The Center Seat

Nayana's standard Buffy disclaimer/Reverse spoiler alert: This is my first time EVER watching this series. I am very interested in keeping my experience pure, so please take care in the comments to not give any spoilers, clues, or insights from future (to me) seasons or episodes.

We've been powering through these episodes! They're so fun to watch, so it's really easy to keep clicking the "Next Episode" button when we're done with one. Eight episodes in a week... it's not going to be the standard, but it could definitely happen again.

I am a pacifist. I'm going to level with you all and confess that I didn't quite know which direction to take with this review, as pacifism isn't exactly a philosophy that is appreciated and understood by most, especially in a time of war.

Let me just say that while I love and appreciate the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and guardsmen who protect my freedom to believe in peace above all, I have a big problem with governments who choose to put those folks in harm's way when there may be other, more effective options available. War is costly (both fiscally and socially), it's ugly, it's the birthplace of a whole host of evils, and in this blogger's opinion, it's morally wrong.

OK, I'm putting my soapbox away, and getting to the movie now. I just figured you would get more out of my thoughts on Platoon if I first let you know where I was coming from.

Nayana's standard Buffy disclaimer/Reverse spoiler alert: This is my first time EVER watching this series. I am very interested in keeping my experience pure, so please take care in the comments to not give any spoilers, clues, or insights from future (to me) seasons or episodes.

Last night Mr. N and I sat down to watch the first several episodes of Buffy, and I actually had to give him the above disclaimer a few times. I really want to experience the storyline as Joss Whedon wanted it to unfold; I've already got a great opinion of him as a storyteller, and I'm really looking forward to the experience. Now, without further mucking about, my thoughts.

OK, kiddies, I'm going to get right to it. Megamind is good. It's entertaining, witty, fast-paced, and it'll make you giggle. There. That's my review. Now, on to some not-so-reviewy thoughts I had while watching the thing (a few mild spoilers after the jump):

Mr. Nayana was working late the other night, so I took the opportunity to curl up with Zoe the Putty Tat, a bottle of Door Peninsula American Riesling (a holdover from my kickass bachelorette party), and Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy.

This is a movie blog. But I'm gonna talk TV for a second.

Can I tell you how much I love, love LOVE Glee?

I don't watch a whole lot of TV. That's partly because I've got lots to do; partly because I hate commercials; but mostly because, frankly, TV is crap lately.

Not Glee. Only four episodes into its first season, Glee is on the FOX network (home of some of my three least favorite shows). In contrast to FOX's normal fare of escalating torture-based serials and tired reality shows, Glee incorporates humor, drama, and goosebump-y music in a way we've not seen in ages. Matter of fact, have we ever seen a television musical series that was actually good?

Glee centers on a high school teacher (played by Broadway vet Matthew Morrison) who is trying to relive some past glory by putting together a kickass show choir. The thing is, the fabulously singing students are a bunch of... well, freaks. The brat, the stutterer, the flaming gay boy, the sassy black chick, the jock, and the kid in the wheelchair are all relative unknowns. A few have done stints on Broadway here and there, or bit parts on the odd TV show, but this is the first time most of us have ever seen them. Together, they're absolutely magic.

The cast is rounded out by some fantastic villians: Jessalyn Gilsig (don't you remember Ms. Davis from Boston Public?) plays the teacher's spoiled wife, and the scene-stealing Jane Lynch is a nefarious cheerleading coach who wants nothing more than the demise of our little glee club.

If you haven't caught this show yet, it's on Wednesday nights on FOX... and you should definitely catch up by watching the first four episodes on Hulu. It's free, and no, Dad, it won't put a virus on your computer.

For now, enjoy Glee's football team and their rendition of Beyoncé's "Single Ladies".
...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

I realized something weird today. Out of the 172 posts I've written (yeah.), I've only featured two musicals. And I really love musicals. I can only think of one musical I didn't enjoy--From Justin to Kelly--and nobody enjoyed that one. I don't even think Justin and Kelly enjoyed that one.

So I'm going to be talking more about musicals I love, starting with Fiddler on the Roof. My parents brought me up on this one; I think I probably saw it for the first time in third or fourth grade, and then I think we came close to wearing out the VHS. My parents would close their eyes reverently when Isaac Stern would get going on his solo during the title credits, we'd all sing along with all the songs. And as part of his extraordinary parenting philosophy, Dad would spout Fiddler wisdom at really random times ("why, you ask? I'll tell you. I don't know"). It went well with his Rolling Stones wisdom ("you can't always get what you want") and his Pink Floyd wisdom ("if you can't eat your meat...")

Anywho.

For me, Fiddler is one of those classic movies, like The Princess Bride and The Wizard of Oz, that never fail to entertain and thrill me, even if I think I know the whole thing by heart. Of course it's got its classic moments: the parents singing "Sunrise, Sunset" at the wedding; the freakishly awesome bottle dancers (does anyone know if those bottles were somehow affixed to those hats? Mr. N and I had a bit of a disagreement about that); and my favorite part, the drunken inter-cultural dancing at the tavern.

What really sets Fiddler on the Roof apart, though, is its lush versatility. In one cinematic breath, it showcases the mundane life of a Russian turn-of-the-century peasant, and then knocks you over the head with huge issues like revolution and bigotry. This movie goes in a heartbeat from light comedic banter, to poignant longing for a simpler time, to plain awe at what makes life beautiful.

Most of all, I love to watch Tevye as he navigates the precarious tight space between his long-held beliefs and his love for his daughters. It mirrors what I've figured out in the past few years: just because you've believed something as long as you can remember, don't be surprised when you learn it's worthless in the face of real life.
...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

I didn't want to see The Proposal. I even (briefly) considered featuring it as a FWLFS. From the moment I saw that first trailer, the whole thing just felt... icky. The premise--a put-upon gopher is forced to get engaged to his abusive female boss so that she can stay in the U.S.--is classic, egregious sexual harassment. Would we laugh, I opined, if the genders were reversed, and a lecherous male boss did the same to his female subordinate? Of course not. Because it's awful.

With my air of progressive hipster superiority fully satisfied, I happily shunned all opportunities (including a free preview) to see The Proposal. It was beneath me, don't you know.

But then some writers whom I actually respect (I'm looking at you, Jess!) had to go and say it wasn't that bad. So on my inaugural Wednesday night movie, I headed down to the Riverview and saw it for $3.

OK, seriously. The premise is awful. But looking past that for a second--can I just say how much I've missed Sandra Bullock? She hasn't been this yummy in a rom-com for at least nine years. And her chemistry with Ryan Reynolds was muy caliente.

So, really, this movie was saved for me by two things: first, the delicious cast (Mary Steenburgen! Betty White! Coach! Oscar from "The Office" doing a lap dance!); and, secondly, the hilarious script*. I have not laughed this much since Forgetting Sarah Marshall.

Yes, The Proposal was a run-of-the-mill romantic comedy, and yes, it followed a formula. You always knew what was going to happen next. But--it didn't suck. I was smiling as I walked out of the theater; and that, in itself, transcended my best expectations.

*"You know I can't swim!" "Hence, the boat." If you saw it, you know what I'm talking about. ...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

I've had quite the struggle lately between the movie-lover me and the relationship me. It's not that Mr. Nayana actively keeps me from going to the movies per se... it's just that it hasn't occurred to me to get my ass to the theater when I could just hang with my best bud at home. Does that make any sense?

Anyway, this whole "I never go to the movies anymore" thing came to a head this week. More on that tomorrow. But Mr. Nayana, in his infinite sweetness, saw that I was upset and promptly decided to take me on a date. We saw (500) Days of Summer, which I had been itching for since I first read about it months ago.

First of all, it's definitely not your standard romantic comedy (which, honestly, was a huge part of its appeal for me). Secondly, it stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel, both of whom I looooove.

The coolest thing about this movie is that it doesn't give us the normal crap we get about love from your standard commercial film:

Step 1. You meet someone of the opposite sex whom you immediately despise.
Step 2. Your quirky best friend helps you realize you actually are in love with aforementioned despised person.
Step 3. An unfortunate misunderstanding will drive the two of you apart.
Step 4. It all comes right in the end (thanks again to your quirky best friend).

This, as we should all know, is complete shit. And (500) Days of Summer--blessedly--doesn't do that. We are taken on a journey through a realistic relationship... the highs, the lows, the initial blush, the later disillusionment. And guess what? They don't like each other exactly the same amount! Sound familiar?

This movie was a beautiful, refreshing look at the real stuff we go through when we make the rash decision to allow another human being to become intimately close to us. It's not always pretty, but it's real life, not fantasy. And as for me, I'd much rather my film (or music, or art) reflect the life I actually lead.
...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

It's not great news, folks.

This film's gotta go in that category, along with Little Children and Black Hawk Down, of movies I'm glad I saw, but never want to see again. You can watch a movie like this and know in your head that it's great: great direction, great acting, great cinematography... but it hurts your heart. I know Doubt is good... but it's freaking disturbing.

It should go without saying that anytime you get Philip Seymour Hoffman, Meryl Streep, and Amy Adams in the same movie, you're going to get some Acting. And I really can't gush enough on that cinematography: crazy off-kilter shots to add to the uneasiness of some of the scenes, overhead God-view shots...

But ick.

For those of you who've seen this one, I want to know: Did he or didn't he? Leave a comment, be opinionated. Like you all will have trouble with that. ...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

I know I've been complaining about my inability to get into the theaters lately, ad nauseum, but it really is my current greatest frustration. Seriously, I see a movie preview on TV and I almost cry. Well, the new guy in my life* must also be getting pretty sick of my whining, because he made sure we got to two** movies this weekend!

I've been waiting to see The Curious Case of Benjamin Button for about a year. That's when Entertainment Weekly started talking it up, probably just because of the crazy-ass concept. (It also didn't hurt that it costars my favorite actress, the sublime Cate Blanchett.) For those of you who don't know, here's the film's premise: for no apparent reason, the title character is born as an old man, who then ages in reverse for the rest of his life. So he's wrinkly and feeble for a few decades; then he's Brad Pitt-a-licious for a little while; then, inevitably, he turns into a kid and dies.

So the concept is crazy. And, I admit, that's what sucked me in. But what kept me sitting in that seat was the amazing love story between Benjamin and Daisy (Blanchett). I generally have a HUGE problem with most movies' portrayal of love. A lot of films, especially mainstream ones, completely get it wrong. Movie love tends to be trite, unrealistic, and, frankly, insulting to my intelligence. Not Benjamin Button; this film gets it right. The love between Benjamin and Daisy is real: it's rarely glamorous, and it's certainly imperfect, but it's solid, sweet, simple, and enduring.

I have to take issue with some reviews that have knocked Benjamin Button for its format. The story is a flashback, à la Bridges of Madison County, in which a dying mother relates the romance to her incredulous daughter. To add a bit more drama, the mother and daughter are in a New Orleans hospital in 2005 as Hurricane Katrina comes ashore. To be honest, I can't really see anything wrong with that. The bulk of the story takes place (or has its roots) in New Orleans, and Katrina was arguably among the most profound events in that city's history (along with the Civil War, I guess). Actually, the Katrina situation reinforces one of the main themes of the movie: nothing lasts forever, no matter how much we might want it to. And if you know anything about Brad Pitt, the boy's been neck-deep in Katrina charities for years, even moving his whole huge-ass family to live down in New Orleans. So what's the problem? I don't get it.

I do really recommend this movie. It was lovely. And it had me in tears towards the end. I think that actually surprised Nuevo Man a bit, but seriously--he's going to have to get used to that.

*Pistola calls him Nuevo Man, and I think that's as good a handle as any, though it does make him sound a bit like an archaeological find. "Nuevo Man walked upright but had weird dorsal fins." Kidding. Haven't found any dorsal fins... yet.

**We also saw Doubt, which I will do my best to review sometime this week. Really, I will. ...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

This year, things are different. It may have something to do with my decision to drop my subscription to Entertainment Weekly.* It may also have to do with my recent negligence in following my favorite movie blogs. But I think the main reason I'm a bad, bad movie geek this year is that I've got two jobs, and a desire to crash and do nothing on my rare night off.

So last night I took a step in rectifying this sad state of affairs... I actually went to a movie in the theater.** I'd wanted to see Australia ever since I heard it was coming out, mostly because I adore director Baz Luhrmann and believe he can do no wrong.

I was not disappointed last night. I know it's gotten mixed reviews, but I have to believe they came from people who don't understand the genius that is my Baz.

If you're not familiar with Luhrmann's work, he's known for his Red Curtain Trilogy, which includes Strictly Ballroom, William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet, and Moulin Rouge! His movies tend to be visually stunning (and a bit head-spinning); they're unique for their over-the-top characters, intense cinematography, and wildly avant-garde style.

Interestingly, Australia had more in common with classic epic romances like Gone With the Wind and Titanic than with any of the Red Curtain films. There's still a bit of the trademark Baz Luhrmann stuff (those of us who love him most will recognize it), but this film is by far more mainstream. The setting is lush, wild 1930's Australia, and our story comes complete with a swashbuckling, mysterious hero and a refined-but-feisty heroine.

Truly, it's just fun to watch (how often does that happen at the movies anymore?), but what really knocked me on my booty was the ROMANCE. Oh, Lord, it was romantic. I'm actually feeling kind of swoony right now thinking about it. The kissing. And the Hugh Jackman. And the guy who can't declare his love at all till it may be much too late. (God knows I've got experience with that.) And the rescues. And more kissing. And more Hugh Jackman.

OK, yeah, I gotta go cool off.

*It was getting WAY too expensive. Why don't they offer renewal rates that are as low as the rates for new subscribers? No worries. My card's in the mail.
**This used to happen 2 or 3 times a week... but last night was my first time since W. In October. ...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

This is really weird.

I've loved this movie from the moment I first saw it. I've since seen it many times, bought the DVD, acquired the soundtrack, gone to see Glen Hansard and Markéta Irglová in concert, and discussed them numerous times on this blog and others. So how is it that I haven't written a freaking review?

I think I've said this before: the movies that I love the most are the hardest for me to write about. It's true. It's perfectly simple to gush endlessly about them to those around me... but somehow that just doesn't translate to a blog post.

So here's the deal: Once is what all movies, in my oh-so-humble opinion, should aspire to be. It's a very simple story (we don't even ever learn the names of the main characters) with great music and real emotion. It was created for next to nothing in a couple of weeks with a couple of cameras and a couple of non-actors. So instead of commercial polish, we get substance. And instead of formulas, we get originality.

Once is almost a romance, but it's not really about that. It's really about the magic that happens when two compatible musicians sit down and create together. It's not something most people get to see every day, but I'm telling you: when the Guy and the Girl sit down and sing together for the first time, it's almost like there's a chemical reaction in the air. Now there's a special effect you can't create on a computer. ...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

This is one crazy-ass movie.

That sounds simplistic, and it is. But it's really hard to start writing about Sid & Nancy in any other way.


In truth, it's a crazy-ass movie because Sid and Nancy lived crazy-ass lives. For those of you who don't know, Sid Vicious of the Sex Pistols and his girlfriend Nancy Spungen were lovers, losers, junkies, and geniuses. Nowadays I'm sure they'd both go to rehab, get clean, and start living quasi-productive lives sometime in their forties. Heroin addiction just isn't as cool as it used to be.

A few decades ago, though, you'd be hard-pressed to find the successful musical prodigy that didn't have some mind-altering chemical or another polluting his veins. That's, unfortunately, what deprived us of more amazing talent than I really want to think about: Presley, Hendrix, Joplin... and Vicious, I guess.

It's depressing stuff. Not really that fun to watch. What kept me watching Sid & Nancy, though, was this: in spite of being completely drugged out and fucked up, these people managed to actually love each other. The whole story is a downward spiral... genius being diluted by smack... lost opportunities... lost lives... but through it all, the two of them never let go of one another. Now of course you could say that Sid and Nancy stayed together because of the drugs; that they were co-dependent and the relationship was part of the addiction. But there's a puny, struggling remnant of romanticism within me that just wants to believe love can conquer all.

Oh, yeah... and Gary Oldman can act. ...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

Tina Fey said something really insightful on some talk show or other last week. I'm paraphrasing: "The thing I've realized about Sarah Palin is that she's exactly as smart as me. And I'm certainly not qualified to be the vice-president." It's true, right? I don't know about you, but I want someone in office who's way smarter than me, and who can comprehend all these complicated issues a whole lot better than I can. Seriously. Y'all are not ready for President Nayana.

That seemed to be the overriding message in Oliver Stone's new biopic about President Bush II. I think a lot of people saw Stone's name and thought, "Oh. Liberal Bush-bashing. Cool." But really, that's not what it was about. Obviously "Bushie" (as Laura calls him) is not the best president ever. Probably not even in the top 80%. But the message of the movie was that here's a regular guy, with a good heart and good intentions, who got in way over his head. Now you all know where I stand on this little election we're having (it's emblazoned on my sidebar), but I wonder... Obama gets slammed a lot for being elitist and intellectual. Now exactly what is the objection to that? I want someone who knows his ass from his elbow to represent me on the world stage. I don't think that's too much to ask for.

Back to the movie... it was really well done. The casting was fantastic, with the possible exception of Thandie Newton as Condie Rice (a tad caricaturish). Elizabeth Banks disappeared into the role of Laura Bush, Jeffrey Wright couldn't have been more compelling as Colin Powell... and Richard Dreyfuss was INSANE as Dick Cheney. That guy knows how to portray eeeeevil.

I guess it comes down to this: no matter what side of the political fence you're on, I recommend this movie as a reminder of what we want to avoid in our government. Maybe catch it before November 4. Call it election prep. ...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

There are the Wes Anderson lovers, and there are the Wes Anderson haters, and then there are those of us in the middle--the moderate majority--who can enjoy a Wes Anderson film if we just get ourselves into a very Wes Anderson place beforehand.

I think that was my mistake last year when I went to see The Darjeeling Limited... not enough W.A. prep. But I was ready last night... and so Rushmore knocked my socks off.

Rushmore is the story of Max Fischer, an eccentric fifteen-year-old who, though adventurous and charismatic to the point of absurdity, happens to suck at academics. Enter the sweet first-grade teacher with the British accent, and of course Max falls hard for her. But then so does an equally eccentric Bill Murray... and hilarity ensues.

I hate to say that I may be a product of a Lifetime Movie world, but I kept expecting a little Mary Kay Letourneau action to go down. Thankfully, it didn't, everything worked out, and the film left me with a smile on my face.

One thing struck me as exceptional, however. This is one of those movies in which there is a play within the film; Max happens to be a talented playwright, and we are treated to portions of many of his productions. Recently I've seen quite a few films that fall into this drama-within-the-drama category--Waiting for Guffman, Hamlet 2, and Forgetting Sarah Marshall immediately spring to mind--but the plays in Rushmore are actually really, really great. That seems to be an exception to the rule, as crappy-ass productions provide better comedy fodder.

Oh... you're right. The Dracula puppet musical was sublime, too, wasn't it? All right, never mind. ...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

---Spoilers ahead, for anyone who hasn't seen this 32-year-old movie*---

About three months ago, I took a part time job in order to help maintain my lavish (ha!) lifestyle. One big advantage of the job is that I get all kinds of time to watch movies on my portable DVD player; a glaring disadvantage is that I get a lot less theater time, and a whole lot less blogging time. Oh, well. I gots to pay the bills somehow.

In the course of my moonlighting, I get to sit in my car for hours at a time, next to an alley in a really seedy part of town. So I get to see all kinds of exciting things. Like the drug addict who passed out in the alley and was revived by police this last Saturday night. Or the haggard homeless lady who took it upon herself to do a complete wardrobe change in broad daylight, sans underclothes, in the middle of a parking lot.

Travis Bickle saw a lot of interesting shit on his job, too. For those of you who don't know, he was a cabbie who worked some of the shadier parts of New York City in the seventies... Granted, he was also a RAVING LUNATIC... but here's hoping my vocational experiences don't ever lead me to practice whipping out my gun in front of a mirror.

One of the things about having decided only recently to dive headlong into my movie obsession is that I still have not seen many cinematic essentials. Actually, Saturday night was my first ever viewing of Taxi Driver. And so I've seen all kinds of movies which have obviously been influenced by Scorsese's masterpiece, before I saw the original work. For example, when DeNiro's cabbie shaved his head into that mohawk as he was preparing to go medieval on politicians and pimps, I saw blinding flashes of Ed Norton's hardened, murderous skinhead from American History X. I'm sure this happened in reverse for everyone who saw these movies in the order they were released, but for me it was like seeing a prequel and having the pieces finally fall into place.

Also, I bet a lot of people see Jodie Foster in grown-up roles and have flashes of the little twelve-year-old hooker in Taxi Driver... for me, again, it was the opposite. She was so precocious at that young age, I just saw the adult Foster in her little face. Young Harvey Keitel weirded me out... young Albert Brooks weirded me out, too... and of course young DeNiro was weird. But smokin' hot.**

I've been really remiss in my blogging lately, but I have done my best to keep up with the "Viewed But Not Reviewed" list on the sidebar. So if any of you have been following that, you can see that I've been doing my best lately to catch up on must-sees that I've missed till now. At home now I've got Rushmore, Sophie's Choice, and Dr. Strangelove. Any suggestions as to which one I should see on my shift tonight?



*Like me, as of three days ago.
**Rowr. Yes, I'm talking to you, Bobby. ...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

Lately I've been whining to anyone who would listen that Hollywood seems to be incapable of portraying human relationships, specifically romantic relationships. I alluded to that a little bit on this blog last week.

But I'm good now. Late last Tuesday night, in a deserted parking lot, I lost myself in Before Sunrise. I had seen it ages ago when it was relatively new, but my reacquaintance with this masterpiece was long overdue.

If you're unfamiliar, Before Sunrise is an extremely unique movie: it follows two strangers (played by Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy) who meet on a train and impulsively decide to spend an evening together in Vienna. The whole movie is dialogue. Just talking. No chase scenes, no gratuitous sex, no washed-up comedians playing multiple obese characters. I know, it's revolutionary, right?

What Before Sunrise did so well for me was that it perfectly captured the dynamic of a brand-new relationship. You know, how it's all awkward when you know he's looking at you and you just can't meet his gaze or you'll turn tomato-red... or when you're not sure if it's ok to touch him... or that breathtaking moment when you know for sure he's about to kiss you. And at first you have this weird guardedness, but after a few hours you're suddenly telling him stuff you don't usually admit to family.


Another fantastic thing about this movie is that it was made in 1995... but it's not dated. It feels like it could be happening right now. Before Sunrise effectively ignores all the easy tricks that films use to convince us of their cleverness; it just portrays real humans, behaving in a realistic fashion, in a real city, in a situation that is absolutely believable. But for all this realism, the movie is still entirely magical.

Before Sunrise is one of those films that is entirely loved by those of us who love movies... and unappreciated by everyone else. It has a 100% Tomatometer rating... and it grossed only 5.5 million in the U.S. But this brings me to one of the things I love about independent filmmakers: they made the sequel, Before Sunset, anyway.

Granted, it did come nine years later, but it was so cool to see those two characters still alive and doing what they do. It did provide a bit of closure, although the ending of Sunset was nearly as maddening as the ending of the original movie...

But to find out what I mean by that, you've gotta watch 'em. ...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

I've had a growing impatience lately with movies that depict love unrealistically. Like, most of them.

You know what I'm talking about: the couple sees each other, has a few furtive conversations, and suddenly they're "in love" and are willing to move heaven and earth for each other. That is SO NOT how it works. In real life, love is immensely complicated, hard to come by, and requires effort, time, and sacrifice.

So why do I love City of Angels so much, given that it's the textbook example of this "instant love" phenomenon? Easy. I don't accept love as the turning point of the story.

If you don't know the movie, here's a big fat SPOILER ALERT... and now I'll fill you in. The premise of City of Angels is that an angel (Nicolas Cage) falls so deeply in love with a surgeon (Meg Ryan) that he chooses to forsake his immortal life and become a human, just so that he can be with her.

It's a sweet idea, if that was what really happened in the movie. Oh, they definitely feel lust for one another. Longing, too. But I think the real draw for our angel is not love, but life.

Let me explain. There's a lot of imagery in City of Angels of the simple, sensual pleasures of being human: the way a pear tastes; sunlight filtering through trees; the bracing ecstasy of a really hot shower. I get that stuff completely, because as anybody who knows me well can tell you, Nayana is all about the sensual pleasures*. I find it really easy to lose myself in things like dazzling sunsets, light reflecting on water, kickass thunderstorms, cherry cheesecake... So if I were in Seth the angel's position, would I give up immortality and the ability to sit on overhead freeway signs in order to experience all these things? Hells yeah.

I guess my point is that the real romance of this movie is not the Nic Cage/Meg Ryan slobberfest, but the romance between a human being and life itself. Get it?

*OK, perv, that's not what I mean. Sensual. We could talk about the other thing too, but that's not the topic of the day. ...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

Truthfully, if Hamlet 2 had come out two months ago, or two months from now, I (and many others) probably would have waited for the DVD. But fortunately for Steve Coogan's quirky little film, it's out in late August/early September, aka Where Bad Movies Go To Die. Seriously, my other choices this weekend included Disaster Movie, The House Bunny, and Babylon A.D. Yeah. I went for the goofy indie flick.

The basic premise of Hamlet 2 is that a God-awful out-of-work actor becomes a God-awful acting teacher who tries to save his school's drama program with a God-awful original play, a sequel to Shakespeare's classic work. Hey, remember how pretty much everyone dies at the end of Hamlet? Not a big deal. Hamlet 2 has a time machine. Which explains the cameos by Jesus Christ and Albert Einstein.

Sounds awful, right? The movie itself is ok; I did chuckle here and there. Supporting performances by Catherine Keener and David Arquette were delicious, although they were drowned out by Steve Coogan's scenery chewing. But to be honest, I wasn't really sold until we finally got to see some of that atrocious play (which, in my opinion, is actually pretty freaking awesome.)

Oh yeah, and Elizabeth Shue plays herself. Exquisitely. ...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.