Marie Antoinette (2006)

I was really disappointed by this film for a number of reasons.
I don't like it when films bastardizes culture from centuries ago with terms, phrases ways of life from the 20th century. I know it's meant to be a twist on a period piece, but it really takes away from the authenticity of the film and I lose respect when many ideals are not present.
I know Sophia Coppola was trying to be all punk rock with this film, and at times it's really cool hearing bands like The Strokes in the soundtrack of a period piece, but really that takes away any seriousness the film could inhibit.
The party scenes were very well edited in my opinion, but what they were doing at the parties were pretty lame. Playing put-a-famous-name-on-your-forehead-and-guess-who-you-are probably wasn't around in the 18th century, or pot for that matter. I really just think the film is Sophia trying to make Marie Antoinette like any other young girl in the 20th century, but that an unfair representation of their way of life.
Too much of the film was focused of whether or not she was having sex with her husband. I think other elements should have gotten more attention.
The French didn't like this film in Cannes, and I gotta agree with them on this one.

Y tu mama tambien (2001)

This was an impressive film. It was the second time I've seen it and boy it seemed to make a lot more sense this time around.
The cinematography in this film in incredible; I couldn't look away because the composition had me at the edge of my seat. The colours are so bold, and vivid, it felt like I was there.
The characters are also really strong. Their stories are realistic; they have their own goals and vices, I feel like I learned more about human natures from watching it.
The pacing of the film is also really good. I had forgotten that one of the story techniques of the film is that all the natural sound is cut off, and a ominous voice-over shares further information about one of the characters, it was really well done.

The Stepford Wives (1975)

This was a pleasantly eerie film. I say it's pleasant because it was well done and it was subtle rather than over the top. So that no one gets confused this is the original film, the remake from a few years ago pales in comparison.
What I liked about this film is that the politics of 2nd wave women's liberation are fresh in the text of the film. It's very obvious the dominant theme in this film.
What didn't take me as a surprised, and I thought was a good choice was that the film had a bleak ending. This isn't a typical Hollywood film for that reason. It came out in 1975 making it part of the tail end of the New Hollywood Cinema years.
Katharine Ross was alright in this film. It's hard for me to take her very seriously after knowing her as the mousy cute girl in The Graduate, c'est la vie.

Arsenic and Old Lace (1944)

I thought this was a decent film. It wasn't what I was expecting because I didn't think the film was based on a theater production. I find film adaptations from theatrical plays interesting because they do not require a lot of set design, most of the time the film can take place in just a few areas, sometimes only one room is necessary. I want to examine how there is a huge difference between these 2 room films and epics that use many continents to tell their story.
Arsenic and Old Lace is a typical theatrical production. Most of the film takes place in the living room of the two old ladies that are killing old lonely men as charity.
I initially watched the film because Cary Grant was in it. While he was enjoyable to watch, I have to admit that the magic that I once saw in his films are gone (reading a person's biography, and watching almost 2 dozen of their films can make a person feel bored with an actor).

L'homme qui aimait les femmes (1977)

This was a really good film. I really enjoy Truffaut films more now. When I was watching this film I found many elements that make this film the predecessor of the highly recognized film “Adaptation” which is also a great film.
While the immediate subject matter is not identical, there are many thematic devices that make a parallel reading very easy to do.
For one they are both about men who are writing about love and relationships. While Adaptation is about how flowers are symbols of love, L’homme takes a literal stand on the subject.
There is a scene that reflects this. In L’homme, The writer is describing what he likes about each woman specifically. He describes them as having something unique about themselves that he is drawn to. In Adaptation, the writer uses different flowers as metaphors for each woman that he could be attracted to.
Both writers are also obsessed with how they are writing their books. They admit that they are putting their personal sentiments into their writing because each writer has a personal approach to whatever subject they are dealing with. Both writers want to try to overcome being too narrow viewed, and they regard it as a vice, but they don’t realize that it is not a flaw, but rather a strength to have a unique position.
In both films there is a scene toward the end when they are confronted by a former lover. The lover tells them that they have to learn how to like themselves because their problem is they push people away because they have low self-esteem. They don’t allow themselves to love one single woman because they have trouble metaphorically looking at themselves in the mirror.
There is also a scene in the film where there is a conversation over the phone where the woman just wants to hear the man breath, she doesn’t want him to say anything she just wants to have a sign that he is present and giving her his full attention.
Also a minor detail, Meryl Streep, one of the main women in Adaptation looks uncannily like one of the women in L’homme; I don’t think it’s a coincidence.
Once I realized that these films have so much in common in made L’homme even the more interesting to watch. I found myself looking for more similarities, but I think the other observations I made don’t have much foundation.
The films ended very differently. Adaptation ended with the protagonist feeling free and open to new opportunities about his life. He feels he can move on from his former lover, and the death of his brother. While L’homme ended with the protagonist dying from his weakness; he was reaching for the nurses legs and fell off his hospital bed and died.
Both films are very good stories.

The New Pornographers – Ottawa Bluesfest – Sunday July 16, 2006

I thought this was a good show. I was unfortunately somewhat disappointed, but it was merely because of aesthetic reasons ie. the band does not look like rock stars, what the giff! The sound was tight (even though the mix was poorly done).
To get back to this aesthetic thing, the members of the band looked ordinary and geeky. I think bands should dress up, or at least try and present some kind of performative image, it makes the whole seeing them live more worth it, instead of the look like you’re watching them jam in some garage. One of the main things that through me off was the bassist was a total doppelganger for my old film professor M. Raymond, so it was funny and kind of weird watching him rocking out wearing a ‘Where’s Waldo” shirt, and I don’t think he was being ironic.
I was feeling kind of gross as well because I had been outside for most of the afternoon and it was so friggin hot out, it was not enjoyable to stand around for a few hours on top of that.
Overall, they played the songs I wanted to hear, so they weren’t a disappointment in terms of that, it was just the presentation that I think needs work. The band members didn’t move around the stage at all making it look like they were part of an awkward junior high band performing in a talent show, hehe.
Controller.Controller played before them and I really enjoyed their set, they rocked hard, it was fun.

The Pink Panther (2006)

Wow! I really think this movie is underrated, I thought it was hilarious. I’ve seen the first two original Pink Panther movies from the 60s and hated them, in comparison this version is so much better.
The funniest part of the film is that it’s Steve Martin, an American actor with a corny French accent. The accent is so bad he was definitely trying to make it the worse French accent ever, it was hilarious. One of my favourite parts was when Kevin Kline says a word in French to Steve Martin, and Steve has a “what the fuck does that mean” look oh his face, haha the French character doesn’t know French, just a bad accent. It was even funnier when Steve Martin, with a French accent was trying to learn how to speak with an American accent, haha. The whole scene is a lady trying to teach him how to say “I would like to buy a hamburger” to say the least it was not successful. The next scene has Steve Martin in NYC having his first hamburger, he acts like hamburgers are disgusting, but he bites into is and is in friggin’ love
I have so many lines I loved in this movie that Steve delivered. His facial expressions were so funny also. Also surprising there was some impressive cinematography also, I wasn’t expecting any stylization, kudos!
I wasn’t anything out of this film initially because I had hated the original Pink Panther movies (I respect Peter Sellers, I just don’t think there’s anything special about his version of the character, it was lame).
Here is the trainer who trains! hehehe

Short Cuts (1993)

I thought this was an enjoyable film. For those who are not familiar with this film, think the movie that inspired Magnolia?
I like Short Cuts more than Magnolia because it doesn’t have that syrupy orchestral music playing in the background the whole time; it’s more gritty and believable. Julianne Moore is in both films also, I think she’s alright in Short Cuts.
This film is three hours long, but I found the pacing so well done that I didn’t even notice the time going by, I think it was because Robert Altman made sure that each segment of each story was not very long making the viewer eager to see where and how the story will continue to develop in it’s next segment. I found I was eager also to see how each character would bump into one another. Most of the characters are related to one another or are neighbour or have some affiliation with each other, and I found it interesting to see how each would meet.
All of the cast members I enjoyed, This film is definitely worth checking out.

The English Patient (1996)

I really didn’t like this film, I thought it was crap. It in no way appeals to me, and I will now say why.
For one there is not much dialogue in this film. You may thing, but the visuals speak where words would be, but no. All the visuals are the same, there is no vary whatsoever in the visuals. The characters mostly rely on facial expressions to say their emotions, but there is only one expression in this whole entire friggin film. The oh I miss my lover, my life is soo deprived, I was happy at one time, I wish I could love someone passionately, I’m lonely and I need a huggy-wuggy, bleh! I’d rather listen to someone say this than have to look at their facial expressions.
The other thing is that the cinematography has nothing to it, I never say this, but I could have done better cinematography myself. Gah! I can understand why this film won 9 academy awards, I don’t agree with the academies decisions as it is, so The English Patient film can take their crappy awards, and shove it.
I guess I’m a little irritated that I sat through this film. I just don’t understand this type of film, why do people find it appealing, it’s so boring and predictable, in the bad way.

A Fistful of Dollars (1964)

I thought this was a really good movie. I didn’t think I was a fan of Westerns, but the style that the spaghetti western is done in is really good. What I like about this kind of western is that there is a dimension of parody in the film. When I watched “The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly” a few months ago with my dad, I had no clue why he was laughing all the time, I just thought the film was being corny and not knowing it. Now I realize that the director was aware and consciously put the parody elements in the film. One of the strongest ways this dimension is portrayed, I believe, is in the soundtrack. It’s an awesome soundtrack with a funny flute loop and chain clang against something. The cinematography is also amazing, I put it up there with my favourite films in terms of visuals, it’s orgasmic! I really want to see ‘For a Few Dollars More’, but it seems to be a hot ticket item at the library for a few weeks, argh nugget!
Note to fans of the Back to the Future trilogy: Fistful of Dollars has the scene that Marty used to get the idea of the ‘bullet-proof vest’; it was cool seeing that scene.
This is definitely a film to watch to get a well rounded film history.

Nine to Five (1980)

This was a cute and enjoyable film. Lily Tomlin, Jane Fonda and Dolly Parton have good chemistry together, and even though it could be slightly irritating to watch their hijinks, I couldn’t help chuckling to myself.
Nine to Five is a kind of self-mockery of the women’s liberation movement during the 70s. I thought they played it well; I especially found it interesting to see how different the times were over 25 years ago. Just a few weeks ago I had heard about this film because they were releasing a 25th anniversary DVD.
I also found this film interesting because of all the old technology that the have in the office. All their office equipment are antiques when compared to what is around today, it was pretty funny watching the characters function with the gi-normous photocopier, it’s loco.
I recommend this movie as an easy watch. Thinking about it now, it reminds me of Weekend at Bernie’s, but with the subject matter dealing with woman’s lib instead.

Holiday (1938)

This is another great Cary Grant picture. It’s the third film he starred in with Katherine Hepburn, and I have to say this film is my favourite with Hepburn because she was not annoying at all, I found her very charming and victimized actually (which sucked, but I guess helped me sympathize with her character).
I was deceived at the beginning of this film. The love interest in the film initially is named Julia, and I got so excited because I thought hey it’s going to be another Cary Grant love Julia film. It was like this for most of the film, but half way through it turns out that the character known as Julia was shallow and uninteresting, which blew for me personally in a way, but since I found Hepburn’s character so endearing I just told myself I wasn’t like that crazy Julia character and enjoyed the film.
Cary did some cool nonchalant acrobatics. I’m reading a biography of his and seeing him do the acrobatics (because he’s where he originated in show biz) really shown that the man has class and talent.
In terms of story this was a good film. It was explained very well why Hepburn was the black sheep of the family, besides a few renegade ideas she talked about, she didn’t seem that far from the pack (I guess they wanted me to use my imagination).
I say check out this film if you want to see classic Cary and a non-irriating Hepburn.

Snow Falling on Cedars (1999)

I have to say that this film did nothing for me, and I know why. This film, along with many films of the same style, is extremely lyrical. That means that there are no jokes. The film revolves around illustrating the passion and the yearning the characters have for each other. There is always the direction of withdrawl that one character experiences for the other and the audience experiences this by being shown flashback over flashback of the characters happy encounters overlapped with the sad character's desire for the other, who is trying to move on with their life. I find it hard to sit through these types of films because, in two words, they’re dramatized drama. This style of filmmaking is bland to me. Now you may think I’m a hypocrite, but I love lyrical foreign films, and most lyrical Canadian films; it’s just the American lyrical film that makes me want to fall asleep or fast forward through the film.
The topic of the film was pretty interesting, and I would label this an enjoyable film, but it’s honestly the director’s fault that I don’t like this film. I don’t blame the director for ruining it for me because it’s his style; I just think it’s important to give credit where credit is due. Scott Hicks also directed Shine which I enjoy, but that’s because there was some comic relief present. I think for myself, an American film with no comic relief whatsoever is sacrilegious; it’s their strongest device in their films.
Snow Falling on Cedars did have some great performances and they deserve attention. Ethan Hawke was very cute and lonely.

The Break Up (2006)

I really liked this movie. Yes, it was really depressing to watch a loving relationship end, but at the same time I thought this film had excellent flow and great character development (the film student in me, what do you expect). Both characters had their flaws in terms of communication and it was interesting to watch how the other received and responded to that communication and more so lack of communication.
It would have been nice to see the couple for a bit at least during their happy period (but I guess that’s not what the film is about). Instead the two years the relationship occurred is represented through the opening credits of snapshots (candid and organized). I thought that was an effective device, but it would have been nice to see a scene or two of them actually being in the relationship (instead of starting the film after the credits with them fighting).
There was some humour also in the film to lighten the incredible dark and depressing fall of the relationship. Aniston’s effeminate brother, during a dinner scene, is trying to get Vince to sing a drum beat in harmony to other people at the table. He kept repeating “come, come on the bass drum” to try and encourage Vince, it was hilarious! Jon Favreau also stole some scenes as Vince’s best buddy who tries to console him during this period of break up (I felt sad that Jon has gained so much weight since “Swingers”, he was hot in that film, what happened Jon? I thought you lost all your baby fat from “Rudy” years ago, you can’t claim its baby fat anymore).
I definitely recommend checking this film out. I saw it with my roommates and the consensus was it was a bad film because it made them feel awkward to watch it. I guess the voyeur in me holds nothing against that!

The Thin Man (1934)

I thought this was a great film. It’s definitely one that is entertaining, let has enough substance that one does not feel like are killing brain cells.
William Powell stars as a former detective who marries woman with a large dowry who is living a life of luxury. One day there is a murder and he gets roped in (partially unwittingly) into cracking the case of who the murderer is. This film is definitely a classic caper (probably one of the best of it’s kind). William Powell is dashing and debonair; his character is constantly drinking, it’s hilarious. The chemistry between he and his wife is reason enough to watch this film. It’s a fast talking, almost screwball comedy (but he already has the girl, so the film is picking up after a few years of marriage). They joke around, very dryly, about not caring about one another, it’s so funny. This movie must have made dinner parties the hippest thing on this side of the coast.

Amadeus (1984)

I was surprised by this film because I feel like I’ve taken so much from watching it. Initially I had thought of this film as a hoaky, bio-pic of some dude with loads of melodrama and a few bits of historical information. Instead what I got was an self-enriching lesson about how history is recorded and remember. Now obviously these are all my observations because I have nowhere near enough time to research the accuracy of this film about the life of Mozart, but everyone has their own stance.
I enjoyed the novelty occurrences that this film provided. I felt like it was more of a story of the lifestyle during his time period. I never thought too much about it, but they really cared a lot about their white wigs in that time, I would think it has the equivalent importance people have to their favourite clothes.
Even though this film was long I think it was all important to have on the screen. While usually when you know a film is over 120 minutes you have to commit to really watching it, but what I found with this film is that because it was more about the daily occurrences in Mozart’s life I felt I didn’t have to give it 100% of my attention the entire time. I was able to chat with a roommate at one point, and surf the internet for some information and still was able to attain the main just of the film. Sidenote, my observations tell me that the film was called Amadeus (Mozart's middle name) to maybe show a more candid angle of Mozart's life
I recommend this film for someone who is interested in watching all the marquee Oscar films (because it won during it’s year). It is definitely an interesting story about how an artist has to struggle to put his work in exhibition because of the powers that control distribution and commission for the project (definitely something that still applies to today’s art work).

Blonde Venus (1932)

I thought this was a touching film and signature film. Marlene Dietrich is able to combine feminine sensuality and masculine coldness (geez, could I be more narrow with my gender descriptions). In essence she’s mesmerizing; her stage presence is magnificent, no wonder so many female actresses hold her in high regard.
Blonde Venus also stars Cary Grant. And if you are in any way familiar with how I judge a Cary Grant picture you’d think, oh boy here she goes again raving about Mr CG, but you’re in for a twist. While Cary Grant was fabulous in the role he depicted, this film is not about him, it is rather about Marlene’s character. It was also a bit of an obstacle for me to watch Cary Grant because Marlene is someone who locks all eyes on herself, but Cary made for some great “two shots”, as I paid a couple grand at school to learn, haha. As I just looked up, Blonde Venus came out the year Cary Grant was first in the pictures. From my observations he does not have that knack yet that won me over as a fan for life. In other words, he’s only a boy in this film. His character is noble, but he didn’t have the flare and pizzazz that his characters in Notorious or His Girl Friday. He’s too gentle in Blonde Venus, but it’s a good start.
The film itself is moving because of its subject matter. The scenes when Marlene is torn up because of her child, you can’t help but want to help her out.
The scene with Marlene in the white suit and top hat is awesome, she has a great voice. I recommend this film as one to definitely see for general film knowledge. The story, without giving anything away, is also strong; if only they were still made that way.

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)

This was a fairly good film; it was not extraordinary in my opinion because westerns are on the lower end of genres I’m interested in. The performances of Paul Newman and Robert Redford were good. I kept thinking about “Brokeback Mountain” when there were scenes of intense chemistry between Paul and Robert; one scene in particular when they jump off a cliff into river rapids and are carried quickly down, while they are badgering each other about how they hate how the other drags them into crazy messes (oh brokeback).

This movie also reminded me a bit of Bonnie and Clyde because it is about a band of outlaws who rob banks. The difference is that Butch is about male companion and Bonnie and Clyde is about a heterosexual romance gone awry. Butch Cassidy the film is also not witty the same way B & C was. I shouldn’t judge these two completely side by side, but the fact that Butch Cassidy was released two years after B&C speaks a lot to me.

It was neat seeing Katherine Ross as Robert Redford’s main squeeze, the most notable film I know her from is The Graduate, so it was neat to see her in something else (note her character does not range far from her character in The Graduate).

Director George Roy Hill has done other mentionable films, none of which I’ve seen and actually don’t have a stinging desire to run out and request from the library.

Butch Cassidy is worth seeing because it’s a contemporary classic. There are a number of humourous scenes when Butch and Sundance are trying to rob Spanish banks, but of course they don’t know how to speak Spanish and experience miscommunication with their hostages while they are trying to collect their booty (yar, a pirate’s life, it is). And the famous scene where Butch and Sundance’s main squeeze go for a ride bike with Burt Bacharach’s “Rain Drops Keep Falling on my Head” as the soundtrack is definitely worth watching.

The Philadelphia Story (1940)

I thought this was a great film; it’s definitely one of those classic Hollywood films that define and make you respect films made prior to CGI crazy effects and too much press hoopla surround the film (no research done here).

I loved this film for the crazy love triangle that goes on, and I especially love this film because Cary Grant is the leading man; he’s only ever more dashing the more films I watch in which he stars (and don’t you worry I have half a dozen other Grant films on request at the library, *wink).

I can see this film almost as a sequel to “Bringing up Baby” which I reviewed a few weeks ago. The film starts off with Katherine Hepburn kicking Cary Grant out of the house for whatever reason, she seems upset with him. Then two years later she’s set to be hitched to another fine lad (of course not as fine as Cary), and the film revolves around a sweet plot he cooks up to win her back (you can probably anticipate how it will end).

What was cool about this film was that Jimmy Stewart was also there!! Crazy, eh! Crazy ol Jimmy was doing his signature routine, looking confused and raising his eyebrows, getting his bumbling-self into compromising situations and running casual amuck to people around him.

Katherine didn’t irritate me in this film, which was a relief; I also reconsidered watching this film after being so annoyed by her in Bringing up Baby. Her character was rich because she was able to show a range in her scenes. In one scene she plays a conniving socialite who plays mind games with unknowing reporters, in a few she is being told by other characters that she is a cold un-giving woman who will never love anyone, then in one show stopping scene she’s a drunken lush who befriends one of the reporters and goes gallivanting during all hours of the night before she is to be hitched to her second husband.

George Cukor directed this picture and it has now come to by attention that he has many other films that I also hold in high regard. His filmography includes “Gone with the Wind”, “My Fair Lady”, and “Holiday” and there are many more noteworthy films.

This is definitely a film worth checking out; Hollywood films haven’t got much better than this!

The Dears – Ottawa Tulip Festival – May 22, 2006

So this was an awesome show, again one of my favourites all year. I have so much I want to say about this show because there are so many elements that struck my attention.

For one, the band looked great. Murray was wearing a smart white suit with signature black neck tie. Bassist Martin Pelland is still soo, soo hot; wearing an awesomely tailor’s suit jacket and jeans, he’s hot property. Everyone else in the band looked good, but I wasn’t paying super close attention to them. Side note on romance in the band, Pelland and keyboardist (I don’t know her name) seem to be involved, they were smooching.

The stage arrangement was also altered from their own get up. The two keyboardist used to play side by side on the right, but this time, the keyboardist Pelland is involved with was on the opposite side of the stage (probably to be closer to him).

The performance was pretty good. They played a lot of new songs, which seems appropriate for their upcoming CD. The set list’s first 5 songs were new (the 3^rd and 5^th were hot in my opinion). The third song had a hot bass line also, if I remember correctly.

This was followed by a number of songs from their own album, which was awesomely orgasmic to hear. The opening riff for “lost in the plot” turns me on every time I see them live; I have it playing now, it’s one of my favourite songs of all time.

This was the 6^th time I have seen The Dears in concert, I can’t say it was as awesome of an experience as the 2^nd, and best time I saw them, at the Hard Rock back 3 years ago, but it was still enjoyable. I had a play at the gates, so I had a great view. Unfortunately the crowd did not have as many years under their belt as I, in terms of being Dears’ fanatics. An example of the conversation beside me: “The Dears? Have you heard much of their stuff’ ‘nah, not really, have you?’ ‘I haven’t, I hope they’re good”. Puh-lease, I was patient though, I knew The Dears would rock their world, and sure enough the same people half way through the show were saying: “Wow, this is really good!”; point made. Also because there weren’t Dears’ fanatics in the crowd there wasn’t much crowd participation, not many people yelled obnoxious comments during and between songs. I’ll always remember when some goof yelled out “good this time” during Murray’s pause during “The Second Part” haha! I really wanted to yell “play warm and sunny days because we need some warm and sunny days” but I didn’t have the balls to go through with it, mostly because I went to the show by myself, and didn’t want to feel like a retard.

I ended up singing along with a few of the songs, which was cool. It was a friggin’ cold night for the last week of May, fuckin’ late spring sucks ass; I wanna wear the summer dress I bought 3 weeks back, bastard.

Who knows when the next chance I will have to see The Dears, I have to take every opportunity I can. I hope I like the new album, it seems to be a move away from their “Smiths” sounds that I’ve grown so much attached too, but the songs are pretty rockin, nevertheless.

The Bishop's Wife (1947)

As of date, this is my favourite Cary Grant movie. He’s so charming and genuine who couldn’t love him. I thought this was a great movie also because the Bishop’s Wife’s name was Julia, so every time Cary Grant said her name, I swooned. Such comments as “I have an interest in Julia” and “you are beautiful, Julia” make it hard to resist Grant’s charm. As I’ve said probably countless times in other reviews, the man has class!

Cary Grant can sweep any girl of her feet. What I liked especially in this film was that Cary Grant’s character was not meant to be with Julia because he was an angel and Julia was already married to the Bishop. Cary Grant gracefully walked away from his love for Julia because he has integrity and he does not want to get messed up in someone else’s marriage.

This film had so many great lines. One of the best was from the cab driver that went skating with Julia and Cary Grant “So many people don’t know where they’re going, but they’re in a rush to get there”; people need to have this mentality; life goes by too quickly to get wrapped up in tunnel vision.

Cary Grant’s character was promoting living life with arm’s wide open. So many people have trouble accepting new ideas, or letting themselves open up to others (that does not include getting drunk and blah, blah, blahing your life story).

This film was also redone not too, too long ago with Denzel Washington playing the Cary Grant role in “The Preacher’s Wife” I believe. Denzel is definitely up for the challenge, that man also has class!

What I liked about this film also is that Cary Grant is still young in 1947; by 60s he was looking more like a father figure, and even though he remained charming and genuine until the end, it seemed that he lost some of his enthusiasm when he did Charade with Audrey Hepburn.

The actress who played Julia was good too. She wasn’t a stick in the mud like Lauren Bacall, and she wasn’t irritating like Ginger Rogers, she played it just right with excitement. The actor playing the Bishop played a good bitter misguided husband, who learns what’s important by the end.

Side note, this is a “Christmas film”, it’s a great one to watch wrapped up in a warm blanket with some hot cocoa!

A Shot in the Dark (1964)

This film is just annoying. A Shot in the Dark is the 2^nd of the series of 5 Pink Panther movies staring Peter Sellers. I love Peter Sellers in Dr. Strangelove, but gah, in the Pink Panther movies I can’t stand him. Sellers plays a bumbling detective but his bumbling nature is so unnatural it’s freakishly annoying to watch it. It’s the kind of bumbling where you know what’s going to happen because it’s so predictable. After I watched the first one I did not think I should watch any of films from the series because it was also irritating, but some reviews had said that the film A Shot in the Dark was a better film than the original Pink Panther movie.

Realistically someone with Detective Clouseau’s manner would not have any responsibilities. The guys a friggin’ retard and I’m not sorry to say that. He’s clumsy, irrational and oblivious to anything relevant.

I did find it funny whenever Sellers would dress up as something that required a licence, then he would be caught by the police and taken to jail.

Overall, I personally can’t stand these films; I’m writing this review as I am watching the film. I don’t want to bother finishing the film before I write the review.

I sympathize with Clouseau's employer, gah, I would want to tear my hair out if I was in that situation.

Nights of Cambiria (1957)

This was a very sweet, but sadly depressing film about a middle-age woman looking for love, in all the wrong places. The film shows her going out at night meeting men who only want to take advantage or her, or rob her by making her think he loves her. The ending for me was ambiguous; I wasn’t sure if she had made a resolution with herself, or if she was only setting herself up to fall into the same cycle again.

What I loved about this film is that the main character is played by Giulietta Masina. She was fabulous in this role; special nod to the scene where she busts a move in the dance club. I wish I had rhythm like her, hehe.

The style of the film, to me, was typically Fellini. Some of the scenes did not seem to have a motive because he seemed to be capturing the mood and feelings of the characters, rather than create a tight causality with each scene.

This film did not win me over at first because I did not understand the motive that Fellini was trying to create. Throughout the last part of the film the audience is lead to believe that Masina’s character will end up happy with her new beau, but not to ruin it, but the results are not positive with their relationship.

I say this film is worth checking out, just be wary that it is not light. Also because of it’s loose narrative structure, the first half of the film may seem dull, but trust me, it is an interesting fair.

La Strada (1954) and a couple references to other films I love

You know the times when you come across a movie by chance, a movie you have no prior knowledge of, but you know something about the director, or you heard of one of the actors in the films and you’re completely floored afterwards because you’re so surprised that a movie could have such an impact on how you look at life. I can say that this film is one of them. Films that have such an effect on me, after first viewing, need time to get under my skin. I Heart Huckabees, my favourite film of all time, wasn’t my favourite film after the first time I watched it. I have to let my thoughts evolve over time, until I can acknowledge that, wow that film was special to me. I’m also writing this review almost a week after I watched the film. Just thinking about it over the past 5 days has made me adore the film so much more. Therefore, as you may have already suspected, this blog is not so much a review/critique of this film, than a peek into the personal connection I felt (hint: I’m a huge film geek, and this blog is very self-indulgent).

Well, if I still have your attention, La Strada was really good because I loved Giulietta Masina’s character. She plays a young woman who is taken away by a traveling performer who treats her like shit for the whole time that they are together. What I loved loved loved about Giulietta’s character is she plays this kind of feminine version of Charlie Chaplin’s Tramp character; it’s awesome. Her facial expression is priceless throughout the film (She was even my msn pic for a few days, I might change is back again!). She is so hopeful when it looks like Anthony Quinn's character is going to show her some attention, and then she looks so heartbroken everytime he lets her down. I wanted to cry out of empathy at least half a dozen times. I feel the same about the main character in I Heart Huckabees. I loved the Jason Schwartzman character. He's so devastated with the Open Space's charter, that he started, kicks him out and then all the times Jude Law's character leads him to believe that he is on Schwartzman's side. I feel that both of these characters are capable of having both virtues and vices. Characters who are able to show both sides of the coin are definitely strong characters. Raging Bull’s main character Jake La Mota also portrays strong virtues and vices. I feel like these types of characters are real, and that they are more identifiable because they are at a natural level of human nature, that some films butcher off by creating “stereotype” characters for “so-called” audience identification (I think stereotypes are entertaining, for what they’re worth, but in the end they’re like eating a full box of Kraft Dinner, so decadent at the time, but after 20 minutes reality hits, and I have indigestion)

La Strada has great chemistry between the two main characters. Even though the chemistry is meant to be a constant love/hate relationship, the way it is presented on screen makes you want them to stay together, so you can experience the struggles and obstacles that present themselves during their close relationship.

What makes the chemistry so strong between Masina and Quinn is that they want and can only handle something particular from their relationship. Masina’s character wants to be close with Quinn, and she bends over backwards to please him. She likes the attention he gives her, when he occasionally gives it to her. Quinn wants to have Masina as a companion, but can’t handle having her as an intimately close companion. He often times holds her out at arm’s length and beret’s her when she is close to breaking the glass between them.

For me, this was the strongest trait in the film. While cinematography, music, dialogue and editing were also well done in this film, I have to say from a personal stand point the chemistry between the two characters carries the film from start to finish. The ending was sad, but very poignant. I was touched by it without question.

Match Point (2005)

This was a great movie. There were so many heavy elements involved; Jealous, lust, mystery, and murder. For anyone who loves The Talented Mr. Ripley, this is a movie for you; not to give away the story line (it’s not identical to Ripley either). I really enjoyed this film, particularly because my loyalties during the film changed characters. At first I was sympathetic toward Scarlett Johansson, but then I change my mind to Rhys-Meyers, then to Emily Mortimer and it didn’t stop there. I like movies that challenge me to question which character is being victimized, and which character is evil in the end. At the end of the film there is not question who the evil character is, ya gotta watch it to find out though!

Johansson’s character reminded me of the character Christina Ricci played in a previous Woody Allen film, Anything Else. She’s an obnoxiously, self-righteous person, who is able to capture the attention of any man weak enough to succumb to her will. For the supporting characters, they did a good job at creating an ensemble-cast atmosphere. Scenes with the characters in a group had great chemistry, the audience feels as if they have a natural good rapport together, rather than a fabricated performative attachment to one another.

The cinematography was also good. It is like all other Woody Allen films I have seen. That’s a good thing.

What I liked about the film overall, is that it was not self-consciously neurotic like other films sorry. Sorry that I am constantly comparing this film to previous Woody Allen films, but it seems appropriate since Match Point proves to divert in some ways away from most of his other films.

For the general movie enjoyer, this is a movie definitely worth checking it. It does not fail to keep your attention.

Stardust Memories (1980)

This is the most narcissistic film by Woody Allen I’ve seen to date. It’s pretty much a 90 minute self-indulgent fair of how Allen saw his career as of 1980. Cinematically and all that mumbo-jumbo this is a good film; it has a lot going for it including script, visuals and cast. At times the film is way too busy. That was probably Allen’s intention because he was depicting how he is always being bombarded by people talking at him, not to him. A line in particular I liked that was repeated: “we enjoy your films, in particular the early funny ones”. The scenes with one of his love interests having a meltdown was well done, consisting of jump-cuts of an extreme-close-up of her face.

Like always it’s not believable that all his love interests would actually be interested in Allen, physically. He’s an awkward guy, and he obviously exaggerates it in his films, as a gimmick. Not to say that a lot of people don’t act the same way in their head, it’s just sometimes too much to see it in a film.

Overall, like the DVDs leaflet says, this film is misunderstood. The narrative is non-linear making it easily confusing; you pretty much need to watch it knowing that the next scene will probably not link directly to the current scene. Watching Stardust Memories, I was reminded of La Dolce Vita, maybe it’s an homage to the critically recognized Fellini film? I haven’t checked any sources yet so I’ll find out soon; I just didn’t want other people’s opinions to taint my thoughts on the film.

Stardust Memories is worth checking out if you want to get a hyperbole of Allen’s psychologically deconstructive style. It just occurred to me that perhaps the non-linear narrative is a representation of Allen depicting how a person’s thoughts tend to be scattered, until organized and presented through an outlet. From this, it can be taken that Stardust Memories stands out from his other films because it takes a more literal approach to Allen’s egoism. It’s sure to not disappoint.

Mission: Impossible 1 & 3

I’m writing this review because I had recently seen M:I:3, but didn’t feel like commenting on it immediately. Today I picked up M:I:1 from the library and man I gotta get some things off my chest. I’m not going to criticize this franchise; I think it’s great, the theme song really gets me going.

So this M:I:1 is good. What I find interesting about this franchise is that Cruise picks a different director to take on each film, therefore making it harder to denounce any specific director for ruining the films, if one does not go over well. To compare #1 to #3, there are probably an equal amount of similarities and differences. For similarities, there is intrigue (Tom Cruise wearing the awesome fake faces), there are ex-plo-si-ons! (cars crashing and setting on fire, can’t beat that), and there are disloyalties (I’m getting better at not being fooled, haha).

The differences I found were more on the technical side. The cinematography in #1 is more straightforward with baker's dozens of dutch tilts (you’d think De Palma gets off to these angles there are so many). The cinematography in #3 was a lot cooler. J.J. Abrams takes the cake with his lighting, colouring, and composition (no competition). De Palma’s style in comparison seems one dimensional, if I can say that, probably because the guy idolizes the stark, yet efficient stylings of the one and only Howard Hawks and A. Hitchcock (a.k.a. rip-off artist). Another difference is the story. I have to like #1 for the story because it is so much more intricate and detailed than #3. There’s not much mystery in #3 because audiences have been through the same whodunnit twice with M:I.

Side rant, the gadgets used on the film deserve to be singled out. In M:I it’s hilarious how sending e-mails was given such attention. Being released in ’96 when the internet was just breaking into the mainstream made it seem so high tech to connect to other computers through a modem (looky there ma, it’s going at 24.4 kps). The cell phone in #1 is also pretty ancient too, it’s pretty funny watching in now. M:I:3 technology was what ever it wanted to be. I can’t remember anything specific, but it was pretty much anything your eye could imagine.

So, not to ignore M:I:2, because it did happen between these two films, I can’t really comment on it much. I should watch it again, but like I said I needed to say my piece pour numèro un et numèro trois. Les deux sont les bons films, et je crois que la majorité des gens vont l’aimer.

À Bientôt!

The Strokes – Ricoh Coliseum – May 6, 2006

Wow! This was a great show. I’m writing this 2 days after the show, so I feel like I may have lost some of the essence of how I felt before, during, and right after the show, but I will try to be as accurate as I can. I already read a favorable review in the paper, but that won’t change my opinion; of course it was a good show, anyone who didn’t enjoy themselves is crazy, or they don’t know how to enjoy themselves.

First off, before the show I noticed there were many teenagers, a.k.a. kids. Now normally I would have been ticked that so many lil ones might wretch my Strokes experience, but I was proved wrong. Before the show, as I’m standing around near the stage, they’re all in front of me, being obnoxious, but I wasn’t irritated, I was calm because I knew I’d be seeing The Strokes soon, woo. Also, very important, it took 2 seconds for me to realize, hey these kids probably have been to 2 maybe 3 concerts before, at the most, therefore they don’t have any concert etiquette, and I’m totally going to be able to use this to my advantage. By mid-show I was twice as close to the stage as I started, those kids have no idea how to stand on their own ground, literally!

The opening band, Most Serene Republic, was pretty good, I enjoyed their performance. They seemed very excited to be opening for The Strokes, so excited that they mentioned The Strokes 3 or 4 times during their set, and then blurting out their name finally, at the very end (way to self-promote, haha). Special attention to the bassist; from the very beginning he was the most excited to be playing on stage. I immediately dubbed him
“Arigato Bassist” because he was seemed literally thankful to be on stage by jamming really hard and dancing around. Toward the end, the band leader said the bassist name was Simon and he had just joined them yesterday (not a bad place to start with a band).

The Strokes set was awesome. I’m going to break their set into three chronological sections, I enjoyed each differently. The first part I was so excited to see them on stage (like everyone else). I must have sung along with at least 3 songs. The first song was the new single “Heart in Cage”, and I know Juicebox was in there somewhere; point being, I was having a concert high off the first bat. The view at this time wasn’t great, it could have been better, but it was fair. Toward the end of the first part, Tall Boys (a.k.a. guys that are over 6 feet) were getting in my way and I was actually so bold for the first time ever and tapped them on the shoulder and said very pleasantly “Hey I’m shorter than you, can I stand in front of you”. This ended up making the concert for me (If I didn’t see Julian whaling away, or study Nic’s steady, straight-forward bass, I would have been pissed). Guitarist: Nicholas was definitely a show stopped for me, I never gave him much attention, but seeing how he was doing all the cool parts, and that he was the closest to where I was standing, I couldn’t look past him.

The second section was probably my favourite. I’m going to say that I started off with “Ize of the World”. Seeing how that’s my favourite song off the album, it has to represent a landmark of the set. This section was really energetic I had had a great time, because I had a really good spot to stand. I should note that where I was standing for the first part had the best sound because I was off to the side so I was getting all the side amps right at me (but of course, not the best view). My memory is failing me, I really can’t remember completely what songs were playing here and then I the last section.

The majority of the set, to be honest, consisted of their singles. They did do a Lou Reed cover of “Take a Walk on The Wild Side” which was pretty cool. And they did a few mellow songs to break up their electric power-punch rocker rock! Oh yeah!

They ended with a 3 song encore, which was cool (the concert would have been less than 90 minutes if they didn’t, good thing they kept going); New York City Cops, Hawaii, and Is This It.

They ended up playing all the songs I wanted to hear which was very satisfying. Seeing them 4 years later, they played a lot better (in terms of crowd appreciation); first time around, at the Skydome, Julian barely acknowledged the crowd, even though it was a good show, he also seemed more conscious this time around, also. However, Julian did mess up the set list like 5 times, throughout the show he’d say “Ok, now we’re going to play…” then the band would be confused, and Julian would be all cute and say “oops, ok, we’re playing this now”, Silly boy.

I ended up not buying a shirt at the show and I’m glad I didn’t. The designs were nothing special, and I would have felt really uncool wearing it at the same time that dozens and dozens of kids decided to wear their freshly pressed shirts during the concert.

I can’t think of anything else from the show. Afterward, my friend Nicole and I were exhausted because we had been on our feet for 6 hours, but it was soo worth it! This concert was definitely one of the two best shows I’ve seen so far this year (the other being Stars at Winterlude, wooo!)

Bring on The Dears at Tulip Festival, word.

United 93 (2006)

Wow!
This movie was intense; I highly, highly recommend seeing this film because it's extremely engaging. I think the reason why I was so captured by this film is because it did not require very much back story explaination. Unless you've been living under a rock, (and you're probably dead if you are) you know the story behind Flight 93.
Another reason why I found this movie incredible is because there were no celebrities in the film that would draw attention away with their star personas. Having all unknowns playing the self-sacrificing heros on the plane increased my relatability to the characters; I felt myself almost crying sometimes.
The pacing was also very good. It moved along quite fast, but was able to respect moments of emotion between the passengers and their loved ones.
The cinematography was also well done (I know I could probably justify saying 'well done' about any aspect of the film).
So I shouldn't say anything else because it might ruin the experience of watching this film.
Point Blank: don't pass it over.

Torn Curtain (1966)

Note to reader: this blog may seem dull because my thoughts on the film are a tad unfavourable.

Torn Curtain is one of those Hitchcock films that is not outstanding. There is something about this kind of film by Hitchcock that does not strike a chord. Torn Curtain is about a spy who goes into East Berlin during the times of the Iron Curtain, the title depicting a hole in this system.
What makes the film weak is that is spends too much time depicting the historical events that the story takes place in. True, Hitchcock does stay accurate in his account of the time, however, the general film suffers because it does not carry the psychological intrigue that he is more famous for. Other films he directed: Topaz, depicting the time of the Cuban missile Crisis, and, Under Capricorn, presenting characters living in colonial Australia are two other examples where Hitchcock gets too wrapped up in setting the stage, that the character depth is missing.
Films dealing with internal struggle: Marnie, Rebecca, Spellbound, and Shadow of a Doubt are all exceptional films and stand out on their own also. I think what sets the historical films apart from Hitchcock's internationally recognized films is that they feel more limited since they can appeal more to an audience who is interested in that particular issue in history. Nevertheless, it is unfair to say that these films have no character development, it is only that the flow of his film conventions are constantly being interrupted by needing to update the event unfolding, rather than the characters psychology.
This is also a shame because the two leading actors are indeed famous: Paul Newman, and Julie Andrews. For me personally Newman is mostly just a pretty boy, and Andrews will never get over her Disney-like persona, so I wasn't expecting much from this film. The fact that this film is also not as recognized as Hitchcock's other works, shows that this film does not have legs. The fact that I referenced half a dozen other Hitchcock films in this review also illustrates how this film has no legs (of course not that I'm obsessed with legs).
As an after thought, this film is worth watching if you really want to see the range of films that Hitchcock created during his career. Out of the three historical films I mentioned, I'd say Under Capricorn is the best (because there are some good plots twists going on).

Bringing Up Baby (1938)

This movie staring Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn, directed by Howard Hawks was a cute film and very enjoyable to watch. The chemistry between Cary and Katharine is great. Cary plays a bumbling awkward chap and Katharine plays the always-in-your-face dear who doesn't know better, one would say it's fate?
The whole film revolves around Katharine getting in the way of Cary, ruining his established life as a zoologist and his soon to be marriage. The film goes from hijink, to misadventure, to zanky, wacky fun. This is probably one of Hawks best films!
Personally, I don't know how audiences back then could take this constant intake of wild affairs; these screwball comedies really have a knack for overwhelming their audiences, I'd say they're the equivalent of channel-surfing and trying to catch all the content of each channel. This style does make for good fun if you can stomach it; another way to put it, it's like a verbal rollercoaster ride in low-fi black and white, gotta love the vintage look.
This film does Cary Grant a lot of justice, he's so charming and handsome, I'm not surprised that Katharine didn't keep her mitts off him . He never holds a grudge against Katharine also, even though there are many trying times throughout the film. Katharine, from the very beginning, rubbed me the wrong way. She's the hyperbole of irritating girls everywhere (I know i fit in this category sometimes, geez, this is a lesson of how not to develop your personality).
I wasn't convinced at the end when Cary finally told Katherine he loved her. It was right after she ignorantly ruined the dinosaur display that he was working on for 4 odd years or so. He must have been thinking she'll finally shut up if I just go along with what she wants (after all it didn't look like his life was going anywhere after she entered it).
Anyway, I definitely recommend this film for anyone looking for a slick screwball comedy. On my personal reflection I have to say that it is better than past films of this genre that I have seen.

Shopgirl (2005)

Unfortunately I was disappointed with Shopgirl for a few reasons. This movie was mostly just creepy to watch. The chemistry between an older man and I younger woman sometimes works, but in this case there is nothing there, but maybe that was what they were going for.
The one thing I loved about this film (and it was worth watching it just for it) was that Jason Schwartzman played one of the leading men. He did not get as much screen time as I would have liked. But good ol Schwartzman was up to his lovable buffoonery that it was hard not to finish watching the movie to see what crazy hijinks he'd get himself into (special mention goes out to the scene he is caught jerking off unknowingly).
Overall, however, this movie does not add up. It tries to play with the always edge-of-your-seat love triangle, but since Schwartzman's character is oblivious to Steve Martin there's not much of a competition between them for Claire Danes' affection.
The cinematography during most of the intimate scenes were just down-right narsty. The romantic lighting and deep orchestral music made the relationship seem perverted. Neither Claire or Steve seem to be enjoying it, ich. Just talking about it makes me cringe; I'll just leave it there.
It ended off too cleaning and left a lot of questions unanswered. The premise of the film overall seemed like an interesting idea, but the execution was like a blindfolded man shooting a gun at a target. For one Steve Martin should not have been cast as the leading man. He's good at comedy, but creepy old man just makes me pity him. Clare Danes was alright in her role, but she mostly seemed uncomfortable with her environment. And of course I have no qualms with Jason Schwartzman, he's wonderful in this film (I would not have seen it without him!)

Awesome female actors!

Women I aspire to be like: Catherine Keener, Gilda Radner, and Catherine O’Hara
All these women have something in common, they’re cool, strong bold women in the entertainment industry. They are also some of the few women that I respect as comedians/actors because they have an element of realism in their performances.
Gilda Radner unfortunately passed away from cancer in the 80s and was unable to expand her career much further after SNL. Gilda was the silly girl on SNL, who at the same time could hold the attention of any man in the room.
Keener is a classy dame who I hold adoration toward because she’s so real on camera.
You may be thinking: “Wow Julia, you really want to be a woman who trips up guys with her female sexuality”, but no, I have to contest, it’s not just that. I have to admit my opinion is partially influenced from years of reading Johanna Schneller Globe & Mail columns (she can really write with spunk). I really think there’s more than that bold attitude these women have that makes me want to be with them…I have to say, they’re women with balls, they know what they want, and they know how to use their femininity to get it. They have a good sense of fashion, but they can also play with the big boys as the coined phrase goes. They are able to play their roles smartly and they also have diverse range when it comes to their parts.
Catherine Keener has gone from bureaucratic dominatrix in Being John Malcovich to keepin’ it real mummy in 40 Year Old Virgin, to a humble Harper Lee in Capote.
Gilda Radner, while on SNL, could play bumbling naïve high school girl, to suave socialite, to girl next door in a single episode.
Catherine O’Hara is probably the more underrated of the three women. Most of her roles are in comedy, but she plays everything with heart, and always gets it right.
These ladies have raw energy, which the feed their performances from. What I like about them is that they don’t play up the slutty factor like those femme fatales Angelina Jolie, Sharon Stone, Halle Berry. I have nothing against these women; I just don’t aspire to be like them.
Young women to look out for who fit this classy category: Scarlett Johansson, Maggie Gyllenhaal (note: Scarlett was probably shit-faced when she hosted SNL months ago, but just made it part of the fun, haha).

How soon is now? (The Smiths)

I was listening to this song on the bus home today from school, and it just blew me away. I’ve heard this song dozens of times, but it has been months since I last listened to it. Something about listening to an emotionally deep song after not hearing it for a while is a great experience.
The lyrics are so true to human nature you can’t help but open your eyes wider at the utter truth it speaks. The lines about being human and needing to be loved, because everybody else does, that’s so true; who doesn’t have that mentality about their existence. I really think this song is universal in so many ways. The line about going to a club to meet someone, but then you leave alone; who hasn’t had that experience in one way or another. The whole theme of rejection is so powerful in the song it’s indescribable, if you haven’t heard it, do it now!
Morrissey’s voice is so rich yet at the same time has a hollow/empty sound; it’s an aural orgasm where there’s a climax whenever his voice goes up an octave or two. A countless number of other people have tried to imitate his vocals. (to me Morrissey’s voice is like coca cola, you can’t beat the real thing!)
The musical arrangement can stand alone it’s so good. I don’t know what instrument was used for the edgy synthetic sound (maybe a synth?) but it works so well. It’s an anxious sounding rhythm, but it doesn’t make the listened feel anxious, it’s a calming/relaxed anxiety. It’s a non-verbal way that illustrates that everyone experiences rejection so they feel anxious, but they know they are not the only one.

The Squid and the Whale (2005)

I thought this was a pretty good movie. I have to be honest though, I was expecting something slower paced. This movie is about the emotional breakdown of a family that undergoes the parents’ divorce. There are many bitter sentiments that are exchanged in this family, and I’d say it was an accurate account of the feelings each member would go through. However, I also thought the film’s pacing was way too rushed, and as a result of that I could not enjoy watching it. The pacing gave me anxiety, and I was waiting desperately for some slower paced scenes. Maybe the pacing was done in this fashion for the purpose of creating anxiety; in that case it is successful, in my opinion.
Some side notes that I enjoyed about this film; Wes Anderson co-produced this film and it is pretty evident in the style of the film, specifically the dialogue that he was involved in this project. The other side note is that they reference the first Godard film “Breathless” in one of the later scenes when the husband calls his ex-wife a bitch in sign language, haha!
I thought the scene where the title is explained was very poignant. It said a lot about what the family once was before too much pressure ripped them apart.
The cinematography mostly added to my anxiety that was created in the pacing. With the majority of the film being shot handheld it seemed like they were rushing through the scenes and that they only had a limited amount of time to shoot the film. It makes me wonder how long the production period of this film was.
The acting was really well done; I thought that the characters had great chemistry. Props goes out to Billy Baldwin for his underrated portrayal of a would-be tennis pro who becomes involved with the wife. He’s hardly on screen and has hardly any lines, but he still steals the show, you said it brother!
Anna Paquin as the college student who has an affair with the husband was just gross. Jeff Daniels played her dad in “Fly away Home”, that’s incent.
Overall, I recommend this film to anyone looking for a good family melodrama, it does not disappoint