(Very) Short Take: "Haywire", "American Reunion" and "The Vow".

Time and time again, Steven Soderbergh should be commended for being perhaps the only mainstream American director who refuses to stop experimenting with the medium. Not all of his experiments are successful but it's his willingness to keep trying that makes him such a valuable filmmaker, for example see Haywire, by hiring MMA star Gina Carano to play the lead in a movie about a female spy, instantly recalls his The Girlfriend Experience in which he hired a porn star to play an escort. To say that none of the ladies were outstanding actresses would be to say too little, but what Soderbergh achieves is to concoct a movie that feels like a documentary combined with exaggerated fiction. Sure, Carano doesn't hold a candle to the effortless way in which Michael Fassbender or Ewan McGregor move onscreen (Channing Tatum gets no such defense) but watching her fight stock actors has the urgency that matches any of their greatest performances. Other Soderbergh flourishes like stopping the score when there's a fight make for a unique experience that sadly doesn't become more than an exciting experiment.  

American Reunion is nothing more than a sad reminder that the more things change the more they stay the same. The entire gang is back (including Mena Suvari!) for their high school reunion and they have silly realizations like how "first loves are forever", "home is where the heart is" etc.

The thing that remains constant is that the film seems to gloat in the fact that these men-children refuse to grow up and celebrates them for it. The notorious Stifler (Seann William Scott) becoming nothing more than a clown who holds any inkling of a grown up life to be completely contemptible. Sure, adult life may not be all fun and games, but there is a larger problem at bay when a movie character is loved because he chooses to exist in complete denial. The movie therefore is never funny or touching - in the way the original was - instead it becomes somewhat of a horror film that like Carrie reminds us that high school can seriously mess up some people.

Pretty people having love problems has become the staple of all Nicholas Sparks movie adaptations...oh wait, what? This isn't based on a Nicholas Sparks book? Could've fooled anyone. This was a much, much better movie when it was called 50 First Dates.

Grades
Haywire **½
The Vow **
American Reunion *

Style Sunday.

I have resented Rachel McAdams throughout most of the year for being so detestable in the glorious Midnight in Paris, however I had to put my grudge aside to commend just how absolutely stunning she looks in this silver, embroidered Marchesa gown. The back is perfection, the draping is long enough to be elegant and her hair and makeup are goddess-like. This must be one of this year's greatest fashion moments!

Oh Diane Kruger, people will start thinking you pay me to flatter your style so much...All I have to say is you are ravishing in this Emilio Pucci dress. (PS: deliver my check to the regular address, XOXO)

Do you resent any actors for the awful characters they've played?

Midnight in Paris ****

Director: Woody Allen

Cast: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Adrien Brody

Alison PillCarla Bruni-Sarkozy, Corey Stoll, Kathy Bates

Kurt Fuller, Léa Seydoux, Marion Cotillard

Mimi Kennedy, Tom Hiddleston

From its opening scene, Midnight in Paris establishes itself as a love song: we see how a series of shots of the city comprise a verse that thrills us because of its familiarity (ooh it's Notre Dame! ooh it's Place Vendome!) and despite its otherworldly beauty.

Paris is one of those cities that becomes universal because of the feelings they inspire even if you have never visited them. Tons of films have been set in Paris, tons of romances have been set there as well and to those less inclined by emotions, the French capital has also been the stage for some of the most revolutionary cultural movements in the world.

It makes absolute sense then, that Woody Allen would fall head over heels for it. Not since Manhattan had he shown such passion for a place as he does in this film. Structured like his iconic ode to New York City, Midnight in Paris is formed by a bookend in which we first develop the crush, a large plot development in which we suffer through the ups and downs of love and a final thought that reminds us, not only of our insignificance but about the immortality of beauty.

Throughout the film, Allen, aided by cinematographer Darius Khondji's breathtaking framing, reminds us that Paris will remain even after we're gone.

Take for example the scene in which we meet Gil Pender (Wilson), our protagonist. We hear him talking to his fiancee Inez (McAdams) about the beauty and romanticism of Paris but we can not see either of them. What we see instead is a huge pond filled with fragile water lilies. For a moment, we're not even sure if we're watching a painting or an actual real life image, Then Gil mentions something about Monet and our mind clicks, but so does the camera and we move to find ourselves in front of the people we're about to meet.

In several other scenes throughout the movie, first we see places and things and only then do the characters enter the scene. The camera is sometimes placed before them, as if suggesting the characters need to catch up with time - and wondering if they ever will be able to do it - and sometimes it seems to wander about trying to take in the riches of a city that's too overwhelming for a films's running time.

The subject of catching up with time might be the plot's biggest preoccupation, as Gil finds himself yearning to live in a different place as his writer's block increases. After working as a Hollywood hired hand- and being quite successful at it- he's trying out a novel for the first time. His trip to Paris is meant to inspire him but all he gets are insults from Inez and her parents (the pitch perfect Kennedy and Fuller).

Things get worse when they run into Paul (Sheen) and Carol (Arianda), two friends of Inez who tag along everywhere they go. He's a pseudo-intellectual who knows it all on the surface, she's the loving companion who nods at his every word.

Allen never has any problem revealing to us that the world that surrounds Gil (who in this film is the "Woody Allen character") is truly atrocious. As he usually does, he has no problem affirming that this is a misunderstood man, perhaps a bit too sensitive to be surrounded by the shrewd beings he knows. Allen has never been good at hiding his disdain for bourgeois apathy and while his characters are never exactly saints of any kind, he has always excelled at making us like them.

Gil for example seems to breathe by inertia, we're meant to dislike Inez (the things she says often make you gasp) but we're not supposed to be rooting for Gil just yet. He needs to earn our liking, he needs to achieve a breakthrough.

Woody provides him this opportunity by relying on a fantastical twist that resembles what he did in his brilliant The Purple Rose of Cairo, as in that occasion, everything happens so fast that we're unable to try and reason. Anyone who cared to deconstruct either movie by ways of physics and probability could probably accuse of them of being truly preposterous. During one scene Inez's mother describes a movie she saw as "infantile" and lacking in any believable qualities, but she doesn't deny it had charm (is she talking about the movie she's in?).

However Allen becomes the ultimate alchemist, turning the dullness of the quotidian into magic that defies the most complicated visual effects. Midnight in Paris gives him an opportunity to bask in his love for the Lost Generation and all things 20s, giving us glimpses of a city where you could run into characters the likes of Hemingway (a phenomenal, scene stealing Stoll), F. Scott Fitzgerald (Hiddleston) and Gertrude Stein (Bates) among others.

Leading us in this tour of a golden era is Marion Cotillard, playing the woman who captures Gil's heart. To reveal the many twists and turns in the movie would be to rob the audience of what can only be called utter pleasure. In the past Allen has expressed his love for classic things, however this might be the first time when he seems to find his voice through others.

While sometimes it might seem like a film meant for culture snobs (and what Allen movie isn't?) Midnight in Paris is also remarkable for its unaware passion for the arts. When Gil says to a character "you take art groupie to a whole new level" he might as well be talking about Allen and the movie.

It's no coincidence that the film seems to be based on the theory that places of great antiquity and history are forever plagued with the ghosts of those who once lived there. At many times during the film there are mentions of the main character in Gil's novel; a young man who owns a nostalgia shop, the places where you can buy old records and Shirley Temple memorabilia.

For some this is an enchanting concept (Cotillard's character is "hooked" by it) while others find it creepy and childish. "Nostalgia is denial" says Paul condescendingly, while Gil looks away finding himself in a place far away from judgment.

The movie toys with the possibility of transporting yourself to a time where everything can be perfect and Allen approaches his everlasting obsession with mortality in a way that makes the heart ache and puts a smile on your face.

We realize eventually that Allen is the shop vendor mentioned so much, he's the one always selling us nostalgia, whether it be his use of music, artistic references or the affected way in which his characters talk (the use of words like "pseudo-intellectual", "lovely" and "erotic" usually give his screenplays away).

Midnight in Paris can be read through countless layers, the magic of its ensemble alone is enough to warrant an essay but like the greatest art what's easiest to discuss, perhaps because it inspires excited, clumsy eloquence, is the feeling that it leaves you with: something that resembles the warmth of a good meal and the exhilarating joy of being in love.

After his last movie which failed to invite us into its dark world, in this one a character reminds Gil that a writer can not succumb to despair, his duty is to find an antidote to the emptiness of existence. Woody Allen seems to have taken this advice and Midnight in Paris is the kind of movie that reminds us that heaven might be a plane ride away.

Sheet-y Saturday.

Where we take a look at posters for upcoming features.

In theory I love the idea behind this poster, yet looking at it I'm not sure I like how it was executed. I think what bugs me is Owen Wilson. When you have Marion, Carla and Rachel in a movie and you still make Owen the center of your poster, you really must like him.

Love that he's in full Woody outfit though.

She is the only reason why I plan on even coming near a theater where they're playing this.

What do you think of these two?

The Wicked Witch of the North (Shore).

"I'm a pain in your rectum
I'm that bitch y'all slept on
Heavy hitter, rhyme splitter, call me Re-Run
Hey, hey, hey, I'm what's happenin'"
- Missy Elliot

Few films capture the horrors of being a teenager in the way Mean Girls does. This first-class satire directed by Mark Waters and written by, Academy Award nomination-robbed, Tina Fey (adapted from a book by Rosalind Wiseman) is a hilarious (in a laugh to keep from crying sort of way) that deals with the lives of a group of teenagers and their interaction with "the plastics": the popular girls everyone hates and loves.
The Queen of them all is Regina George (Rachel McAdams) a girl so hateful that when we first meet here we learn that "evil takes a human form in Regina George."
This gives path to my favorite shot in the film.
Highlighted by Missy Elliot's addictive "Pass That Dutch" we see a blond queen being carried by her faithful slaves.


All of them seem to be honored that they get to be used as Regina's means of transportation. Like a perverse Cleopatra she relishes this moment and makes her subjects know she knows how much they love her for being her slaves.
She smiles at them filled with satisfaction (never disbelief) and we understand that her every wish is fulfilled by them.
However her glow comes with a warning, "don't be fooled cause she may seem like your typical, selfish , backstabbing slut-faced ho bag but in reality she's so much more than that."
And she is, as the plot moves forward Regina makes it clear that her reign will be over when she wants it to be over.
Later in the film we get a bookend to this first glimpse of Regina's glory. After wreaking havoc in her high school and in the process destroying her kingdom she watches the scene with the same sly smile we saw before on her face.


As people around her insult and hit each other she just stands there completely untouchable. It might be because the others are so concerned that they haven't even noticed she's there but we know that to Regina this actually means her subjects are still so terrified and respectful that they would never approach her like they would an ordinary being.
The camera in this shot pulls back and we see that Regina stands above some stairs like a wicked Madonna from a Renaissance tableaux.
Regina's always on top, even when she's not.

This post is part of the "Hit Me With Your Best Shot" series, hosted by the very fetch Nathaniel of The Film Experience.

Oscar Fashion: Best Dressed.

10. Demi Moore

I still have no idea what she was doing there (when did she last release a movie?) but Demi Moore was as usual a treat for the eyes.
Dressed in a ruffled Versace that matched her sublime tan she was one of the night's best (in a night that also happened to have very few-if none at all-disasters).


9. Cameron Diaz

Diaz had never been as beautiful and classy as she was in this beaded Oscar de la Renta. At first it reminds you too much of the gown Reese Witherspoon collected her Best Actress Oscar in but Diaz was a bit more playful with the loose hair and makeup.
She's a total surfer princess.


8. Sigourney Weaver

Lanvin can do no wrong and this design in deep red makes Weaver look both sexy and regal.


7. Zoe Saldana

The following two entries have offered perhaps the most polarized opinions in terms of fashion. Both are huge gambles that might work in a runway but have to pull a little something extra to work in a red carpet but they also worked in my opinion.
First is Saldana in Givenchy. The dress was made out of three main parts which all seemed to be made by different designers.
The top was sparkly joy, the middle was deconstructed delight and the bottom was flamenco fiesta, however, the three elements have beautiful synergy and for someone like Saldana who remained so committed to her character in "Avatar" the dress, with its magical sea creature with sparkles details, seems to have been made by the best couturiers in Pandora.


6. Vera Farmiga

Marchesa gowns at red carpets have become as common as Meryl Streep appearances and the truth is that it's the house that more often pushes the boundaries in terms of what to add to dresses (remember that one Anne Hathaway wore three years ago?).
Farmiga had already donned Marchesa this year for the BAFTA's, where she looked angelical, and this berry colored creation might either take your breath away of bring you memories of 80's proms.


5. Meryl Streep

During the last few years the greatest living actress has been challenging our notions that she wasn't such a good dresser (what she wore the year she was nominated for "The Devil Wears Prada" is still unforgivable) but last year and especially this one she has been amping her fashion cred.
In a simple, but stunning white creation by Chris March she instantly recalls "Now, Voyager" (this and this) and it makes total sense that the legend would want to recall Hollywood's studio era.
Best of all though are her beautiful shoes (which she said she was dying to take off) and that gem encrusted clutch which embody timeless elegance.


4. Penélope Cruz

She might always play it safe (and sometimes even dull) to previous award shows but Pe always saves her best look for Oscar. Wrapped in burgundy Donna Karan she was two parts old school European glamor, one part quintessential American classic.


3. Jennifer Lopez

Some dresses seem to take on a life of their own once they're put on (J. Lo sure knows about this) and this Armani Privé was a perfect example.
She called it "iridescent pink" as she showed anyone who cared to see how the enormous tail moved (OK I know that sounds bad but you know I'm speaking of the dress...).
Not anyone can pull off the kind of dress that doesn't even fit in a seat and J. Lo did it with class and incredibly sensual grace.


2. Sarah Jessica Parker

If last year she was a 1950's princess, Sarah Jessica Parker is all about the wild 60's in this stunning pale canary yellow column dress with jeweled appliques.
Everything about this Chanel Couture dress is perfection. The subtle transition of the pastel to the stronger metallic tones is to die for and the jewelry goes so accordingly that you almost think it's part of the dress.
The whole look is as if SJP had been possessed by a younger version of Julie Christie (the whole thing is straight out of "Darling").
If the clothes goddess is doing a decade theme at the Oscars I'm already salivating at what she'll do for the 70's.


1. Diane Kruger

You don't have to be an expert to know instantly that Diane Kruger is wearing Chanel. If the petal inspired middle section of the dress doesn't tip you off, then the black flowers will or the creamy color that you could almost swear has a faint No. 5 or Coco Mademoiselle scent...
In a nutshell this delicate but imposing work of couture art does more to evoke the legendary house than that dull biopic with Audrey Tautou did and Kruger shows that runways and red carpets sometimes can be the same.

Ever woken up in handcuffs before?

Robert Downey Jr. has.
Read my short notes on "Sherlock Holmes" here.

The Time Traveler's Wife **1/2

Director: Robert Schwentke
Cast: Eric Bana, Rachel McAdams
Ron Livingston, Arliss Howard, Jane McLean, Stephen Tobolowsky

Physics usually makes high school students weep, but the theory behind "The Time Traveler's Wife" is that the lack of physics can also make one shed a tear.
Adapted from the bestseller by Audrey Niffenegger it deals with the doomed romance between, artist, Clare (McAdams) and Henry (Bana) who's a time traveler.
Suffering from an uncontrollable genetic disorder that causes his cells to travel through time, Henry suddenly vanishes and appears naked (his clothes can't travel, something that might inspire jokes about his "Hulk" pants) in a random place and year.
During one of these travels he meets six year old Clare who falls in love with him even though when they meet chronologically years later he has no idea who she is.
It was another version of him who met her. This peculiarity is one of the film's most used dramatic triggers as future Henry comes with warnings and past Henry comes with the looks and tight butt.
When he eventually marries Claire (no spoilers, it's in the title...) present Henry disappears, only to have future Henry-complete with grey hair-save the day and cause his friend Gomez (a pretty annoying Livingston) to say he looks like his grandfather.
Truth is he doesn't, in fact if it wasn't for the dialogues you would never know what Henry is coming from what time frame. This is because the movie desperately needs to be pretty.
It disregards things that might seem too pessimist, like coherent scientific theories to back it up for starters, and dedicates itself to the beauty of its lead stars and all the tearjerking potential it has within.
Therefore we are supposed to be pissed when Henry misses Christmas and sob a little when Clare discovers he might inherit his condition to their children.
The plot doesn't care to discuss more serious matters like the creepy fact that Henry flirts with a six year old or that nobody seems to be surprised by the time traveling five minutes after meeting him.
But who has time for this when there's McAdams looking so luminous or Bana so mischievously hunky?
McAdams makes Clare someone we can root for, but never get to feel involved with, yet the spark in her eyes whenever she sees Henry is enough to forgive her flaws.
Bana gives an amazing performance that often overcomes the plot's limitations. He embodies loneliness with heartbreaking resignation, every time he travels there is a sense of loss in his eyes that says more than any of the trite lines he's given.
Watching the two of them suffer over things that defy the slightest logic it's impossible not to feel guilty about being moved by things so obviously designed to stir up emotion.
The film may not be good, but it knows what it's doing and sticks to the knowledge that the idea of separate lovers will only make the ones in the movie theater snuggle closer.

State of Play **1/2

Director: Kevin Macdonald
Cast: Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck
Rachel McAdams, Jeff Daniels, Robin Wright Penn, Helen Mirren
Jason Bateman, Viola Davis, Michael Berresse

A research assistant working for congressman Stephen Collins (Affleck) dies mysteriously. A man and a pizza deliverer are shot by an unidentified gunman.
Before you can say Clark Kent, Washington Globe reporter Cal McAffrey (Crowe) has found links between both incidents as well as a corporate conspiracy involving senators, sex scandals and hitmen.
Based on Paul Abbott's magnificent miniseries for the BBC, director Macdonald finds himself trying to deliver six hours worth of material in two streamlined hours; with results that often thrill, but never fulfill.
The succession of events is rapid and keeps you interested in the action, especially because new evidence/leads arrive by the minute and for this the film essentially achieves its mission of being one of the only adult thrillers delivered so far this year.
The cast is phenomenal, even if they don't really push their craft too much. Crowe is always fascinating to watch, he inhabits McAffrey in such a way that you never doubt he's been a reporter for almost two decades.
McAdams as ingenue blogger Della Frye brings a sense of girl scout perkiness that flies well with Crowe's more established macho ways (romance between them is never hinted, but there is sexual tension all the time).
Mirren plays editor Cameron Lynne and the role is a walk through the park for her, it requires her just being commanding and elegantly offensive. Wright Penn, who really needs to get herself a leading role, brings a moving sense of despair playing Stephen's cheated wife.
Daniels is wonderful in a limited role, as is the always fascinating Davis (she gets one miserable scene here!). The only inadequate piece is Affleck, who thinks playing a congressman requires him to frown and overuse his squared jaw.
The screenplay remains taut and the changes that have been made from the miniseries actually work (for the most part), there are still some lose ends and some rather Hollywood-esque plot twists (a deranged hitman goes all Terminator on Crowe in the final, unnecessary, showdown).
But mostly the film suffers because it fails to follow one of the guiding rules of journalism; it doesn't choose an angle.
It wants to be about everything, about current politics, about Iraq war profits, about the decease of printed media (which should've been the angle to pick!), plus each of the characters represents a particular point of view.
Cal is all about respect for the the story, Della believes in morality and "the right thing", Cameron thinks about money and company losses and there is just so much going on that the whole movie feels as a work in progress.
Those who can, should stick to the miniseries, those who have not seen it will probably enjoy this movie with all and its typos.

Married Life **

Director: Ira Sachs
Cast: Pierce Brosnan, Chris Cooper, Patricia Clarkson, Rachel McAdams

We get it, life in the 1940's wasn't any better than life in our times.
Which is why one has to look beneath the surface to explain why does Hollywood choose to go back to this time to deconstruct the picket fenced, pastel colored lives of its inhabitants.
A reminder perhaps that old isn't necessarily better? Or a bitter attempt to bring our illusions about nostalgia down to Earth?
Whatever the reason is, and judging from the result of this film, director, Ira Sachs himself has no clue of why he chose this path as he explores love and relationships through the eyes of four characters.
Harry Allen (Cooper) is a successful man in his fifties married to Pat (Clarkson), a devoted wife who believes that love is best embodied by sex.
This leads the romantic Harry to fall in love with young war widow Kay (McAdams) who breathes new life into his existence.
The trouble with Harry is that he just doesn't know how to leave Pat without causing her too much pain and decides that the most humane way would be murder.
When his best friend, and narrator, Richard Langley (Brosnan) becomes infatuated with Kay, the plot gives path to a hybrid of noir, Sirk and Hitchcock on style and dark comedy and drama on genre (with none of the factors coming out unscathed or slightly clear).
With a flawless eye for detail (including title credits that promise more than they deliver) "Married Life" is beautiful to behold, but unlike films of the era to which the aesthetics were inherent and to postmodern essays that choose this setting to deliver a specific message, Sachs goes to the 40s because they sure look pretty.
Shot with a European sensibility, the film often lacks some sort of soul, which is luckily provided by two of the performers.
Cooper brings a sense of decency to this man who contemplates murder in such a complex way that for a minute or two you might find yourself understanding his motives.
While the endlessly surprising Clarkson gives Pat a duality one would've thought was inexistent for a character like hers. She can be completely sweet and dedicated, just as easily as she can become wickedly seductive (and her raspy voice does wonders for this).
McAdams never really musters any sort of passion in order for us to believe she'd make men act like this, but if the intention was to go for a frigid Hitchcock blonde, she's as pretty an ornament as she ever was (and you can argue more if the intention was to sexualize her all American goodness).
But one of the film's major problems comes in the shape of Brosnan, while it's undeniable that he's growing as an actor, the plot throws him into the mix and never really knows what to do with him.
His voice is a perfect choice for noir narration and in theory his looks and charm make him tailor made for this role (one that would've probably been played by Fred McMurray back in the day) but the director makes the fatal mistake of also turning him into his own opinion, a sort of anachronistic intruder that is supposed to work as our mediator.
When events start unfolding and he becomes key part in the futures of the other characters we realize that the film doesn't have the guts to turn into a full farce, has no real respect to be an homage and it also lacks the winks to turn into a parody, making it as lost as the emotions of the people in it.
It's even worse when it's unable to sustain ideals its characters were supposed to have, not because characters aren't allowed to change which would be a ridiculous suggestion, but because it's yet another proof of how the film slips so much in its attempt to distract us with smoldering style.