to be crazy to be able to live with everyone else. She develops an eating disorder after she realizes the truth: someone else who deserves the food she eats is starving. And she is unable to deal with that.

What is sane? To know this truth and escape from it?

The movie is easy on the eyes but it lacks a “feel” which make it seem average at best. However, the actors are delightful and the writing is a step above your typical Thursday movie.

Watch this movie, if only for Nurse Eguchi played by Ryou. Hilarious.

FINAL RATING:
[3.5] out of [5]

MOVIE: Good Dick (2008)

Good Dick
2008
direction: Palka, M.
screenplay: Palka, M.

quickie:
It’s a love story

general impression:
Truly beautiful

lows:
Will not generate a lot of excitement

highs:
Smart. Funny. Coherent. Pragmatic.

notes:
I took my time deciding whether or not I would go and watch this movie. Quiet and uneventful movies might seem monotonous to some but like all genres, it has a good and bad dichotomy.

Good Dick is good. It not only features a good cast playing really good characters, it is also shot nicely and pieced together quite well. It is quiet but not heavy. Marianna Palka (writer and director) didn’t set out to confuse the audience or scream an idea or theme. Instead she opts to make the movie the way movies are supposed to be made: she tells a story.

Maybe it takes a certain type of person but there’s a lot to be felt from this movie. I haven’t decided about what my stand on relationship or romance is but this movie creates a pretty little picture of it. Hope is a good drug.

FINAL RATING:
[5] out of [5]

MOVIE: The Squid and the Whale

The Squid and the Whale
2005
direction: Baumbach, N.
screenplay: Baumbach, N.

quickie:
Just a family on the verge of a breakdown. Nothing to see here.

general impression:
Quiet and peaceful with enough neurosis to complement the uneventful.

lows:
Kinda… sad.

highs:
Good acting, good story, good dialogues, good shots

notes:
There is something about size that truly iffs me. Something about being reminded of how tiny, tiny, tiny you are stirs these feelings of insignificance and melancholy that becomes very hard to shake. Thankfully, people overcome these moments and live on to face the next one.

The Squid and the Whale revolves around these feelings. In movies, it’s always these writers who suffer some form of megalomania or at the very least, denial. The family involved in the film is at the boundaries of their talent, their belief, their love and whatever other factor that pulls them away from the edge.

There is something highly emotional about the film. Or maybe, as I have always said, dysfunction just attracts me. Not because of anything else but just the belief that life and people are simply complicated. These contradictions that the characters live through make them feel like people.

FINAL RATING:
[4] out of [5]

MOVIE: 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days

4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days
2008
direction: Mungiu, C.
screenplay: Mungiu, C.

quickie:
College roommates dealing with pregnancy

general impression:
Absolutely beautiful.

lows:
Scary if it reminds you of your own life. But then again, that might not be necessarily a bad thing.

highs:
Simple story delivered with focused vision. Outstanding acting.

notes:
This is the first Romanian film that I’ve watched and it all of them are as gorgeous as this one is, I might move there. OK, maybe not. But 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days is a really, really, really smart film.

Anamaria Marinca plays Otilia, a rather regular college student who is helping with her friend’s pregnancy problems. She arranges everything about termination / abortion and the camera brilliantly captures every emotion that the event draws out of the characters.

Some people might find the scenes long and boring but the long takes carry meaning. This is particularly evident in the dinner scene where you can not only observe the character but feel with them.

Of course, long takes are not the only way to produce empathy but this style just works so well for the movie. It is truly moving. The movie also makes efficient use of silence and the evening.

Perhaps it’s what makes this movie so beautiful. It knows how to use what when. It tells the story the way it needs to be told and gives the characters (cliché as it is) life and heart.

If you love your movies, this one will blow you away.

FINAL RATING:
[5] out of [5]

MOVIE: Penelope (2008)

Penelope
2008
direction: Palansky, M.
screenplay: Caveny, L.

quickie:
Fairly standard fairytale – curses, true love and inner beauty.

general impression:
entertaining.

lows:
generic.

highs:
it’s not horrible. James McAvoy.

notes:
I actually like this movie. It’s very standard and it’s very entertaining.

Of course, if you start thinking of the huge amount of chick flicks that has been produced over the years – this little movie doesn’t really stand out. It’s nothing special but at least, it’s not boring. It’s pretty funny, actually. The archetypes are played well. The twists are well planned and executed beautifully.

Penelope is mediocre fun and if you’re looking for something to pass the time, you’ll find this OK. If you’re looking for something more substantial, this one can be skipped.

FINAL RATING:
[3] out of [5]

MOVIE: The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)

The Day the Earth Stood Still
1951
direction: Wise, R.
screenplay: North, E.

quickie:
Aliens have arrived! And we shot them for no good reason! Good thing they’re pacifists!

general impression:
Surprisingly smart.

lows:
It’s… science fiction.

highs:
Really, really smart. The misanthropes will be pleased.

notes:
After watching this movie, I wanted to just promote to everyone I know. Which I didn’t do because I don’t know a lot of people who enjoy movies.

That aside, The Day the Earth Stood Still is a great, great film. It is not cinematic genius and not particularly engaging but it illustrates what is wrong with us as a society.

The alien eloquently puts it this way “you’re letting fear get in the way of logic”

I originally was not at all interested in seeing this film because I hate science fiction and aliens aren’t really my thing. But this is not about aliens at all. It’s about us.

The alien. Klaatu, is a brilliant character. He is the kind of hero that would inspire you. He works with the problems he encounters along the way. The fun bit is that he does not contradict the things that his society or whatever stands for. It’s just brilliant how his character was written and fleshed out.

The movie is concise and moves at a great pace which makes it easy to watch despite the fact that it is decades old and is in monochrome. I highly suggest seeing this movie.

FINAL RATING:
[5] out of [5]

MOVIE: Thank You for Smoking (2005)

Thank You for Smoking
2005
direction: Reitman, J.
screenplay: Reitman, J.

quickie:
Lobbyist Nick Naylor and his magnificent talent of creating truth.

general impression:
Passionate. Hilarious. Fresh. Inspiring.

lows:
If you’re anti-smoking or a non-smoker, you probably won’t like this. Also, this obviously is not the movie to watch for people who want the truth. And this movie also defends (a little) the big industries which benefit from the little folks doing “bad” things

highs:
Effectively highlights the fact that what the big industries are doing is the same as what the “good guys” are doing. Puts a friendly face on the big industries we like to hate. Beautiful dialogues between Nick Naylor and his son. MOD Squad!

notes:
Thank You for Smoking is awesome. It’s a wonderfully written, wonderfully directed film that draws its strength from the beauty of its characterizations. Strong characters are best. I was laughing from the first five or so minutes of the movie. It’s witty and it’s highly entertaining. Aaron Eckhart was pure brilliance. Cameron Bright, who plays Eckhat’s kid, had this quality to him that is so endearing. Great comedic timing too.

It amazingly evades making the big industries assholes while at the same time avoiding the pitfall of making them too human or too decent. They’re people.

They don’t think they are absolutely right but they don’t wallow in guilt over what they do. If anything, they give a lot of credit to other people. They assume that people possess intelligence.

Jason Reitman represents not the industries but the need for people to have a choice. Because choice is a great thing to have. This is what I love about the movie. It is not because I think that it’s good for people to smoke but I think that if people wanted to, they should be able to.

Humanity and liberty. What’s better than that?

FINAL RATING:
[5] out of [5]

MOVIE: The Machine Girl (2008)

The Machine Girl
2008
direction: Iguchi, N.
screenplay: Iguchi, N.

quickie:
“YOU KILLED MY BROHTER! RAWR!”

general impression:
Campy. Mostly good for laughs.

lows:
Degree of violence ranges from hilarious to disgusting.

highs:
Tempura arm! Sentai poses! Drill bra! Oh yeah, and strong female protagonist.

notes:
Assuming you won’t be looking for the meaning of life here, Machine Girl is an absolute laugh trip. It’s, of course, a bad movie with cheap effects, a questionable plot and average (bordering on awful) acting.

There are times when you’re laughing at the violence and times when you’re cringing so I suppose this movie is still not for the squeamish. Like most Japanese movies, lots of high pressure blood squirting all over the place.

If you watched Planet Terror, there’s a good chance that you might start comparing the two. That would be up to you. I prefer taking The Machine Girl as this disgusting funny movie rather than the action film that Planet Terror was.

It’s cheap, disgusting and funny. What else is there to say?

FINAL RATING:
[2] out of [5]

MOVIE: Brick (2005)

BRICK
2005
Direction: Johnson, R.
Screenplay: Johnson, R.

quickie:
Good old fashioned detective story done with great style. Dig?

general impression:
Great take of a classic tale, amazing and amusing

lows:
Tug

highs:
chicken pitcher, Joseph Gordon Levitt, witty dialogue, Pseudo-noir feel, fresh, camera work is interesting

notes:
Brick is fascinating to watch and look at. It’s basically a noir spin of a high school tale (or a high school spin of a noir tale?) and it is done with style.

It takes itself seriously enough for the feel to be really felt but not so seriously that it becomes cheesy. Granted, noir flicks are generally cheesy but… well, if you know your noir, you know what I mean.

It has all the right elements: the “jaded” detective-type hero, the trusty information source, the damsel, the other mysterious hot chick, the not really evil “mob” guy and – best of all – clever use of language.

It strays from visual effects and focuses more on composition, editing and camera ‘tricks’ (yeah!) which makes it so much more interesting to watch. On top of that, Joseph Gordon Levitt gives a brilliant, brilliant performance. He’s a really talented actor and I’m so glad he makes such excellent choices.

The movie is just good. It’s a little funny, it’s thrilling (i.e. you really want to know what’s up) and I’m just going to rant on and on about why you should check it out…

FINAL RATING:
[5] out of [5]