The Occasional Blog of Jonah Weiland

It’s well known, amongst men anyway, that the male species is genetically predisposed to hate the romantic films. Even the romantic comedy. How many conversations have gone like this before?

“Honey, let’s go see [insert name of latest Hollywood romantic thing here] tonight?”

“Shit no, honey. I’d rather fuck myself with a salad fork while river rafting than see that piece of poo.”

Or something like that.

I’m one of those men who exceedingly rarely will see a romantic film or romantic comedy and of those that I’ve seen, I can count the number I actually enjoyed using only my penis. Well, that’s not entirely true, but it’s close. (“Sleepless in Seattle” is a notable exception, but that’s not what this posting is about so let’s move on, ok?) It’s not that I’m a cold hearted bastard out of touch with his own emotions and unable to enjoy something that’s not testosterone filled. That’s entirely not the case. The fact of the matter is that most romantic films made in Hollywood are insipid pieces of trash with very unrealistic romanticism. They’re rarely true to life and generally help to perpetuate a romance that doesn’t exist and never did.

A couple of years back I saw “Bridget Jones’ Diary” on one of the pay channels and was quite pleasantly surprised that I really enjoyed it. While it still falls in to some of the traps of the typical romantic film, the sensibility and intelligence of the comedy really shone through to create a really decent film. I admit it, I really enjoyed it.

So, when I heard they were making a sequel, I was intrigued. See, I’d LIKE to enjoy the romantic comedy, but something like Bridget Jones is a rarity. Tonight I went to see “Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason” and once again I found a romantic comedy that was good. It’s an almost wholly predictable film, with the exception of a fun set of twists at the end that catch you off guard, but the comedy is top notch and possibly better than the first. It almost seems like with the Bridget Jones films they specifically tried to craft a story that would appeal to both male and female sensibilities.

Favorite parts? Pretty much any scene with Hugh Grant, but especially the “fight” between Hugh Grant and Colin Firth. Had me on the floor.

If more romantic comedies were of the level of these two films, they’d probably have me seeing them more often than I do.

“Donnie Darko.”

It’s one of those movies that people seem to love to death or loathe with passion. I’ve not found anyone who belonds somewhere in between those two statements. Odd that a movie like this would generate that kind of reaction. I fall closer to the “love to death” category, but it’s certainly not in my top ten of films, if I were to make such a list.

Saw the Director’s Cut version of the film last night at the rather ghetto Pacific Sherman Oaks 5 Theaters. Some of the extra scenes can be found on the DVD with lots of extra effects added onto this theatrical release. On the whole, I didn’t like it. It’s one of those cases where it’s good the director didn’t have all the money he wanted for the effects and was told to pull it back. Some of the additional text from the time travel book written by Grandma Death was interesting, but they simply explained too much of the movie, as if the director suddenly stopped trusting his audience to figure it out on their own. Plus, the transition effects and final moment when Donnie makes his great journey make it seem more like Donnie’s a computer instead of a human being on a strange journey. There are a number of moments when we’re sort of “inside” Donnie’s mind and it looked too much like the heads up display of an Arnold Schwarzenegger Terminator.

It’s nice to see it up on the big screen again in a dark theater, but the much simpler and succinct original is much better than this reimagining or whatever you might call it.

I used to be a talk radio junky about 7, 8 years ago. That’s changed. I now listen to very little talk radio. Most of it is very one-sided (both on the right and the left), very little puts forward pragmatic view points, most all of it has an agenda. Boring! The John and Ken Show in Los Angeles I’ll listen to on occasion and NPR’s All Thing’s Considered, when not mired in political debate, I find fascinating for the stories they tell. But even then I don’t make a point to listen.

There is only one show on the radio I make a point to listen to every week. Elvis Mitchell’s “The Treatment” on NPR is the best movie program on the radio. Intelligent discussion with fascinating directors. Today he interviews Alfonso Cuarón, the director of the latest Harry Potter movie. You can listen to the interview off of this page. An interesting look behind the scenes at the film (my favorite quote is when Alfonso calls Professor Lupin “Your favorite gay uncle who does smack!”), plus a discussion of the other directors who’ve influenced and helped him like Steven Sodderbergh (my favorite) and Guillermo del Toro.

As for the movie itself, it’s my favorite of the three so far. It’s slower paced and the screenplay cut out a good many of the unnecessary details found in the book, but finally we have a Potter film that allows you to digest the actions of the characters. In the first two films director Chris Columbus simply hit story point after story point without allowing the audience to really take in the story. With this latest movie you have a film with personality, something lacking in the first two movies. It’s not a perfect movie, but it’s certainly a lot of fun.

Go check out that interview, especially if you liked the movie.

Mama.

Mama. Mama.

I really fucking loved “Kill Bill, Volume 1.” Quite an excellent movie with genius storytelling. Oh, and the action. The action. Wow. Unbelievable and over-the-top, but impressive. It seems the new sexy is not just a curvy woman, but one that shows muscle. That’s what you get in the first movie, sexy and strong women kicking the shit out of each other with a style that no man could ever render. It’s an unbelievable ride that Tarantino takes you on, deftly directed and thoroughly enjoyable.

Steve told me, after seeing “Kill Bill, Volume 2″ tonight, that the stated reason the studio gave for splitting “Kill Bill” into two separate movies, when it was planned as one, was because after the fight scene where Uma takes on the Crazy 88′s and the final battle with Lucy Liu’s character that the action was so intense and so over-the-top, the producers and director felt the audience would need a break to injest it all before going to the second act. While there’s some truth in that, I’m still convinced the studio just saw a chance to double up on receipts. I don’t care, it was worth it.

The second film, or second act as the case may really be, is very little like the first movie. Where the first movie deftly sets up the story and pique’s your curiosity, it’s the second movie which tells you the full story. The first movie is mostly action, the second is all story. David Carradine as Bill was magnificent. A creepy smooth style oozed from his Kung Fu loving skin. Darryl Hannah plays the worst kind of bitch the silver screen has ever seen. She said fuck you Glenn Close with your “Fatal Attraction” bull shit, I’m showing you how it’s done. Michael Madsen is one bad mother fucker (not Sam Jackson bad mother fucker, but close) who strikes a remarkable resemblance to Mickey Rourke. God it’s good stuff. There’s a lot of pretty amazing heart in this second film and as good as the action and direction was in the first, it’s the story in the second which brings the whole package together, making it a film worth remembering for a long time.

I guess my only disappointment was the cameo by Mr. Samuel L. Jackson. Quick aside for the Chappelle Show lovers out there – “IT’LL GET YOU DRUNK! YOU’LL BE FUCKIN’ FAT GIRLS IN NO TIME!” So, getting back to my disappointment. So, we get like five lines out of Mr. Jackson with not a single mother fucker. Dammit, I’s lives for whens he delivers thems lines! Cmon, not even a simple “I’m a church going mother fucker!” Oh well. Let’s just hope that Sam gets more screen time in the next Tarantino thang.

Finally got to see Dawn of the Dead tonight. No, not the cult favorite, the one with that bad ass mofo Ving Rhames. I had really high expectations for this film (NEVER a good thing for a horror film) and it met every single damn one of them. Good story, great comedy and they manage to get you to care about all the characters. Everyone’s been telling me the first 10 minutes of the movie are creepy, that’s for sure, but even better is the ending. I’m not talking about the one before the credits, but the one they give you during the credits. Ohhhhhhhh, I likey. I likey a lot.

This thing will probably be pulled from theaters really soon, so if you’re remotely interested, get out and see it. Good times.

Saw “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind last night. Excellent, excellent movie. If you’re in a sensitive place relationship wise right now (in other words your relationship ain’t going so well or you just broke up with somebody), it’s probably a movie you’d want to avoid, but for anyone else go see it. Charlie Kaufman’s written another phenomenal movie. While not as fun as “Being John Malkovich,” it’s certainly a lot deeper film. Great stuff.

A friend invited me to an advanced screening of a new horror film, “Saw.” From what I understand this movie is debuting at Sundance tonight (I might be wrong about the day) at a midnight showing, so I actually got a chance to see this film before all those industry wanks. I’m going to share my thoughts on this film without any spoilers, which is a little tough due to the nature of the story, but considering this movie isn’t going to hit theater’s until who knows when, it’s best I don’t give too much away.

“Saw” is a horror flick that’s heavy on the psychological horror. This movie contains no zombies, werewolves or any of that stuff, so those of you who shy away from horror films with those elements (shame on you), this just might be your bag. The advance hype on this film compares “Saw” to David Fincher’s “Seven” or a Nine Inch Nails video. That’s really going to be unfair. When you see it you’ll say, sure, that’s about right, but let’s talk about the movie by itself without comparing it to everything else.

How to describe the film without giving away the plot. Well, there’s a serial killer on the loose who’s got a real twisted sense of the good times. The killer places its victims into horrible situations and forces them to try to find a way out. If you don’t try, you’ll die. If you do try, well, you’ll most likely die a horrible death, but at least you tried (That cliché about close only counts in horse shoes, well, yeah, it’s fucking true). Saying much more than that about the movie I hurt the chances of the film having an affect on you. So that’s all you get. Do some research on your own if you want to know more.

As a whole the movie works nicely and does a good job of making you want to crap the dook. There are a couple of very good “shock” moments you’ll react physically to and some of the imagery is very nicely designed. There’s one particular device a victim wears that fucked with my cranium for a while.

The film is directed by first time director James Wan. He’s all of 24 or 25 years old. If you took a look at him he’d strike you as unremarkable in every way. Just another mid-twenties skater like looking dude. He does an able job with the cast, which includes Cary Elwes, Danny Glover and first time actor Leigh Whannell, who also wrote the film. Wan sets a great sense of dread throughout the film with creepy settings and interesting camera tricks. This is a movie best enjoyed in a dark movie theater. Some of the action sequences are quite excellent and really help get the heart pounding.

Letting out the nit-picker in me, the biggest problems with the movie are also with the directing and some of the acting. The movie, as a whole, works, but at moments there are scenes where you can tell it’s a first time director and not a seasoned veteran who would know to avoid such mistakes. Wan uses a number of film tricks we’ve seen numerous times in recent years that aren’t at all necessary. They tend to distract more than they add to the horror. At other times Wan redeems himself nicely, especially in a scene in Whannell’s apartment using the only light he has available to him. Nicely done.

“Saw,” as I saw it, could also stand some quick re-editing. No need to take out any scenes, but reworking some scenes better would hide some of the problems with actor Leigh Whannell. Leigh does a mostly good job throughout the film, but there are some jarring moments with his delivery. At other times, especially those filled with great moments of fear, Leigh does more than an able job.

Where Whannell falls short in the acting category, he comes through with the story which is really a good one with just a couple of flaws. The reveal of the “villain” is a bit obvious at one point, but they make up for it towards the end (note I’m doing my best not to give away anything here). But, it’s the ending that while decent, falls short of being really strong. From what I understand, Wan and Whannell are Australian’s, which is actually a help when making a proper horror film. So often in American cinema horror films fall flat due to their need for a “Hollywood ending.” It’s rare you leave the theater after an American horror film with a real feeling of dread or misery. With “Saw” you don’t get that happy ending, but what they give you requires the audience to just accept certain things and say, “Okay, I guess that could be.” I left the theater having that sense of dread about five minutes before the end, but then it goes away once the credits roll.

“Saw” is a horror film with a mystery to be solved, so the over-active mind I have was constantly trying to figure out where things were going. If you pay close attention to the events that transpire you should without much difficulty figure out where the film makers will take you next. With “Saw” that’s not a horrible thing. It kind of prepares you for the horror that comes next, which you’ll be thankful for.

Cary Elwes gives the strongest performance in the movie. It’s a very different part for him to play and his all-but unrecognizable at first. He looks older in this movie and heavier than I’ve ever seen him before. Danny Glover plays a role similar to ones he’s played in the past (he’s a cop, again) and does an able job. I enjoyed Monica Potter as Elwes’ wife in the movie. She had some excellent moments towards the end.

All in all I’m really quite pleased with “Saw.” Entertaining and scary, it’s not perfect, nor does it fail. If I had to quantify it I guess I’d give it a seven or eight on a one to ten scale. I really do feel that with a just a jiggers worth of editing (oh and some looping, geeze, some of the dialogue had serious problems both with words and sound) the film could be even more successful.

One odd thing was seeing a horror film in the middle of the day. The screening happened at Noon. I’ve never come out of a horror film into broad daylight. That was possibly the oddest part of the whole experience.