The Hot Shots of 2011

As the year comes to a close, let's take a look back at the people who had a very successful year in 2011.

In alphabetical order:

Woody Allen

After two slightly mediocre pictures, the master of neuroses bounced back with his loving ode to France's capital, Midnight in Paris. Not only was Paris Allen's biggest box office hit ever but it could possibly be his first Best Screenplay nominee since 2005's Match Point. Paris was definitely indicative that Allen's still got it.

Pedro Almodovar

Almodovar was another director who bounced back with another film The Skin I Live In. In 2009, he released Broken Embraces, a noirish melodrama that I loved but wasn't the critical darling Skin is. The film is a rape-revenge horror film that is as twisted as it is tragically romantic. Hopefully next month Almodovar find his film a Best Foreign Language Film nominee.

Jessica Chastain

Starring in diverse films like The Help, The Debt and The Tree of Life, Chastain randomly came into the spotlight as an acting force to be reckoned with. I have no idea where she came from but she has received some recognition for her work. She is even in the running for an Oscar nomination for her work in The Help (very much deservedly, in my opinion).

Dan, Emma & Rupert

The Harry Potter film series came to a close with the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. While I personally found the film to be too rushed, fault cannot be found with the main trio. They really brought their A game and their onscreen chemistry reinforced why the series is so popular. They're normal and realistic, despite their extraordinary circumstances.

Viola Davis

This two time Tony winner and Oscar nominee is back in the Oscar spotlight for her fearless and empathetic performance as Aibileen in The Help. I'm hoping this major attention will bring more roles to Davis, who unfortunately gets sidelined into supporting roles (her Oscar nomination was for a single but still effective scene in Doubt). It doesn't hurt that The Help was a strong movie and a financial success.

Zooey Deschanel

When Zooey D was confimed for the sitcom New Girl, well, people were a little skeptical. Deschanel, who is famous for her adorably nerdy screen persona, isn't exactly an actress who one would think could sustain her own TV show. But Zooey D proved them all wrong as New Girl was a critical and popular victory. And who couldn't love that silky voice?

Michael Fassbender

Many actors probably dream about the year that Mike Fassbender had in 2011 but few actors actually have it with success. Fassbender won over hard-to-please Bronte fans in Jane Eyre, excited superhero geeks in X-Men First Class, bared himself physically and emotionally in Shame, and navigated the mazes of the mind as Carl Jung in A Dangerous Method. And yet he left us wanting more.

Ryan Gosling

With Drive, The Ides of March and Crazy Stupid Love, Gosling released three films that are diverse and interesting. The pick of the lot is Drive, the melodrama that occasionally exploded in graphic violence. I think Crazy Stupid Love is an intelligent romantic-comedy that showcases Gosling's lighter side. In 2011, Gosling has proved himself to be a versatile and interesting actor with a bright future.

Martin Scorsese

When every other movie is released in poorly converted, overpriced 3D, it took a real auteur with a gift for visual storytelling to be the first one to utilize correctly the technology since 2009's Avatar. Hugo was Scorsese's love letter to the origins of cinema and a child's exploration of his own past. The film was a visual delight, a treat for those who love movies like Scorsese does.

Emma Stone

In an era when young actresses rarely get any meaty roles. Emma Stone has provided some intelligent, three-dimensional characters for the audience to love. Stone has starred in two remarkable movies and had a memorable cameo in another (Crazy Stupid Love, The Help and Friends with Benefits respectively). Emma Stone is one of those rare actors who, like Meryl Streep, Tina Fey and Steve Martin, are probably as cool as they seem on the screen.

Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy & the Bridesmaids team

This summer saw a full on runaway hit with Bridesmaids, a hilarious and insightful look at the ups and downs in female friendship. Star and co-writer Kristen Wiig delivered a lead performance that was both incredibly funny and refreshingly honest. McCarthy became the year's breakout star, giving her character Megan the right balance between outrageous humor and emotuonal depth. Bridesmaids was definitely the comedy of the year.

Dear Alfred Hitchcock, please forgive me.

Dear Alfred Hitchcock, please forgive me.

But when I last saw the masterpiece Vertigo, I noticed some similarities to the young adult vampire franchise, Twilight.

(I just shuddered writing that.)

If you look at the characters of Judy Barton (Kim Novak) and Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart), they seem to have similar goals. They want to be "changed" by their lovers, Scottie Ferguson (James Stewart) and Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) respectively, as a way to fully get acceptance and affection. Judy lets herself be transformed into Madeleine and Bella begs Edward to change her into a vampire. These women believe the transformations will be the final step to uniting them with their male counterparts.

Feminist critics probably read Judy and Bella the same way; they both lack a personality of their own (Judy abandons hers for Scottie's memory of Madeleine while Bells never really had one to begin with). Neither character is really a healthy role model for children of any age. But there's a reason why I would happily let my kids watch Vertigo while I cringe at my mind's image of future kids viewing/reading the Twilight series.

And the reason lies in the characters of Scottie and Edward (and Jacob Black by extension) themselves.

While Judy is a weak character, it must be remembered that Scottie too is a weak character. Their bizarre, psychosexual relationship is toxic on both ends. Scottie is so crazy that he cannot see Judy for herself but only as Madeleine. His labored attempts to change Judy into Madeleine (when buying for Judy the grey suit that Madeleine wore, the sales clerk mentions twice that he "really knows what he wants") can be seen as him indulging in his deranged love for Madeleine.

In the famous scene where Judy emerges, metamorphosis complete, from the bathroom as Madeleine, it's not entirely sure if Scottie (and the audience also) is seeing Judy-as-Madeleine or Madeleine herself. The foggy air and ethereal music suggest a ghostly presence. When Scottie kisses Judy in that beautifully-filmed rotation kiss, does he even know he's kissing "another woman" or in his mind, is he actually kissing Madeleine?

Even before Judy comes into the picture, Scottie is far from a masculine ideal. For one thing, Scottie is a boy's name, not something you would call a grown man. Also, in the scene where Scottie tries to overcome his vertigo in Midge's apartment with a step-stool, he very effeminately faints into Midge's arms:

In the trial scene after Madeleine's death, Scottie is rather mercilessly emasculated by the judge. He is constantly reminded of his own weakness and failure to save Madeleine. In one scene, Madeleine jumps into the bay in a trance, Scottie saves her. Madeleine then tells Scottie, "The whole thing must have been rather embarrassing for you." Well, that line applies to the entire movie.

By contrast, Edward Cullen is depicted as a masculine ideal. He's handsome and strong and "dazzling." Bella seems him as an ideal romantic partner and her attempts to be changed by him are an attempt to be completely loved by him (like Judy). But the problem is, the audience too is expected to see Edward as Bella does. The audience knows that Judy and Scottie should stay away from each other and their onscreen love is twisted and paranoid.

But the Edward-Bella love story is free of any such psychodrama. Bella is a pretty normal high school girl (as normal as any high school kid can be) and Edward (and his isolationist lifestyle) is a ticket away from all that. That's what makes Twilight so scary; this sort of idealized romance suggests that the couple hide from the world. That's not exactly something I want my fourteen-year-old daughter or son to be thinking.

I know some Twilight fans don't see Edward as the perfect mate. But don't even get me started on Jacob Black. While Bella is described as delicate and is consistently infantilized (sitting on laps, piggy back rides, etc.), Jacob is a gigantic pile of brutish masculinity. Impossibly muscular and impulsively hot-headed, Jacob is basically Stanley Kowalski.

But without Tennessee Williams' words and Marlon Brando's talent. And Stanley is not seen as an ideal love interest.

While Twilight and Vertigo have similar female characters, their male characters are protrayed differently. Vertigo is a psychodramatic love story which should be populated by weak and twisted characters. But Twilight doesn't ever reach the suspenseful heights that Vertigo does. I don't even think it wants to. But its somewhat normalcy is what makes it such a dangerous pop culture enterprise.

Invasion of the Body Switchers

The premise of The Change-Up is not original. I mean, huge shocker, right? You have Freaky Friday, 17 Again, Hot Chicks, just to name a few.

But what separates The Change-Up from those movies is its tongue-in-cheek tone, wicked good performances and a script that is delightfully irreverent. Starring Jason Bateman, Ryan Reynolds, Leslie Mann, Olivia Wilde and Alan Arkin, The Change-Up is directed by David Dobkin (Wedding Crashers) and from a script by Jon Lucas and Scott Moore (the duo behind The Hangover).

Dave (Bateman) is a hard-working lawyer in a too comfortable marriage with Jamie (Mann) with three kids. His best friend is Mitch (Reynolds), a struggling actor with an active but empty sex life and a swank apartment. One night, they get drunk and express their mutual jealousy of the other's life. They pee in a fountain and exclaim "I wish I had your life!" and somehow switch bodies.

That's the premise but the movie goes way beyond that. Mitch, in Dave's body, has to find a way to balance Dave's career, kids and marriage. Meanwhile, Dave, in Mitch's body, gets to experience the single life but it may not be a glamorous as it looks. I was worried that this movie would glorify Mitch's life with hot and willing women while undermining the joys of having a family.

But what's interesting about The Change-Up is that it allows for both Mitch and Dave to see both the best and worst parts of each other's lives. Sure, fatherhood is tough for but it can also be very rewarding. Mitch can pursue a relationship with Dave's gorgeous/mesmerizing colleague Sabrina (Wilde) but there never is any food in the fridge. This script didn't really show a preference for either lifestyle. Dave's marriage is a rocky as Mitch's relationship with his father (Arkin, reliable as always). I think that's what I like best about this movie.

I wish more screen-time and jokes were handed to Olivia Wilde's Sabrina. Wilde looks gorgeous and her acting is quite natural and charismatic. But not much character development is given to her. Although her ending up with Mitch was kind of expected, at least they showed her to be compatible with him instead of just hoping the audience will buy it.

Conversely, a lot of care went into developing Dave and Jamie's marriage. As seen with Wilde and other heroines of the raunchy comedy, women can sometimes get short-changed in the genre (a trend that is on its way out) but Mann not only gets some of the best lines (and knocks them out of the park like she always does) but she is the most empathetic character. Mann has the ability to throw these wild lines that come out of nowhere and her deadpan style is just awesome.

Ryan Reynolds is fantastic in this movie. What's interesting about his performance is that he is really playing against type. Usually he's the smarmy, suave Peter Pan-type but when he plays Dave in Mitch's body, he really shows his range.

Jason Bateman, to be frank, is BRILLIANT. His performance in this movie is proof of why he's one of the best comic actors working today. When he plays Mitch as Dave, it is unlike anything he's ever done. Whether it's the physical comedy or the banter, he really nails every scene.

A lot of critics complained about the raunchy humor in this movie but I didn't find it to be any more extreme as others in the genre. What separates this movie from others is its highly irreverent tone. That word gets thrown around a lot but this movie takes it to another level. The babies in the kitchen scene is so funny yet so wrong. The scene with Mitch's sex friend Tatiana is almost sick but I found myself laughing without shame. Maybe it's because I'm a guy in my 20s but I enjoy "oh, no, they didn't!" humor in comedies. What's the point of even having an envelope if you can't push it?!

Critics be damned, I thought The Change-Up was a perfectly enjoyable summer comedy with the right amount of heart and raunchiness. With a bravura performance from Jason Bateman (I'm hoping for a Golden Globe nomination unless Depp and Jolie have another comedy-thriller coming out), The Change-Up is yet another winner for 2010's summer comedy lineup.

The Change-Up: B+

And just for fun, another picture of Olivia Wilde:

Love and All That Nonsense

Crazy Stupid Love will probably get lumped into the much maligned genre of romantic-comedy. But actually it is a comedy about romance. That sounds like a nonsense statement but it isn't. Not only does Crazy Stupid Love take romance seriously in a way that movies nowadays rarely do but it also finds comedy in romantic situations both glorious and heartbreaking. The results are refreshing and Crazy Stupid Love can be added to lists of the best romantic-comedies ever.

The film stars Steve Carell, Julianne Moore, Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone and features Kevin Bacon, Analeigh Tipton (who placed 3rd on America's Next Top Model), young actor Jonah Bobo and the amazing Marisa Tomei in supporting roles. The movie was written by Dan Fogleman (best known for writing Tangled and Cars) and directed by the duo of Glenn Ficarra and John Requa (the little seen I Love You, Philip Morris).

Cal (Carell) and Emily (Moore) are a couple whose marriage hits a dead end after Emily admits to sleeping with David (Bacon). Newly divorced, Cal finds himself back in the singles' game and not knowing any of the rules. That's when he meets suave playboy Jacob (Gosling), who takes him under his wing Hitch-style. Cal has a small fling with foxy teacher Kate (Tomei) but soon realizes that the love of his life is Emily. Jacob, on the other hand, tries his game on Hannah (Stone) but she shakes his confidence by rejecting him and now he can't get her out of his head. While all of this happening, Cal and Emily's wise-beyond-his-years son Robbie (Bobo) has a full-blown crush on his older babysitter Jessica (Tipton). But Jessica has a crush of her own...Cal.

This ensemble comedy is one part comedy of remarriage, one part reformed playboy comedy and one part awkward teenage romance. In lesser hands, all these characters and subplots would seem superfluous and confusing. But the movie manages to balance everything out, giving each plot the attention it deserves. There is also a balance of despair and farce, which can be a pretty tricky thing to pull off; you don't want to undermine the sentiment with too many jokes nor do you want to halt the comic momentum with mopey drama. Crazy Stupid Love manages to shift its tone with a fabulous ease.

For example, my favorite scene in the movie is the parent-teacher conference sequence. It starts with Cal and Emily sitting on opposite sides of a door, close to each other physically but miles apart emotionally. Moore and Carell play this scene so realistically and effortlessly that if someone had told me they were married in real life, I might actually believe them. This moment is quite heartfelt with a few jokes. Then a surprise comes and the scene shifts to high farce but even that's loaded with an undercurrent of tragedy. And then the scene shifts again as Cal and Emily finally have the confrontation they needed to have. I mean it is absolutely beautiful this scene. I don't even want to think about what it would have been like with a less talented set of actors (my hatred of spoilers will not let me reveal the name of the sequence's most surprising performer) and with a creative team less confident of their material.

And that's the engine that drives this movie to its splendid destination: confidence. In a movie where the phrase "soul mate" is said about 15 times (most of which spoken by a teenage boy), the film had to be sure of itself to sell it sans melodrama.

Crazy Stupid Love is glorious and grand, epic and emotional. It's full of intimate confessions and monumental declarations of love. The movie is dripping with "if only the real world were like this!" There isn't a mean-spirited bone in its body. Even David, Emily's seducer, isn't some emasculating monster but a man genuinely in love with a married woman. The romance between Robbie and Jessica isn't some "hot for babysitter" Playboy letter but a tender yet ultimately ill-fated love story.

Emma Stone, one of Hollywood's top young talents, is absolutely terrific as Hannah. She not only gives us the sweet, sarcastic comic performance we all love but she adds an incredible depth to her persona. Her scenes with Ryan Gosling sparkle with a refreshing romantic chemistry. Of course, their one big scene is written creatively and shot very beautifully.

Ryan Gosling, another rising star, is also quite exceptional. He is charming and suave, but there's an undeniable sadness and emptiness. Pairing him with Steve Carell was a wacky idea and it pays off immensely. Their comic chemistry is quite palpable and the reverse mentorship is interesting to watch.

I already discussed the Carell-Moore acting duo but I'll just reiterate that they are fantastic together. Julianne Moore is one of my favorite actresses and her work is remarkable here also. Steve Carell, in his first post-Michael Scott role, proves to be just as relatable and hilarious also.

Marisa Tomei is ferocious in her small role. Not only does she look as beautiful as ever, but her comic performance is brilliantly unhinged. Kevin Bacon is Kevin Bacon, charming even when he shouldn't be.

Jonah Bobo and Analeigh Tipton are the youngsters in the cast and they are a revelation. Bobo is serenely romantic and unusually wise. Tipton nails the awkward confusion of a misplaced crush. Her character is surprisingly well-written. I hope they both get good work after this.

Crazy Stupid Love is a rare romantic-comedy that has a brain and uses it. It embraces its romance and engages in some unexpected humor. When the credits roll, I wanted the movie to keep on going. I enjoyed these characters and wished I lived in their universe. This is the kind of romantic-comedy that should be made more often. It's certainly the kind of script I'd love to write. But only if I can get the talented trio of Moore, Stone and Tomei to star in it.

Crazy Stupid Love: A

Tow Mater: Average Intelligence

After the mammoth success of Toy Story 3, Pixar released Cars 2. I found this to be both baffling and unsurprising. Baffling because its predecessor Cars had the worst reviews in Pixar history (74% while the others are in the upper 90s). Also, the majority of the public place Cars in the bottom when they rank the Pixar movies. Unsurprising because Cars-related merchandise is very, very profitable for Disney. So, yeah, it kind of makes sense that they would want a repeat of those impressive toy sales. After all, would any kid want a stuffed toy rat for his/her birthday?

One of the great things about Pixar is that it appeals to all demographics. Adults and children both enjoy its special brand of humor. Its stories were grand fables with profound philosophies that are perfectly timeless.

Cars 2, however, is directly aimed at children with its simple-minded humor and bland Disney Channel Original Movie moral. I think it's fine for movies to appeal to children but I also think those movies don't have a long shelf life--do you think anyone is going to be watching Marmaduke or Alvin and the Chipmunks in 5 or 10 years? Probably not.

The plot of Cars 2 involves a whole lot of nonsense: international races, espionage, oil companies. It all sounds like a rejected James Bond outline with heavy inspiration from Hitchcock's "wrong man" films (especially North by Northwest--just replace Cary Grant with a truck voiced by Larry the Cable Guy). Even the musical score is Hitchcock-inspired though it's oddly more Psycho than North by Northwest.

The bloated, convoluted plot would have been somewhat forgivable if Lightning McQueen were the protagonist. But for some reason director John Lasseter decided to switch the focus from Lightning to Mater. In my opinion this was a huge HUGE mistake. Lightning is charming and funny; his dramatic arc in the first film was believable and endearing.

But Mater, a barely tolerable supporting character in Cars, doesn't have the depth to carry his own movie. To put it frankly, Mater is just too dumb to be the protagonist. It seems means to say that about a character in a kid's movie but it's true! He either misinterprets or completely ignores what people say and the results are obnoxiously (and tediously) disastrous. Not only that, but he's so sensitive that any criticism yields a mammoth mood drop. This leads to all characters catering to his feelings as if he were a child.

For example, when he makes a fool out of himself and Lightning McQueen in Tokyo, McQueen gets understandably upset. But he's the one who has to feel bad when they fight (you've been a very bad car...a very VERY bad BAD car, Lightning). This all leads to a boring "be yourself" message, which left a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe I'm a conformist, but I don't think people should be able to act however they want in inappropriate settings i.e. a ritzy party in a big city. Mater (and the kids who see themselves in him) should learn the rules of polite society. Mater's behavior at the party (and in the rest of the movie) is pretty obnoxious but he gets a free pass!

The supporting characters, including two British spies (Michael Caine, Emily Mortimer), are okay but they're all sidelined to make room for Mater's hijinks. The characters in Radiator Springs are all but forgotten. And that's too bad--they were such fun in the first movie.

I think the kids will enjoy this movie but I found it frustrating and ludicrous. The violence was unnecessarily brutal and I also don't think the movie made good use of its locations (Japan, France, Italy, England). If they just had to make a sequel, I wish they had made one just a tad closer to the heart of the original.

Cars 2: C

PS - sorry for the heavy Beyonce clips earlier in the blog...except I'm not really sorry at all.

Alfred Hitchcock's "Apartment Trilogy"

Roman Polanski's "Apartment Trilogy" is quite famous: Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby and The Tenant. Alfred Hitchcock also made an "Apartment Trilogy," though I wonder if anyone thinks of them like one: Rope, Dial M for Murder and Rear Window.

These three films, made between 1948 and 1954, share two things in common: 1.) They all take place in one single apartment and take few to zero trips outside. 2.) The films center around the "perfect murder" and the eventual discovery of it. What is so fascinating about these three movies is that the way Hitchcock explores this single theme of the "perfect murder" is remarkably different in all three.

Rope is a character study about two murderers, one cocky and arrogant, the other hysterical and neurotic. Dial M for Murder is the anatomy--and deconstruction--of a murder. Finally, Rear Window is a love story between an amateur detective and his gal Friday. Some claim Rope and Dial M to be their favorites. In my opinion, however, Rear Window is the true masterpiece in the "trilogy."

All three of these films used their enclosed spaces to the different effect. In Rope, the apartment of Brandon (John Dall) and Phillip (Farley Granger) serves as a space where wealthy intellectuals can mingle about nonsensically while a dead body is stuffed in a trunk. The location creates a sense of suspense--will a party guest open the trunk and figure out that Brandon and Phillip killed a man? There's also the morbid notion that the body is in the trunk on which the food is being served. This juxtaposition with horrific crime and the upper-class is quite common to Hitchcock. In many of his films (including the two others discussed in this blog), wealthy people are fascinated by murder.

Rope is also the weakest in the Hitchcock Apartment Trilogy. Since the murder happens right after the opening credits, there's just no suspense in the movie. For me, I couldn't find myself caring about whether or not Phillip and Brandon got caught or not because they're not empathetic at all. The two boys are elitist know-it-alls and I find their behavior during the dinner party frustrating. Of course, their main "antagonist" is played by James Stewart, an actor whose characters I always want to succeed. I find myself rooting for him to piece together the clues. Rope, though an interesting movie, is essentially a social experiment trying to pass as a Hitchcock thriller.

Second, we have Dial M for Murder, the first pairing of Hitchcock with his favorite actress Grace Kelly. Kelly plays Margot Wendice, the unhappy wife of ex-tennis star Tony (Ray Milland). Margot and Tony's apartment ritzy and fashionable, an ideal setting for Hitchcockian crime. The low angles add to the dread and claustrophobia. Like I said before, Dial M is about the planning and solving of a perfect murder. Tony's plot to kill Margot (she's cheating and he wants her insurance money) is full of many steps and months of preparation. Everything has to be just so and it almost works out for him...except Margot kills her attacker.

The second half of the movie involves Tony trying to evade getting pinned for planning all this. He does so by carefully undermining Margot's self-defense argument. How the murder plot is deconstructed forms the rest of the movie. Unlike Rope, there is a lot of suspense in this movie. The murder scene and the climax are effective and thrilling. But my main issue with Dial M is that there are too many scenes of talking and talking. The pre-climax scenes, when the Inspector is figuring out the case, can get a little tiresome, although that may be because I know how amazing the climax is. I had the pleasure of seeing Dial M on the big screen and in its original 3-D and the movie is just amazing. So my quibbles are minor in the long run.

Rear Window is I think one of Hitchcock's absolutely, 100% perfect films (the other two are Notorious and Vertigo) and that's because there's so much life to it. Each new viewing heralds something new and exciting. The mystery unfolds differently each time. Hitchcock's macabre sense of humor and delightful sense of romance fully come together to add spice to the claustrophobic thriller. Wheelchair-bound L.B. Jeffries (James Stewart) and intelligent socialite Lisa Carol Fremont (Grace Kelly) are a couple you can really root for; their love is true and empty of any psychodrama. The main plot of the movie has nothing to do with who killed the invalid neighbor--it's actually will Jeff and Lisa make it to marriage?

That's why Rear Window doesn't fall victim to the same issues that Rope and Dial M for Murder do. By treating the murder plot as an extended MacGuffin, there aren't any scenes of long explanations about who did what at what time and how that was a mistake. The "perfect murder" plot is there but it is seasoned with very fascinating character-based dialogue between Jeff and Lisa, Jeff and insurance company nurse Stella (Thelma Ritter) and Jeff and useless detective Doyle (Wendell Corey). Jeff's neighborhood is also a vital part of the story as they add commentary to to the main story, which both detracts from and adds to the claustrophobia. Rear Window is really a masterpiece of storytelling because it tells two very distinct stories as one complete film.

So that's my take on what I consider to be Alfred Hitchcock's own "Apartment Trilogy." I think all three of them are important to Hitchcock and his place in cinema history. What fascinates me is that each of Hitchcock's films have their own champions who declare it his best ever. While I don't agree regarding Rope and Dial M for Murder, I do think that Rear Window is pure, classic Hitchcock.

SYMBOLISM! GRANDEUR! EPIC!

I've never seen a Terence Malick film before seeing The Tree of Life. But, having seen that, I just don't really feel any desire to see another one of his movies. The Tree of Life is one of the most pretentious, overly-ambitious and self-indulgent motion pictures I have ever seen. Interest in the film began a while ago when I saw the trailer, which looked both epic and humble. Then the movie premiered at the Cannes Film Festival to both boos and thunderous applause. Finally, the movie won the Palme d'Or or Best Picture at the festival. Having read some reviews, I was skeptical but willing to be won over.

That didn't happen.

Instead, about fifteen minutes into the movie, I began to check my watch and looking for a way to leave without disturbing anyone who may be enjoying it. I ended up sitting through all 138 minutes of the movie but not without multiple eye-rolls.

The Tree of Life stars Academy Award nominee Brad Pitt, rising star Jessica Chastain and Oscar winner Sean Penn. Written and directed by Malick, the movie attempts to correlate a boy losing his innocence to the creation of the world. The story jumps between 1950s Texas and the 21st century in an unnamed city. Pitt and Chastain play the boy's parents and Penn plays the boy in the present (or is it the future?). Within this loose narrative is an extended sequence that literally depicts how the world began. That's basically the best synopsis I can give you because even I was not sure what was happening on screen.

According to IMDb, the characters do have names but I don't really remember anyone saying them. That's partly because the "dialogue" in this movie is just lot of nonsense monologues that sound more like Bible verses than real human speech. The script is full of voiceovers and metaphors and after a while, it just becomes exhausting. Of course a statement like that is what fans of the movie are going to cite as an example of American stupidity. If it makes me stupid or ignorant to want straightforward dialogue and a clear narrative structure (whether linear, non-linear, whatever), than that's fine. I'm okay with that.

Because at least I'm not getting behind a movie that feature multiple voiceover moments where a character whispers "MOTHER. FATHER. BROTHER." or where the image on screen is a laughably precise and over-composed shot that is supposed to be ripe with symbolism and deep meaning. For example, a butterfly flittering around and then landing on the palm of the angelic Jessica Chastain. I mean, really.

The problem with Malick's composition and visual design is that everything is just so heavy-handed. It's like every little detail is supposed to be sooooo deep and grand! It's like being hit over the head with a shovel. Throughout much of the film, I just wanted to yell out WE GET IT! But social decorum forbids such an outburst.

Also, the characters aren't even real, three-dimensional people but agents of Malick's thesis. That would be all well and good if Malick's thesis was clear and focused. How is the creation of the world connected to this family in Texas and that sad man in the urban setting? And even Malick's depictions of Americana/humanity are cliched and uninspiring. A white middle-class family in 1950s Texas! Three boys! Pretty mom! Stern dad! So unique!

And matters are even worse with Sean Penn's scenes. Malick shows present/future life as a stifling modernity--blank, prison-life skyscrapers and a color scheme of black, white and grey. There is a hilarious scene where Sean Penn wakes up to find what we assume to be an estranged wife sitting at the other end of the bed, staring blankly away from him. Then they just walk around their home. In fact, walking around is basically what people do in this movie.

Or when the characters do anything besides walk around, their actions are dripping in grandiosity. Monotonous occurrences are overblown and exaggerated to Biblical proportions. Really it just reeks of "been there, done that."

And then when it comes to the Creation of the World sequence, that is when the movie is at its most preposterous. Malick hardly makes any connection to the main "narrative." It just seems to come out of nowhere. And then some dinosaurs walk on screen and it's like WHAAAAT?! I don't mind a movie taking some risks but it has to make sense with the rest of the movie. Here it just seems like Malick wants to throw something to the wall but doesn't even care if it sticks. I will say that this sequence looks gorgeous and massive and spectacular. But it seems more National Geographic documentary than cinematic art.

Would I recommend The Tree of Life? All polarizing movies deserve to be seen by those who don't truly mind being frustrated by a film. Even with the aimless direction, intrusive soundtrack, mind-numbing dialogue and missing narrative structure, this movie deserves a chance because who knows? It might just click. And maybe it's ahead of its time? I mean, maybe I'm now misunderstanding this movie the way people misunderstood Vertigo back in 1958.

In all honesty though, I sincerely doubt I'll ever like this movie.

The Tree of Life: C+

Picture It: Miami, 1985

One of the biggest mysteries in American television history is how a sitcom about four post-menopausal women living the single life in Miami, Florida, could be as universally-appealing as it is. Logically speaking, The Golden Girls should not have been the massive success it was and still is. My own personal theory is that the characters are so well-defined and the writing is so sharp and sidesplittingly funny that a viewer of any age can enjoy the show.

With such lovable characters like the sarcastic Dorothy (Bea Arthur), promiscuous Blanche (Rue McClanahan), dimwitted Rose (Betty White) and wisecracking Sophia (Estelle Getty), The Golden Girls became a series about three women who began their lif again after divorce and widowhood. With Sophia as the mother hen, the series was about a makeshift family--well, Dorothy really was Sophia's daughter.

The feminist undertones of The Golden Girls are clear and strong. This was the first sitcom to give voice to a demographic that had thus been represented by the media as grannies with interests in knitting and grandchildren only. The Golden Girls were active, sexual, intelligent, funny and professional. They lived lives as busy as anyone half their age. The core of the show was this super strong friendship. It's a friendship anyone would hope to have, man or woman, young or old.

The Golden Girls was also a pioneer sitcom for the insult-based intimacy that is so popular in the modern sitcom. For example, Entourage owes a lot more to The Golden Girls than most people think. In both shows, friendship means you can throw vicious insults at each other, with the comfort of knowing that nobody ever really means it (and if they do...boy, are you in trouble!). In The Golden Girls, everyone's tiny flaws are fair game and they can take what they dish out. The dialogue on this show is just killer--zinger after creative zinger flies by during their many midnight conversations over cheesecake.

If you were to ask me who my favorite of the golden girls is, well, the answer is both simple and complex. Blanche Devereaux is probably my favorite. She's Scarlett O'Hara transported into a Tennessee Williams play. I just love Blanche; I find her outlandish and colorful sex life charming and her unapologetic narcissism lovable. Whenever she goes off on one of her lusty but sidesplitting tales, I just laugh my head off (especially if she ends it by fanning herself and panting) and her sultry but over-the-top Southern accent is just the frosting on the cake. What I adore most about Blanche is that she likes the company of men and is not sorry about it. And why she should be? Blanche is awesome.

So that's the simple answer. But the complex answer is--I don't have a favorite! I mean, all four of these characters are sharply written and expertly performed by Bea Arthur, Rue McClanahan, Betty White and Estelle Getty (this remains one of the few sitcoms where every cast member won an Emmy award). Each of the four characters complement each other quite beautifully. Dorothy's fast and highly sarcastic responses are glorious. Rose's naivete and nonsensical St. Olaf stories are adorable. And Sophia's tough love and bizarre Siciliy stories perfectly round out the cast of characters. And even when the show has a guest star, they never take the focus away from the core cast. This is the kind of chemistry that shows like Friends, Sex and the City, Entourage, Seinfeld and Cougar Town strive for (and achieve of course).

The show did have its problems. The costumes are just bizarre and mortifying. Series continuity was almost nonexistent. Some episodes focused too much on a serious subject and not enough on laughs (this was a trend of the era, actually). Or, on the opposite end, some episodes were just downright silly. But it's easy to forgive a show its flaws if it's as sparkling and wonderful as The Golden Girls.

The Golden Girls was a landmark sitcom and it is still enjoyed today by fans young and old. Trust me, the humor is as fresh as ever. It remains one of the most memorable comedies to ever hit television. If you already haven't seen it, I encourage you to check it out--you won't regret it.

Paris When It Sizzles

Woody Allen's 42nd film, Midnight in Paris, begins with a montage of Parisian sights, beginning with delightful dawn and ending with magical midnight. This opening is like a love letter to the city; it's sort of a French cousin to the opening scene of Allen's 1979 romance Manhattan. Like Manhattan and Vicky Cristina Barcelona before it, Midnight in Paris serves as a romantic homage to its titular city. In fact, I would even call the three films a trilogy of Urban Romance (though I wonder if the Woodster himself would like that name).

Midnight in Paris stars Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Marion Cotillard, Kathy Bates, Adrien Brody and Michael Sheen.

Gil (Wilson) is vacationing with his fiancee Inez (McAdams) in Paris with her parents Wendy (Mimi Kennedy) and John (Kurt Fuller). A romantic at heart, Gil is a Hollywood screenwriter who longs to write a great novel. His fiancee and in-laws have little patience for experiencing Paris the way he does--he's in love with it. One night, while taking a late night stroll, Gil is picked up in a 1920s car and is magically transported back to the glamorous roaring 20s and rubs elbows with Gertrude Stein (Bates), Salvador Dali (Brody), Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleton, Allison Pill) and Ernest Hemingway (Corey Stoll). Gil also meets the beautiful Adrianna (Cotillard), who shares many of his passions. Gil is then torn between the magical past and the disappointing present.

If Midnight in Paris were to be Woody Allen's final film, then that would be just fine. (Luckily, it's not.) The movie encapsulates many of Woody's favorite themes and tropes. You have:

*a tirade against the pseudo-intellectual (Annie Hall)

*an element of romantic science fiction (The Purple Rose of Cairo)

*a sweet and tidy happy ending (Hannah and Her Sisters)

*a romanticizing of the past (Radio Days)

*a man falling for an unattainable woman (Crimes and Misdemeanors)

I mean, that is grossly understating things but Midnight in Paris is a melting pot of all things Allen. It's sort of like his North by Northwest. Midnight in Paris is also one of Woody Allen's funniest films in a long time. While most of his films are witty and humorous, the comedy in this movie is just on a different level than the comedies of his recent past.

Many actors have tried and failed to take on the Woody persona (like Will Ferrell in Melinda and Melinda and Jason Biggs in Anything Else). But Owen Wilson joins the elite group who are successful in their attempts (Rebecca Hall in Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Mia Farrow in Alice, Jeff Daniels in Purple Rose). Wilson even adds his own sunshine charm to the character and the results are appealing and effective. I can see a Golden Globe nomination (and maybe a win!) in his future.

Of the women, I think Rachel McAdams as the shrewish fiancee has the funniest character. It's refreshing to see her play such a mean-spirited character in a humorous way. Marion Cotillard is perfect as the alluring and nostalgic Adrianna, though I wish her role was a little livelier.

Michael Sheen as a pretentious self-proclaimed "expert" who knows next to nothing is an absolute riot Both he and Corey Stoll (Law and Order: LA) bring the house down. This is definitely a breakout movie for Stoll. The rest of the supporting cast is exquisite.

For me, one of the best details of the movie is that Gil's time travel remains unexplained. Just as movie character Tom Baxter leaps out of the screen in The Purple Rose of Cairo, Gil just slides through time with a magical car. It would be too expository for Allen to give some sort of explanation. Plus, the magic and the romance of it would be lost.

Midnight in Paris is a romantic, wistful film brimming with nostalgia and humor. It is perhaps Woody Allen's best film in a long time (this coming from someone who worships Vicky Cristina Barcelona). I highly recommend it to anyone who loves Paris, the past and Woody Allen.

Midnight in Paris: A