It's My TV….It's My Peanut Butter

So Netflix recommended this one to me (presumably because I watched D.E.B.S and But I’m a Cheerleader) and I went ahead and added it to my cue.  Mostly because of the name.  Not gonna lie.  As someone who was an officer in the Itty Bitty Titty Committee until just a few years ago, I was intrigued.  Yeah… seems that recommendation was off base, but we’ll get to that.

Itty Bitty Titty Committee

Director:  Jamie Babbit

Writers:  Jamie Babbit, Andrea Sperling, Tina Mabry, Abigail Shafran

There really wasn’t a whole lot I liked about this movie, so we’re just going the running commentary route.

I didn’t care for the opening credits—they didn’t seem to connect to the rest of the film.  Yes, they used some similar camera work in montages later in the movie, but I didn’t like those either.  It didn’t really harmonize with the film or contrast in any interesting manner.

I really dislike the character of Sadie; to some extent I don’t think we’re supposed to like her.  But we should at least find her appealing in some way so that we get why Anna likes her—I don’t.  Yeah, she’s hot, but not really hot enough to make up for her being an annoying manipulative bitch.

Speaking of Anna, she annoyed the crap out of me.  The whole thing with her sister’s wedding… her family is not unreasonable.  It’s not unreasonable for her sister to want her maid-of-honor at the bridal shower.  Shuli’s annoyance with her was justified.  And I’m not sure if the film wanted me to feel that way or not.

I practically cheered out loud when Anna said she was an idiot.  And yet she still goes chasing after Sadie.  After fucking Aggie and saying it meant nothing right in front of him when he obviously felt differently.  It was hard to feel bad for her when she kept making stupid decisions over and over again.  She did look beautiful with pink in her hair.

The bedroom scene with Sadie and Courtney was surprisingly moving.  Somehow the movie which had not given us any glimpse of Courtney as a rounded character up to that moment made me feel a lot of sympathy for her.  And made me hate Sadie even more, which was probably a bad idea.

The moment where Anna walked out on her job should have been kind of triumphant when instead all I could think was, “Honey, this is really not the thing you need to fix most in your life.” (But hey, Melanie Lynskey cameo!)(Also Jimmi Simpson (of D.E.B.S. and Psych fame) cameo!)

I feel obligated to mention the cameo by Cady Huffman, the least offensive of the three Dr. Paige Millers (One Life to Live).

Damn it, I was so mad that after suddenly growing a backbone Anna took Sadie back at the end.  I know this was supposed to be a happy thing, but I wasn’t feeling it.

This movie is an interesting parallel to Real Women Have Curves.  Both are about recent high school grads named Anna.  Who have successful sisters.  Who are Latina and live in California.  The title of one tells us it’s okay to have curves and the title of the other tells us it’s okay to not have curves (though the protagonist does).  With this in mind it’s interesting to see what the film does differently than RWHC (which I like, but don’t love).  This one never deals explicitly with Anna’s ethnicity—which is fine.  Actually, in some ways it’s kind of nice to have a movie where a character can just be Latina without making a thing of it.  On the other hand, in a film with so many political overtones it might have been nice to acknowledge it.

Rating: One and a half jars of peanut butter

I don’t really think that any of our readers are so naïve as to believe prejudice has been eradicated by any means.  I know for a fact several of our readers have been victims of it.  But I think there are some forms of prejudice and discrimination that just don’t get the attention they deserve.  Some people may even be unaware they exist.  I would like to address one of these today.

This is, for obvious reasons, a cause that is very dear to my heart.  I am speaking, of course, about the prejudice against cats.

WTF? You say.  Have you somehow missed it?

Well perhaps the easiest way to show how pervasive this prejudice is, the best strategy is to examine our popular culture.  I was reminded of this prejudice just the other night when I was talking on the phone and she remarked that Captain America would be much cooler if he had a radioactive cat for a sidekick (believe it or not in the context of this conversation this made perfect sense).  I realized that this would clearly never happen, though if memory serves at one point Captain America did have a dog sidekick.  Because there is no way the unwritten rules of our popular culture would allow a cat to be a servant of good and democracy.  So felines everywhere get passed over for the good guy sidekick jobs and are forced to take positions working for villains.  And I know these positions seem like they might be more glamorous and fun, but keep in mind they also bring a lot more danger.  And I don’t think you can count on your paycheck not bouncing when you work for a supervillain.

Culturally speaking, cats still implicitly represent evil and deception while dogs are used to represent good and loyalty.

Think about it.  Inspector Gadget.  Dr. Evil.  Countless other films and television shows reinforce this dichotomy.

Why?  Well I would argue that it’s a holdover from medieval European traditions in which cats were thought to be servants of the devil while dogs were… well essentially slave labor.  And I would argue that those traditions evolve out of a number of factors.  For starters dogs have been domesticated longer.  We like things that are domestic; they’re easier to control.  Things we can’t control scare us.  Dogs were easier to domesticate because they’re pack animals and so if you can convince them to see a human as the alpha dog they’ll do whatever you want them to.  Cats on the other hand are quite secure in the knowledge they don’t need us to survive.  They will bond together for mutual benefit, but loyalty only goes so far as it’s profitable.  They aren’t afraid to do their own thing.  They also remember being worshiped in Egypt.

So yeah, I would argue this shows us something very disturbing in our society.  We like blind loyalty.  We don’t like independent thought.  There also might be some disturbing gender implications, but that’s another blog post.

So just remember the next time you see that villain with a cat on his lap, he’s just reinforcing centuries old superstitions.  And prejudices.

Babel (2006)

Directed by:  Alejandro González Iñárritu
Written by:  Guellermo Arriaga and Alejandro González Iñárritu (idea)

Things I liked:

I love the bilingual communication between Amelia and the children.  Mostly because it’s something you see quite often with kids whose Nanny speak a different language.

Nice transition directly from the two boys in Morocco running into the children playing in the US.

The wordless scene on the bus right before the shooting drags on long enough to make you really uncomfortable which helps put you where Richard and Susan are.  Nicely done.

I love the establishing shots of Mexico, though with the loud musical overlay it borders on stereotypes.  But holy crap can you understand how those two white bread children were so overwhelmed by it.  Especially once the chicken killing started.

The moment when Chieko gets dissed by the guys for being deaf is so mortifying it instantly sort of makes up for her being such a bitchy teenager.  Then she goes around flashing her cooch in restaurants and you realize she really is crazy but there might be good reason for it.

I thought the moments where things went silent so we experienced the world as Chieko were very nice.  You don’t (or at least I don’t) think about things like what a nightclub is like when you can’t hear anything.

There was something really touching about Richard helping Susan pee. It was the kind of moment that makes you think, “This is what love/marriage is really about.  Having that someone you care about so much that you’re willing to let them help you with something that personal.”

I like that the filmmaker doesn’t treat us like we’re stupid and need to have everything explained to us.  They don’t have someone say, “Oh, Chieko is a disturbed girl because she’s a teenage girl with a disability who doesn’t know how to deal with her mother’s suicide.”  We can figure it out on our own, but a lot of films would have had someone say that to us in case we didn’t.

Things I disliked:

In the scene where Richard and Susan rushed into Tezarine the camera work kept me focused on villagers and I needed a little more focus on Richard and Susan.

Okay, the other tourists on the bus seemed a little unrealistic.  I can absolutely believe that in such a situation there would be some people who would demand the bus leave, but I really do think that there would also be at least a couple who would be more understanding.  Perhaps it would have worked if I saw more genuine concern for their own safety on the part of the tourists, but instead, what the film seemed to be showing me was that the large British man was an asshole for no real reason and no one else cared.

It dragged.  By the whole helicopter montage I couldn’t even care that much anymore; I was just ready for it to be over.  And it’s not just the length, because two and a half hours really isn’t that long when you consider I sat through a Lord of the Rings marathon and loved it.  It was just the pacing.

I didn’t make much of an emotional connection with the characters (other than Amelia and to a certain extent the children).  Maybe I wasn’t really supposed to, but for me I really need to care about the characters to care about the movie.

Other observations:

Instantly establish Yussef as the cooler brother, not just because of his ability to shoot, but because of this more Western style clothes and his punk ass spying on his sister.  And it really kind of pisses me off that Ahmed wound up dead all because of his brother.

Starting off with an image of a preteen boy masturbating while watching goats establishes the grittiness of the film.

Overall:  I didn’t care for it.  It was well done and an interesting concept.  I’m glad I saw it, but I don’t have any inclination to see it again and wouldn’t necessarily recommend it.  It’s not bad, just not my cup of tea.

Rating:  Three out of five jars of peanut butter.

I’m sure by now, the news of the 60% price increase coming in September to those of us using Netflix has already reached your ears.  I swore loudly when the message popped up in my inbox earlier this week, and I’ve been drawn into the hue and cry in comments adjacent to an inordinately large number of blog posts on my feed reader dedicated to the subject.

I’m pissed.

I joined Netflix after the previous price increase, so I don’t have quite the room to be offended as many who’ve already seen their bill go up, but, at the same time: 60%?  Are you shitting me?  Raise it a buck or two, but this is over the limit, and as long as Netflix keeps rotating stuff off the streaming list (I had several German movies queued that I didn’t get to in time….damnit), that’s not worth it alone, and likewise, the 1 DVD out at a time is less appealing when there’s a delay in turning around the exchange.

So, come 1 September, I’m cancelling.

It won’t be permanent, I’m guessing.  Up until this price hike, Netflix was to be the savior that helped me to break the shackles of an over-priced satellite bill.  I was going to cancel satellite in favor of my cell phone data plan and Netflix with a side of good ol’ rabbit ears.

I’m still cancelling the satellite, but at least for a while, I think I’m going to let Netflix lose a user.  In part, it’s making a statement.  Granted, it won’t be a drop in the bucket as most people–even the ones bitching loudly in the blog comments–are probably just going to pay the increased price and keep going with life.  But, it will ease my conscience.  And, it makes sense.  That will come at the height of when my job assignment is going to get hella busy, along with a fair amount of travel.  The crazy is going to last at least through the New Year, so  there will be a good 2-3 months where paying for Netflix would have been a bit of a waste at any price.  Once I get back, I can always grit my teeth and start using it again, if I want.  Heck, in January, Downton Abbey should be entering a new season on PBS, and I have faith that my obsession there will be such that I won’t be interested in watching much else, so it might be into February before I consider going back…

It’s a little bit freeing to think about, actually.  Like a junkie finding the power to kick the habit, I’m going to take the one eye’d monster out of the equation (mostly–I’ll still have a fairly extensive list of over-air channels through rabbit ears and I’ve got plenty of DVDs in my collection).  To the extent that the job leaves me much time, I’ve got one less distraction to keep me from making better use of that time sewing, writing, reading, or just keeping the damned house clean.

We’ll see how this little experiment goes.  I may be thanking Netflix for their crappy decision.

I toddled just over the state line this evening for an evening of Shitty Beer and Shitty Movies with a friend from work, his girlfriend and a few others.  In discussing what beer constituted “shitty” for the purposes of this evening, I was informed that I was not allowed to bring Natty Ice.  Apparently the order of the evening was “Shitty, but not THAT shitty.”

So, Pabst Blue Ribbon became the order of the evening.

I should have gone for the Natty Ice.  Pabst is too good a beer to be paired with a move as shit-tastic as the one we wound up with.

“Crank 2″

Now, I’ve never seen (nor heard) of the original Crank.  This should have been my first clue.  But if your only fear in your moving going life is that you won’t understand a sequel without having first seen the original, rest assured that you basically get all of the plot points of Crank while watching this one.

Theoretically Crank 2 is plotted thus:  dude gets his heart ripped out by a Chinese gang to be sold on the black market.  Dude is implanted with weird mechanical heart which he keeps having to charge up, either by jumper cables, fingers in light sockets or having random sex with a stripper on a horse-track, all while chasing one of the Chinese Gang members, being chased by Mexican gang members and fielding calls to Dwight Yoakum (shit.  you.  not.).  The camera work was almost as sickening as the over-abundance of violence.  And the abundance of sex (this was bordering on porn).  And logic?  Not at all present in this endeavor.  If you make it to the end of the orgy of sex and violence the grand finale involves a shoot out between: The Mexican Gang, the Chinese Gang, a gang of Gay S&M guys, and a gang of Hookers & Strippers.  The dialog blew goats.  In theory it was supposed to part comedy, but, the only part that was funny was how bad the whole thing was–it really shouldn’t take $12 million dollars to achieve “bad.”  You can do that on less, I assure you

Allow me to tell you that it was even shitter than it sounded.   At first I was mostly shocked that someone actually raised money to produce this thing.  But as the parade of fail continued past my not-at-all-drunk-enough eyes, I was more shocked.  The damned thing was packed with faces I knew!  There was fucking Q from Next Generation.  And Tuptim from Anna and the King.  And Pedro from Napolean Dynamite.  And a Spice Girl. And Lauren Holly.  And Corey Haim.  Honestly, these are (or were) all legit actors who’d had parts in successful gigs….had they ALL run out of other options to pay the bills?!?

Do yourselves a favor: avoid this like the plague unless you are hosting your own shitty beer, shitty movie night.  But make sure the beer is Natty Ice, and drink a lot of it before you start,

So, as I was cleaning house today, I kicked on ye olde Netflix queue–a widely varied.  After a couple of episodes of Glee, I wound up watching a period (Depression Era) family friendly made-for-TV flick out of Canada called Booky’s Crush.  Now, I happen to be a sucker for family-friendly stuff, and period stuff, and Canadian stuff.

But what made this movie is what can make even the worst movies:

A single, random line.

In this case, I laughed hysterically at a child explaining what he learned in school that day as they colored maps: “I learned that Manitoba’s purple.”  I’m telling you right now, that’s a gem.

Before I got home to clean, my day had been defined by a different, better-known line “I’m not even supposed to be here today!”  Yes, like Dante in Clerks I spent time at work that I wasn’t scheduled for.  With the proper whining inflection, that line is both amusing and useful.

Another example?  The Scorpion King.  A movie I have abso-fraggin-lutely no interest in watching.  That totally superfluous disc in my set of Mummy movies.  The makers of that offense to the cinematic arts were kind enough to delivery the single highlight of the film in the trailer previews:  ”I’ve come for the woman.  And your head.”  The remainder of the run-time may be an abomination, but that line?  Fuckin’ brilliant.

And then there’s the one liners that come to you as an inside joke before you see anything of a film so that when you finally see it and hear that key line, you are delighted, amused and get the bonus of feeling like you finally joined the club.  I got that one with the Aussie film The Castle after hanging with my Dad and a bunch of other American ex-pats and forever hearing “Tell ‘em he’s dreamin’”

The random one liners can even serve as a cultural leveler–a language all it’s own, if you will.  You want to connect to random strangers?  Try whining this line:  ”But I was going to Toshi Station to pick up some power converters!”  That right there is a cinematic lingua franca for anyone born after 1973.

Although a remnant of TV rather than cinema, one of the best unifiers of people my age, born and raised in the US?  ”I’m so excited!  I’m so excited!  I’m so….SCARED!”  I’m not even going to go to the trouble of attributing that one.

They may not always further the plot.  They may not be insightful, or witty.  But they wield great power in making the unwatchable memorable and the great even better.

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

I generally don’t do horror films.  My parents were pretty strict about what my brother and I viewed as kids, so I had no exposure there.  And, for the most part, I’m a born chicken-shit–not exactly someone zoned for things-that-pop-out-and-disembowel you.  My only true brush with a horror film was Silence of the Lambs (note: watching this alone in your dorm room?  Bad idea), and I’ve been told this is “high brow” enough that it’s not really like a lot of other “slasher” flicks.

So, anyhow, maybe it’s my lack of love for the genre, but….

Why the frak are there so many of these damned movies?  Honestly, who the hell is watching these things?  I have to assume there must be a non-negligible number of people imbibing the crap since Hollywood keeps making it.  How the hell many Friday the 13ths are there? Every time I flip past MTV (by flip past, read “get-sucked-in-to-Teen-Mom”) they’re advertising some new horror film which has a tendency to look just like the last new horror film.  And scrolling through Netflix I swear I saw, like The Ring 16 or something.  With so many derivatives, how are these not completely contrived?  And even if you’re not in it for the plot, wouldn’t the effect of a brutal attacks on innocently stupid victims lose the adrenaline surge.  Are my assumptions wrong?!?!?!

So, gentle readers, if you are among the consumers of this brand of entertainment:  enlighten me.  Sincere confusion here.  This is not judgement, this is Cammy feeling very stupid and unable to grasp something.  What’s the selling point?  Or is there one?  Is watching this a secret heresy (feel free to confess here among friends, did I mention I watch Teen Mom?)?

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