It's My TV….It's My Peanut Butter

Written by: Chaz Thorne

Directed by: Chaz Thorne

Okay, I watched this one at my friends’ house right after we watched Ahhh!  Zombies! Once again I was not taking notes while watching, so this review might be less detailed than normal.

This movie is a dark romantic comedy about a man who inherits a funeral home in a town where no one seems to be dying, falls for the cute but kinda creepy mortician, and finds some creative solutions to their business problems (read:  they start killing people).

It’s very dark (as one would suspect judging by the subject matter) and yet strangely cute also (as one would not necessarily expect).  Rose Byrne does a particularly good job of making her character attractive despite her whole tendency to kill people.  Jay Baruchel makes his character’s evolution thought out extremely clear, which I liked.

My only minor complaint was that the last scene seemed jarring in a way that didn’t help the film over all for me.  I wouldn’t change the ending narratively, just something about the way that scene unfolds.

Rating:  four out of five jars of peanut butter

I know, I know, I normally do reviews on Wednesday.  Well I watched this today, so lucky you get to read this today.

Wasting Away (Netflix had it listed as Aaah!  Zombies)

Written by:  Matthew Kohnen, Sean Kohnen

Directed by:  Matthew Kohnen

Let me start by saying that I didn’t have anything to write on while watching, so this will be a little different, a little more general.

First of all, something about the Netflix description gave me the impression that this is a mockumentary.  It’s not.  What it is is a zombie movie in which the good guys are the zombies.  Generally speaking it succeeds in making them sympathetic.  Mostly we’re following around a group of hapless 20 somethings and their army buddy the encounter.

The movie has plenty of flaws.  I think the directing is a little weak–I know that Michael Grant Terry is a good actor because I’ve seen him on  Bones. But either he’s improved a lot since then or he was badly directed.  The characters are caricatures and lack depth, but I think that’s intentional, so hard to criticize too much.  There are several plot holes, but who cares.  It’s simply not the kind of movie where you really expect the plot to make sense.

But it’s cute.  It’s fun.  It’s a long way from great, but it’s an enjoyable watch.  I would say not worth watching all alone, but in a gathering with friends and alcohol you could do a lot worse.

Fun, but not great.  I give it two and  a==a ah

Sex and Lucía (2001)

Directed by: Julio Medem

Written by:  Julio Medem

I put this film on my Netflix cue because my crazy ex-roommate was moderately obsessed with it.  I didn’t really know what to expect because sometimes her tastes and mine align perfectly and sometimes they don’t intersect at all.  Warning:  This review contains massive spoilers, in as much as I understand what the hell happened in this movie, which is to be honest, kind of minor.

Things I didn’t like: Some of the close ups of the moon are a little cheesy and cliché as are a couple of close ups of Lorenzo and Lucía running.  Perhaps in 2001 these were cooler than they are now.  It’s likely more of a symptom of my lack of a romantic streak than anything, but I have a hard time buying the whole premise of Lorenzo and Lucía’s relationship.  If I was a famous writer and some waitress showed up, admitted to stalking me and asked to move in, I’d call the cops, not go out drinking with her.  Luna’s adorable, but there is no way I buy that kid as four years old.  There are a lot of boobs.  Mostly those of Paz Vega.  And they’re very nice, but that’s not my actual complaint.  My complaint is Paz Vega’s hip bones—girl is disturbingly skinny from the waist down and that kind of freaked me out.  I’m going to suggest you not watch this one with the parents or the children (if the name didn’t clue you in to the fact that there’s a lot of sex in this movie, I don’t know what I can do to help you.)  The subtitles aren’t great.  I speak Spanish fluently, but I speak Latin American Spanish, not Spanish Spanish.  So I generally didn’t need the subtitles but glanced down at them to help with accent issues only to discover in a lot of places they aren’t really good translations.

Things I did like: Other than the exceptions mentioned above the camera work is very nice.  There’s some cool use of mirrors in Lorenzo and Lucía’s apartment.  The image of Luna pulling on Lorenzo’s hand as he makes out with Belen is disturbing, but I’m guessing that’s intentional and it did what it was supposed to.  The bleached out appearance of the scenes on the island is a little cliché, but it works.  And in this film it’s nice to have all the cues possible to delineate time and space.  I like the gratuitous use of really wide shots in the island scenes because it kind of captures the way I often feel at the beach—tiny, insignificant, dwarfed by nature.  I like the score, especially the use of simple piano music—it’s moody without being obtrusively so.  I’m really glad that the mauling is suggested and not actually shown.  I was genuinely surprised by Lorenzo being alive, and as a soap/sci-fi fan I almost never believe that anyone’s dead unless I see the body.  So either I’m losing it or the film did a good job.  As I’ve said, I have no clue what this movie was about, but for some reason it doesn’t bother me like it usually does.  I like the way the ambiguity of the whole thing—it’s dream like without being overly pretentious and does a good job capturing the experience of writing.  When you create your own world it is sometimes difficult to tell where it ends.

Rating:  Three and a half out of five jars of peanut butter

Driving Lessons

Director:  Jeremy Brock

Writer:  Jeremy Brock

Have you all missed me writing reviews of movies that have been out for ages?  Yeah, I didn’t figure, but it’s back (briefly, I haven’t had time to watch more than one).  I was over at a friend’s the other night and we decided to watch a movie.  Having just finished finals season we all requested something funny.  He recommended Driving Lessons.

Now let me be clear: it’s not a bad movie.  And it has some funny moments.  But it’s not over all a laugh out loud kind of movie.  And it’s one that hurts a little.  Not exactly what we were looking for to de-stress.  It’s not quite as extreme as when I told Cammy I wanted something light and she picked out Australia (which is a good movie, but not that funny.  Cammy seems to believe that the scene where one of the guys shoots a kangaroo is hysterical.  I… didn’t think it was that funny.)  (Side note:  Like Cammy my friend J felt very guilty for recommending a movie we didn’t find that funny.  I told him the Australia story to make him feel better.  His response:  “Yeah, but isn’t Hugh Jackman really hot in that movie?”  It should be noted that yes, Hugh Jackman is extremely hot.  Just about all the time.)

Anyway, I had never heard of Driving Lessons before.  My friend M had and she said that she remembered it being advertised with “Rupert Grint can play someone other than Ron!”  The trouble is… Rupert Grint doesn’t really do a whole lot during this film.  Yes, the whole movie is about him, but he’s really a mostly blank canvas who has crazy things going on around him.  He sort of reacts to some of them, but not all that much, really.  This isn’t a criticism—he’s clearly written and directed to be that way.  It’s just not something that convinces me of his amazing acting skills.

I was drawn to the movie because part of the plot revolves around Grint’s character Ben dealing with an evangelical mother.  Having taught at an evangelical school for a year, I tend to enjoy things that make fun of evangelicals (humor often stems from recognition).  There are some funny parts related to that, but if this movie is any indication, British evangelicals are different than American ones.  Much tamer by comparison.  Having seen the genuine American article, it’s hard to be properly put off by their mild counterparts across the pond.

Over all, the movie is fairly British.  And while I know enough to understand the context, it doesn’t necessarily resonate.  Sometimes as an American it’s just hard to be shocked by behavior that the Brits consider outlandish.  The style of humor is something I associate more with British films—more The Office style than Monty Python.  A lot of it’s built completely on awkwardness.  And it’s a little grittier than American humor tends to be—it’s hard to describe, but you probably know what I’m talking about.  Even the funny moments have a little more an edge to them.

There are some things I loved about the movie.  For one thing, I appreciate that the Brits know how to use subtlety and that they trust their audience enough to believe they can draw conclusions on their own.  No one ever tells the viewers that Ben’s mum is a hypocrite, but we all figure it out.  No one ever sits down and explains to us that his parents’ marriage is falling apart, but we can tell early on.  Molly Weasley (yes, that’s what we’re calling her because as I write this I have no internet and no way to look up the actress’s name) is hysterical and endearing at the same time as has been actress Eve Walton.  She actually reminds me strangely of my grandmother (the good one).

Over all, it’s a solid film.  Just not one I recommend if your goal is to turn off your brain and veg.

Rating:  Three jars of peanut butter.

Notes on a Scandal (2006)

Written by: Patrick Marber (screenplay); Zoe Heller (novel)

Directed by: Richard Eyre

Synopsis: Older, battle-axe teacher, Barbara (Judi Dench), befriends new teacher Sheba (Cate Blanchett), but things take a dark turn when she discovers Sheba is having sex with one of her fifteen year old students.  And then they just get darker…

Things I liked: Narration tells us about the character, also tells us about the setting, and something broader about the world of education today.  As a failed high school teacher I can really sympathize with Sheba’s despair over her failures at classroom management.  There’s actually so much that resonates as a teacher; the drudgery of room after room of students who don’t give a damn and then the one who is really excited that you don’t feel you can do enough to help.  However, I didn’t deal with that the same way Sheba did.  The idea that secrets can be seductive is clearly reiterated with Barbara—nice plot device.  I found Barbara very likeable at the beginning, which makes it all the more shocking when the truth comes out.  Nice.  I’d be interested to see how I’d react to the movie if I were British; Sheba’s family are somewhat typical in their behavior (minus the sex with teenagers) but you can tell that Barbara’s shocked by it.  I’m not sure if we’re to see Barbara as overly stuffy or if it’s cultural.  The class issues are much the same.  The sequence of Barbara in the bath is strange, but affective.  I would have expected it to make her look vulnerable, but it instead emphasizes how bitter and shriveled she is.  The shape of the staircase in Sheba’s house gives you a sense of vertigo in the scene where Steven’s mother arrives and starts beating her.  Barbara vomiting after she’s been told she will have to leave the school parallels her cat in a strange way, but it worked.

Things I liked less: This is one of those situations in which previews ruin an aspect of the movie, because I should be shocked at the moment where Barbara finds Sheba with a student, but, of course, I’ve seen the previews so I knew it was coming.  It’s really hard to sympathize with Sheba over the affair.  You get why she wants to help Steven, but… The speed at which it happens is also a bit shocking—they go from her telling him to go away to getting it on in one hand written note.  I felt like the score was almost overly dramatic at a lot of points.  The pain of losing a cat resonated for me personally and I was honestly appalled by the insensitivity of Richard’s reaction to Barbara’s loss.  I feel like they should have shown us something leading up to this to indicate Sheba’s family had noticed something amiss in their relationship.  Steven’s arrival at Barbara’s house is strange and startling—I felt like there should have been more to that scene.  Frankly, I was confused by the last several scenes, and not in a good way.  The ending is a bit like a horror film—you can see it all starting again.  It’s effective, but a bit cliché.

Rating: It was well done, but I don’t think I’d ever want to watch it again.  Three out of five jars of peanut butter.

Dangerous Liaisons (1988)

Director: Stephen Frears

Writers: Christopher Hampton (play and screenplay), Choderlos de Laclos (novel)

Synopsis: Bored courtiers Marquise de Merteuil (Glenn Close) and Vicomte de Valmont (John Malkovich) toy with the lives and loves around them and deal with the consequences.

Things I liked: The play is kind of another guilty pleasure.  Of course it is—it’s a sordid soap opera.  I don’t love the play, but I enjoy it and was looking forward to seeing it for the first time.  Double entendres are fun “gardening/green fingers”!  The aria the countertenor sings is from Handel’s Xerxes.  Not sure that’s relevant, I’m just showing off my very limited knowledge of opera.  Keaunu Reeves isn’t going to win any acting awards, but he more or less works here since Dancey is a bit of a ditz anyway.

Thinks I didn’t like so much: Sadly my DVD was not widescreen—not the film makers’ fault, but this is one of those eye candy films that probably really needed the wide screen.  The opening sequence shows exactly how much they must go through to get ready in the morning.  That part was interesting and did a good job of orienting the viewer into the time period.  The problem with it is it almost makes Merteuil and Valmont seem like victims of their lifestyle, and I’m not sure it’s the best set up.  I really didn’t find John Malkovich’s Valmont that attractive, which is a major problem for the plot of the film.  There was a very weird sexual vibe between Merteuil and Cecile (Uma Thurman); I’m all about lesbian subtext, but I’m not sure it worked here.  The extreme close ups in the scene where Merteuil explains how she invented herself are strange.  They interfere with the construction of a connection between Valmont and Merteuil.  There are actually several scenes with only two characters where the camera work consists of quick close ups of their faces.  In doing this you lose the sense of connection between the characters.  Several shots of Tourvel (Michelle Pfeiffer) use a soft focus, as if they rubbed Vaseline on the camera lens—it’s just a little over the top.  The first scene with Cecile and Valmont is downright disturbing.  In the play it reads as a scene of seduction—yes, it’s not between equals, yes, he’s taking advantage of her, but the desire goes both ways.  But in the film it reads a lot closer to rape.  There’s a very confusing sequence of Valmont hissing at Volanges (Swoosie Kurtz).  I get they don’t get along, but this was… strange.  Over all I was bothered by the violence towards women in this film.  The whole bit at the end with Tourvel being ill and Dancey and Valmont dueling feels a bit rushed.  The image of Valmont dying in the snow, the overhead shot, all red and black and white is stunning, but doesn’t necessarily fit with the rest of the film.  Merteuil’s ending is a bit hard to follow.  I think I’m supposed to feel something for her as she takes of her make up after being booed out of the opera house (incidentally a sequence that felt rather forced and unrealistic), but I don’t.  I get how it mirrors the beginning of the film; I just don’t really know that it works.

Rating: Two and a half jars of peanut butter

Like Water for Chocolate (1992)

Director: Alfonso Arau

Writer: Laura Esquivel (writer and screenplay)

Summary: Tita is cursed by family tradition to never marry and to spend her life caring for her mother.  Unable to marry her her true love Pedro marries her older sister so that he can be close to her.  Spending most of her life in the kitchen, Tita learns the power that food has to impact the emotions.

Things I liked: I’ll confess the novel is something of a guilty pleasure ever since I read it in and undergraduate Spanish class.  I love food and I love soap opera, so this movie was kind of made for me.  Lumi Cavazos who plays Tita is delightful—she has a wonderfully expressive face, and I like the fact that she’s beautiful, but not typically so.  I didn’t love Marco Leonardi as Pedro, but this could just be that I don’t love Pedro.  The movie gives a clearer picture of Gertrudis’s character than the book did and the actress who played her (Claudette Maillé) was fantastic.  Mama Elena may be a super bitch from hell, but you get why she became this way.  She had to raise a family and run a ranch all alone under very harsh conditions.  It’s no wonder she would become harsh herself.  The portrayal of Dr. Brown (Mario Iván Martínez) as the nerdy American makes me giggle a little at first, and yet, I still wind up wanting Tita to end up with him.  His American accent is far from flawless, but I’ll let it pass.  I’m not sure why American men in Mexican cinema tend to come off as slightly gay, but Dr. Brown definitely does.  Honestly the movie is a little prudish by Mexican standards.  A couple of booby shots, but that’s it.  I love the very end.  It’s all about women and tradition and food—three of my favorite things!

Things I didn’t love: A very minor thing, but I find it somewhat strange that there were no subtitles on the credits (I’m more or less fluent in Spanish, but I don’t necessarily know film terminology, so this was mildly vexing).  I almost felt like the food looked too realistic which at times makes it look unappetizing.  Given the magical quality of Tita’s cooking, I think they could have gotten away with making it a little more pretty.  It seems as though in period films and telenovelas in Mexico they only use period style undergarments when they know they’re going to be seen.  This drives me nuts, but this film is definitely no exception.  I’m fairly certain the only corset in the whole damn movie is the one Gertrudis hangs over the side of the shower.  The moment in which Tita finds out the truth about Gertrudis’s parentage might be a little confusing for anyone who hadn’t read the book—it might be too subtle.  The transition from talk of Tita and John’s wedding to Esperanza and Alex’s was clever, but perhaps the sort of thing that’s over done.  Granted, it’s been eighteen years since this movie came out, so maybe it was a little less trite then.  The part where Tita and Pedro die was also a little confusing, though it’s one of those scenes that is inherently hard to make visual.  I think it might have helped to have our female narrator come in and read the sequence out of the book.

Rating: Though it looks like there are more things I dislike about the movie than like, that’s not true.  3 ¾/5 jars of peanut butter

Dangerous Beauty (1998)

Written by: Margaret Rosenthal (book); Jeannine Dominy

Directed by: Marshall Herskovitz

Synopsis: Tells the “true” (note the quotation marks) story of Veronica Franco (Catherine McCormack) who becomes a Venetian courtesan and popular poet after being unable to marry the man she loves (Rufus Sewell).  He was cruelly forced to marry Naomi Watts because of aristocratic politics.  She becomes highly successful, but eventually runs afoul of the Inquisition (as did all the cool kids back then).

Response: Years ago I remember a friend saying that seeing this film made her want to become a Venetian courtesan.  I can’t say I was totally immune to that.  You really can’t help wanting to be Veronica; she’s beautiful, lives surrounded by luxury and hot men, and can banter at parties in perfect poetic rhyme and meter.  Then you remember that she had to have sex with men based on their purse not their personality, that her ability to socialize with other women was seriously limited, and that the film is probably glossing over some of the more unpleasant aspects of her life.  I’m going to confess I didn’t love Marco as a character (though I always enjoy looking at Rufus Sewell), but I did love the banter between Veronica and Marco, particularly during the period where they were not together.  Oliver Platt who plays Marco’s cousin Maffio, actually breaks my heart, which surprised me, since I’m used to seeing him in comic roles.  I realize he was supposed to be a villain by the end, but even then I couldn’t help feeling sorry for him.  His character makes it clear that in high Venetian society it sucked for men to not have money also.  I love, love the scenes with his and Veronica’s poetry duels; is it wrong that there were moments I was hoping she’d forget Marco and go for his cousin?  There’s a scene where he makes it clear he’d like to trade poetry with her in private and she responds, “We cannot afford each other.”  The look on his face at that moment made me want to give him a hug; well done Mr. Platt.  There may be more nipples in this movie than the prudish viewer might want to see—I wasn’t really bothered by it but I was glad I wasn’t watching with my parents.  It might have been a touch cheesy, but I love the conversation between Beatrice and Veronica in which Beatrice asks Veronica to make her daughter a courtesan.  (trivia:  this scene is based on a letter the actual Veronica wrote to such an inquiry)  It’s one of few scenes in which “honest” women are portrayed sympathetically and makes it clear how much it sucked to be woman back then, even if you did have money.  The trial scene was a little over the top and a little too Hollywood, but I loved it anyway.  I’m a sucker, what can I say?

Visually the film is beautiful from the architecture to the costumes to the cast.  It may idealize certain things, but there are times when I don’t mind ignoring the grit of reality.  I’m actually sitting here writing this wishing I hadn’t mailed it back to Netflix already, so this may be an eventual purchase.  It’s not really a cinematic masterpiece, but it’s a nice confection.

Though I’m not sure I’ll ever be able to eat asparagus without giggling again.

Rating: Four out of five jars of peanut butter

This week I review a foreign film for which I didn’t need subtitles (except with all the sexual slang.  No one taught me those words in Spanish class).

Y tu mamá también (2001)

Directed by: Alfonso Cuarón

Written by: Alfonso Cuarón and Carlos Cuarón

Summary: Two young men, Julio (Gael García Bernal) and Tenoch (Diego Luna), from Mexico City go on a cross country trip with an older woman, Luisa (Maribel Verdú), in the process discover some things about class, sex, and friendship.

Things I liked: When Jano calls Luisa to tell her he cheated on her she’s wearing just a shirt and panties, and the panties are borderline granny panties.  It’s not attractive, but it makes her seem that much more vulnerable and a little pathetic when she gets the news.  There’s also a sequence where Julio is running around in his tighty whities and it’s very unattractive, but kind of supports the idea that he’s not half the stud he thinks he is.  I love the highway scenes on the highway because it really shows the weirdness that is driving the highway in Mexico.  The narration about Tenoch and Julio using each other’s bathrooms highlights the class difference between them very well—it’s a nice way of showing it without hitting you over the heads with it.  The movie seems really determined to constantly bring you back to the harsh realities of life for most Mexicans.  In some places this works wonderfully, but in others it’s just distracting.  One place I particularly liked it was a sequence where Julio, Tenoch and Luisa are driving and through the windows you see a truck of armed soldiers pass them then stop and go after some poor men standing by the side of the road.  What’s particularly telling is that the characters don’t really notice it.  I like that the actors look like real people; okay, I don’t know anyone who looks like Gael Garcia Bernal, but I feel like I could know someone who looks like him.  They aren’t glammed up.  The note that Luisa leaves Jano on the phone really got to me for some reason.  It’s the combination of what she says—a few things that hint at what she’s really feeling then a lot of menial details (“pick up your clothes from the cleaners” etc); that combined with the camera work is really effective.  The camera shots are often distant and that almost makes you feel like a voyeur.  Like you’re spying on these people and aren’t supposed to be watching.  It also allows you to see everything that’s going on and get a full perspective on the characters’ reactions, etc.  When Luisa and Tenoch have sex it’s very obvious he doesn’t know what he’s doing which is realistic when you consider his age.  The camera work when Tenoch and Julio are in the leaf covered pool is beautiful.  Tenoch getting so upset to learn his girlfriend had cheated on him with his best friend, when he has just fucked his cousin’s wife and apparently slept with his best friend’s girl shows a common type of sexual hypocrisy, once again without beating you over the head.  I love the shot where Luisa is saying goodbye to Jano on the phone and reflected in the glass next to her you see the guys playing ping pong.  It beautifully illustrates the differences in what this trip means to him versus her.  I like the way the movie tells you the fate of so many of the people they run into, including the pigs that wreck their campsite.  It kind of highlights the way so many people come in and out of your life and you never know what happens to them.  For whatever reason it’s sadder to me that Julio and Tenoch never saw each other again than it is that Luisa died.  Though to be honest, neither was much of a surprise.  The last line of the film is  a double entendre that doesn’t really translate:  It can either mean “Give me the bill” or “I had a realization.”  Not only do I think that captures a lot about the moment, it allows me to show off my knowledge of Spanish.

Things I liked less: The scene at the beginning with the traffic jam caused by the pedestrian from Michoacán being killed is a little random.  I get that that’s the point, but for me, it really didn’t work.  The scene in the restaurant where the camera leaves our characters and goes into the kitchen where the poor people are cooking and dancing and listening to music.  I get that it’s trying to show the social stratification, but it’s very strange.  Not sure what I think about the way the narration is inserted, where it goes totally silent before the narrator comes in.  I like the narration, I’m just not sure I like the way it’s incorporated.  I wasn’t that bothered by it, but I feel like it needs to be said that there’s a lot of penis in the movie.  Like naked time all over the place.  Don’t watch this one with the parents.

Rating: I was surprised by how much I liked this one, because I’m often annoyed by all those films that are about the “gritty reality of modern life”.  Four out of five jars of peanut butter.

American Pie (1999)

Director: Paul Weitz

Writer: Adam Herz

Okay, so one of my goals in getting a Netflix subscription was that I felt my knowledge of movies was seriously lacking.  While I feel like I’ve seen a lot of movies, there are a lot of movies that people reference all the time that I had no real knowledge of.  And since I claim to be interested in film, I thought that was fairly pathetic.  I wanted to at least get a working knowledge of the “classic” films that everyone should know about.

Now, American Pie may not seem like something you would define in any way as a classic film, but it is one of those movies that it seems like everyone has seen.  Cammy’s mom has seen it twice.  But yours truly?  Never seen it.  And it gets referenced constantly.  I mean, by this point I know what happened this one time at band camp and I’m totally aware of what really happened to the pie.  But I still felt like I should see it.  I wasn’t expecting a cinematic masterpiece, but since so many people love it, and it sparked I don’t know how many sequels, I figured it should at least be an entertaining way to spend a Saturday afternoon.

Yeah… I don’t get it.  I disliked it so much I wasn’t even going to write a review of it.  Because do I really need to write a blog post just to say, “American Pie is stupid”?  But then I was talking to my mother on the phone and mentioned that this summer I’ve been trying to get my money’s worth out of my Netflix subscription.  She asked what movies I’d seen and I mentioned that I’d just seen American Pie and didn’t care for it.  Immediately she said, “Oh, I’m so glad to hear you say that!  I thought I was just too old!”

So here’s the real theme of this review:  If you didn’t like American Pie it’s not your fault.  The movie really is that bad.

Now maybe at the ripe old age of thirty I’m also too old.  And maybe it’s because I’m not a guy.  And maybe it’s because I’m a snob.  Or maybe it’s because I have a brain.  But I just couldn’t really enjoy this movie.  There are some parts that are funny, but not funny enough to make up for the fact that the movie isn’t very good.  I huge part of it is that I found the characters to be totally abhorrent.  And stupid.  I mean, the worst part of the scene where Jim gets caught getting it on with a pie is that he was so stupid about the whole thing.  Okay, you want to fuck a pie, that’s none of my business, but at least take it to your room!  But back to abhorrent.  Many parts of this movie are downright disturbing when you think about them.  Like the scene where Jim uses a webcam to spy on Nadia while she’s changing.  But then this somehow becomes okay because it turns out that Nadia is a slutty exhibitionist.  What message does this send to young guys?  They could have saved it if Jim popping his cork twice rather than actually getting it on with Nadia had been about him getting his due rather than him being humiliated and coming off a victim.  But they didn’t.  I guess it’s a happy ending (I swear I didn’t plan that pun) because all of the guys got some in the end, but… they were such douches I wasn’t rooting for them.  I think the ending where they were all bonding over the final days of their bromance was supposed to be moving, but… it didn’t do it for me.  Because I wanted to kick them all in the nuts.  Also, did other people really go to those parties in high school where people drank beer from kegs and had sex all over the place?  I imagine they might exist, but I never went to anything remotely like that.  Then again, with my group our big end of the year event was a mock 50s prom (one year I wore a Pink Ladies costume and came as a gate crasher).  So it’s possible my high school experience wasn’t… typical.

Okay, okay, I’m going to try to force myself to say some nice things about the film:  The soundtrack was kind of fun in a flashback to undergrad kind of way.  It has a surprisingly good cast for this sort of movie.  Natasha Lyonne (from But I’m a Cheerleader) did a great job as the amusingly sexually empowered Jessica.  Here she was the best part of the cast where in Cheerleader she was almost the weak link.  Hmm… her better performance was in American Pie there’s a phrase you don’t want said about your acting career.  Really that was one of the best parts of movie—playing spot the up and coming actor.  John Cho who would go on to fly the Enterprise is seen at the beginning making out with a picture of Stiffler’s mom.  Eden Riegel who’s had a couple notable soap roles gets puked on at the beginning.  Yeah, a fun game.

All in all I give it 1.5/5 jars of peanut butter.  And that’s on the strength of the acting alone.