The Five-Year Engagement

I have to be honest.  There were only three reasons why I wanted to see this movie.
1. Jason Segal was the leading actor
2. It was mostly filmed in Ann Arbor, which I consider my hometown.
3. This:

Nothing says I've given up on any future dreams like chops this big.

Any way, I had heard from a couple friends (read: Philistines) who said this movie wasn't that great.  I referred to the above reasons, and they still said "Meh" so I prolonged my viewing of this film so that my love of A2 and J-Seegs wouldn't be tainted.  In retrospect, this was a mistake.  I really enjoyed this movie.  Here are some highlights that made this movie worth watching for me.

1. Chris Pratt
I usually rant about certain actors being typecast and all, but Chris Pratt is great in this. He really bridges the gap between his douchebag role in Wanted and his loveable, yet idiotic character from Parks and Rec.  In fact, I would go so far as to infer that he does more to make this movie great than Jason Segal does, at least character-wise.  Obviously, Segal having written the story for the movie makes it all his success, but you know what I mean.  Pratt's character, Alex, is more than just the best bud or wingman.  He provides the counterpoint to the relationship of Segal and Blunt's characters, Tom and Violet.  His character is rude, inappropriate and by all measures, a total asshole.  However, he manages to turn a one-night stand with Violet's sister into a lasting marriage with two kids, which was only made possible by Tom's decision to quit his job to move to Michigan in support of Violet's doctoral study/career at U of M.  He's both the buddy and the villain in a way.  Much like he was in Wanted, but to a whole new level.

and with less dental work by QWERTY

  His success becomes the catalyst that begins to drive Tom and Violet apart during the engagement.
The things he does and says in the movie are hilarious, as well.  Referring to flirting as "shooting invisible dick missiles", his over-reaction about everything involving his daughter (who he never wanted in the first place), and his HORRIBLE, yet strangely sage advice to Tom throughout the film.  You wonder HOW this guy can exist.  He's at times the best and worst human being in the world of this film.

2. The Relationship Dynamics
Wow.  Not just the couples, even.  EVERY connection to each character is brilliant.  The irony of the one-night stand turned marriage of Alex and Suzie that SHOULD fail but somehow succeeds, despite Suzie's unhappiness. The pressure from the parents and grandparents to Tom and Violet to get it together and get married before all the grandparents die (spoiler alert: they all die).  The way Violet interacts with her colleagues and professor/boss.  The bromance between Tom and his buddies, Tarquin and Bill.  Segal and his co-conspirator Nicholas Stoller got every aspect of the interactions spot on in my opinion.  It's so real and visceral, maybe almost too much so.  Some parts were just a bit uncomfortable, because you could see how things were going to go before the characters themselves did.

3. The Setting
Like I mentioned earlier, Ann Arbor is my home.  In fact, my sister actually met Jason Segal during the filming of the movie.  Also, San Francisco is one of my favorite places in California, other than the cost of living or even visiting there.  The familiarity of the settings really drew me into this film.  Especially the Ann Arbor parts, which up until now, I had only seen in that mediocre HAyden Christiansen vehicle, Jumper.  And even then, most of what was supposed to be Ann Arbor was actually filmed in Windsor, ON.  That's a sign that your movie budget is jacked.  You can afford to film in Egypt, but have to make Windsor look like Ann Arbor.  But, I digress.  Seeing so many of my favorite places, such as Le Dog, Shalimar, Gratzi, and of course, Zingerman's in scenes with one of my favorite comedy writers/actors is like getting into a bathtub where the water is the perfect temperature. 

She knows what I'm talking about...

Of course, I had a little convo with the wifey about there not being any wooded area close to Zingerman's where Tom could have drunkenly stumbled into bare-ass and fallen asleep, unless he drunk drove, once again bare-ass, to the Arboretum some five miles away.  But that's a small thing.  Nowhere near the locational gaffes in Rocky or The Goonies where characters start in one place and then end up 40 miles away shortly later.

I can't believe we hiked through a 30 mile cave in one night!

Oh yeah? I just jogged that in the snow!  In Philly!  Hooray for montages!

4. The timeline
This movie takes you through the five year stretch of life happening to these people in such a way that even when it drags a bit near the end, you accept it because you identify with the frustration of Tom in the situation.  It's not the action or flow of the movie dragging, it's life!  And it's very real.  So often, couples want to take that next step, but they're scared of not being sure or things working out perfectly, so they wait...and wait...and wait...until they either decide it's not worth it anymore and break it off or they realize that they've wasted their time and veer off in a whole new direction and then repeat the cycle under different circumstances.  This movie holds you in that tension so well, you can taste it.  You see Tom's slow descent into frustration and feeling like everything he wanted is withering away.  It's a great balance of the realness of the situation without being predictable and tropish.

Really, all I can say negatively about this film is that Tom hated being in Ann Arbor.  Outside of a Buckeye fan, I can't imagine anyone feeling like that.  But, I'm a little biased. 

I highly recommend this movie.  I usually talk down and rip apart romdramedies, but I swear Jason Segal has found the way to make it really work.

Join me next time when I share the things I suddenly realized about the first three Indiana Jones movies that I totally missed as a kid.

He's Just Not That Into You



You know it's a chick flick when you wake up and your wife is crying...

 So, about a month ago, I watched this movie with my wife.  For some weird reason, I was thinking about it again and how the movie made me cringe reflect on the way relationships work these days, apparently.

Having been out of the dating scene for the past decade, I felt it was imperative that I view this opus of relationships.  Just kidding.  Here's a more accurate depiction of my having seen this film.



WHYYYYYYYYYYY!



Yeah, I was coerced into viewing this movie and did so with all the loathing and skepticism as our friend Alex above.  However, there were some good parts. 

I think Bradley Cooper did a great job of playing an unaffected self-destructive douchebag, as usual.  Jennifer Connolly was brilliant as the suspicious cold-hearted bitch, like always.  Drew Barrymore played her typical out-of-the-loop, too young to be really over the hill, but useless in a relationship dreck.  Ben Affleck was sensationally playing against type as the afraid to commit Southie.  Scarlett Johannson did a great job at being sexy and dangerous to the well being of all around her.  Jennifer Aniston is the "I want to get married before my tits dry up and I can't have kids" trope. Kevin Connolly reprises his role from "Entourage" as the guy who can provide insight for everyone's relationship but his own...

My point is that it was a movie full of "safe" roles for all involved.  I mean, I can't say much about the typecasting of Ginnifer Goodwin, because I've not seen her in anything other than her forgettable role as Johnny Cash's cockulded (do you use cockuld for a woman?) wife. However, her character was SOOOOO cringeworthy, it makes my dusty twelve-years stale "game" look impressive.  And yes, these were the best parts, in my opinion.

It was amusing, don't get me wrong.  However, this movie reads like a bad advice column from Cosmo.

Does your husband drop hints about your weight? He's cheating on you!  Does he tell you that your weight doesn't matter? He's cheating on you!  Does he randomly say he loves you? He's cheating on you!

I'm not even going to bother with spoiler alerts because I'll be doing you a favor by telling you the details of this movie and saving you the torture of watching it yourself.  I can only apologize for dredging up the memories of those who have been exposed to them.

The #1 element of this movie that needled me was the dynamics of the relationship between Jennifer Connelly and Bradley Cooper.  SHE'S MORE PISSED OFF THAT HE'S SMOKING THAN CHEATING! HE STILL DENIES SMOKING, BUT ADMITS TO CHEATING...BEFORE HE'S CAUGHT DOING THE SECOND BUT AFTER CAUGHT DOING THE FIRST!  Do real people exist that have their priorities and dealbreakers skewed this way?  Am I out of touch?  I ranted about this through the whole movie!  In fact, the badgering about the smoking is what probably pushed him over the edge with the cheating!  He probably figured if she was going to be such a heinous bitch about an occasional smoke due to her father dying of lung cancer (understandable, but come on!), yet not about his infidelity, then the relationship is pretty much dead anyhow.  

The epic failing of Ginnifer Goodwin's character was sort of endearing, yet she seemed WAY too eager.  Kinda reminds me of Laina, the Overly Attached Girlfriend.

Had to go with the .gif.  Much creepier.

 I felt embarrassed for her the entire movie.  The ending was so predictable and sappy, I think I got Type Two Diabetes. 

The relationship between Ben Affleck/Jennifer Aniston is so typical of their respective bodies of work that you can just mentally mash together Chasing Amy and an episode of Friends and get a pretty good picture.

Drew Barrymore's part was so forgettable that I can't comment on it.

Scarlett Johannsen was a skank who didn't know what she wanted and even when she had exactly what was best for her, she walks away.  Her half-nakedness was the only thing that I enjoyed about her character.  I don't even feel like a perv for saying it (yes, I do, but...).

There's more to say, but this much has given me a migraine already.  I need some chocolate to bring myself back to calm now.  Sorry, this entry was more of a rant than a review.  Hopefully it was entertaining. 

Basically, if you are a hetero-guy and you are made to watch this, don't expect to get any sexy time afterwards.  This movie will only feed any suspicions that your significant other may be feeling.  If you are hiding ANYTHING, NO MATTER HOW INSIGNIFICANT, talk about it BEFORE you watch this! 

If you are a straight woman, please be kind to your boyfriend/husband/common-law lifemate upon watching this.  However, if he lets go of your hand during any scene with Scarlett Johannsen, he doesn't love you and you've already lost him.

The ONLY further good thing I will say is that the movie drives home the point that if your daughter is teased by a boy and you tell her that it means he likes her, don't be surprised when she only dates assholes later on on life.

I'm thinking the only people who can watch this safely are lesbian couples who can chuckle together and further validate the fact that they are not attracted to men, who are all evil, apparently.

Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to re-watch Closer to kill off any last remnant of self-worth and faith I have in being a man. 

Moral: Everybody cheats because humanity sucks.

The Avengers

By now, I'm sure most people have seen this movie.  If you haven't, shame on you.  I rewatched it last night with the intent of viewing it more critically.  There's so much awesome in this movie that it's easy to get lost in the convoluted plot and dismiss all the things that just don't add up.  But I'll get to that later. 

Direction:
For those who don't know, this movie was written and directed by Joss Whedon, a god to most comic geeks.  If Buffy and Angel are your only frame of reference for Whedon, then shame on you and you must watch Dr. Horrible or Firefly to see his "real" work.  In fact, I may do a review of Serenity sometime soon, but then I would get into obscure discussion of Firefly and rant about how unappreciated Whedon's genius is and...now I'm doing it.  Long and short, I feel that Whedon did a great job of taking these characters who were all pre-developed in stories of their own and making them come together.  I think the idea of them all initially arguing or disliking each other was brilliant.  It also made Nick Fury seem like a completely unhinged volatile madman who just happened to be right.

TELL ME NO AGAIN!  I DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU!

Oh wait, no, that was Tony Stark. Never mind.  I loved how Fury NEVER lost faith in the Avengers Initiative. Seeing as all the main characters were already developed previously, I'm not sure how much input Whedon had in the way the characters were portrayed by the actors, but he obviously did his homework. 

Plot:
Okay, I'm going to get into spoiler territory here, so be forewarned.  Of course, if for some reason you haven't seen this already, you probably won't care.  And if you do care, stop reading this and go watch the movie on NetFlix RIGHT NOW.  If you don't have Netflix or know someone who does, yet still have a computer, I don't even...
Moving on,  I'm just going to focus on what I liked the most, what I thought could have been better, and what was so out-of-sync that it needs saying.

The Good:
First of all, this:

The action scenes were amazing.  Especially the battle at the end.  Eve though there were enough explosions and destruction to be a shared wet dream between Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich, it was still cohesive and flowed well.  There was so much going on and yet the tactical positioning of all of the Avengers was great.  The first time I saw this, I expected Iron Man to be leading, but then upon re-watching, I see that Cappy was the perfect tactical leader.  Even 70 years removed from the environment he was a military leader in, he still knew exactly where to place everyone to achieve maximum effectiveness.  Of course, we've been using Sun Tzu for military tactics for hundreds of years, so, I guess it's not that unbelievable. 

I loved the interaction between the characters.  Especially between Tony Stark and Steve Rogers.  Two men with the same goal who despise or at least look down on the way the other wishes to achieve it.  Here, just watch this and you'll see my point:

This is probably one of the best scenes illustrating the interaction.  It's very reminiscent of why Superman and Batman never got along.  In a way, Cappy and Iron Man are like the Marvel equivalents of Superman and Batman.  One is a young, idealistic crusader who was removed from the world he knows, fighting with a sense of moral justice.  The other a brilliant billionaire who used his company's assets and money to fund a vigilante, at-all-odds, I-decide-what's-right kind of justice.  Yet, they come together to lead. 
The interaction between Thor and Loki was also very good.  It kind of reminds me of Mufasa and Scar in Lion King, in a way.  Maybe that was intentional.  Maybe also a bit like Professor X and Magneto.  They both have very different ideas of what is best for humanity and very different ways of achieving their goals. 
I liked the dynamic between Barton and Romanov as well.  Former enemies with a bit of a love story, perhaps?  I especially like how the tables get turned.  When Barton is turned by Loki, he becomes the bad guy and Romanov, the former Russian spy becomes the good one.  I wih they could have focused on these two a bit more, but they are minor characters and really just trained assassins, not superheroes.  They still rock, though.

Finally, I have always loved the way that Coulson seemed to be the guy pulling all the strings, bringing them all together without ever getting his hands dirty.  This point was firmly driven into the ground by what happened when he actually did decide to get his hands dirty, along with his trading cards.  I especially loved his fanboyness around Captain America. 

The Not So Good:
There was little about this movie that was straight up bad, but there was a lot that annoyed me.  Like the way they completely wasted Hawkeye through the majority of the movie.  He's always been one of my favorite supporting Avengers and I didn't like the way he was just quickly turned into a liability.  Also, I think Loki's overconfidence was played up too much.  He could have ended it for everyone at multiple times, yet didn't.  The scene where Loki and Romanov are talking was a great example of his arrogance betraying him.  It's my favorite scene with him in it other than him getting his ass beat by Hulk.  When Romanov gets him to spill his plan, it reminded me of that scene in the Incredibles where Syndrome says , "YOU SLY DOG!   You had me monologuing!" 
The continuity of Romanov's past also seems to be a disconnect, especially concerning her age.  She's old enough to have been a Soviet spy, yet too young to remember the Commodore 64.  Even if she was only eight when employed as a Russian spy, she'd still have to be at least 35 to have enough in her checkered past, unless she was just working for the Russian Mafia throughout the mid-to-late 90s.  Her outright fear of the Hulk through a majority of the movie seemed out of place, too.  This is a woman who is cunning, agile, and resourceful enough to take out eight armed Russians while handcuffed to a chair, yet pisses her pants at the thought of Banner Hulking out.  And WHY THE HELL did this scene even happen?

At first, this scene seems like it makes sense, but when you see how in control Banner is of his Hulk side at the end of the movie, this seems so out of place.  ESPECIALLY since they all knew that this is what Loki wanted to happen.  The only way it makes sense is if Loki is using some sort of magical means to control Hulk.  If he could control himself while an army of aliens are blowing up Manhattan, why does an explosion in mid-air make him lose control and attack Black Widow?  And the WAY she's scared of him is like a woman faced with a man who had raped her.  Was this a subtext that was somehow removed?  Someone please explain this.

Coulsen's death pissed me off.  It basically reduced all of his cool, calculating, behind-the-scenes swagger to a McGuffin to make the Avengers do their job.  Or maybe it was a statement about how he was all bark and no bite.  He did at least figure out what that gun did.  Okay, in fairness, it was Fury who reduced him to a McGuffin by using the bloddy cards as a push.  I still didn't like it.

So, in conclusion, This movie was quite amazing, and even when you look past the splodey, shiny parts, it carries well.  Also, upon rewatching, I was able to catch the cameos of Ashley Johnson and Harry Dean Stanton.  They are easy to miss if you don't watch the deleted scenes.  They aren't superstars or anything, but it was cool to see the little girl from Growing Pains and the captain from Alien randomly show up.

What were your fave parts?  What bothered you about the movie?  Did anyone else watch the shwarma scene at the end?  If not, here it is:

Fireproof

FIREPROOF

For the past five years, I have heard SOOOOO many people, especially those in the evangelical Christian circles raving about this movie and how it "saved their marriage."  Now, I'm not going to cynically rip this thing apart, because there was a lot of good stuff in it.  However, I'm not going to say it was the best movie ever about divorce, relationships, and such.  Let's lay some groundwork first, just so I don't look like a jerk.

This was excellent as far as most Christian produced movies go.  I understand the reasons why this tends to happen. 
The Christian Entertainment Industry is a fairly small pool, smaller than BBC's talent pool in the 1970s.  Therefore, I just accept that the acting will not be Oscar award-winning.  Most of the time, they have to take what they can get (mostly has beens or not yets). 
I also realize that they have an agenda to be preachy.  I don't feel like that's necessary, but then, I'm not making the movies.

So, let me start by saying what I liked about the movie, so that way I don't tick people off and look like a "juice bag", as my kids say.

First, the overall message is great.  As a sailor, I have watched MANY marriages break down and honestly, SHATTER, because of finances, miscommunication, and lack of quality time.  In fact, those are often the top three reasons people get divorced or resort to cheating.  Much of the movie hit me in the feels, as I had at one time been in the same place.

Also, seeing Mike Seaver (he will always be that to me) reacting the same way I once did was great.  Nothing makes your stupid actions look even more idiotic than having Kirk Cameron portray them with his sub-par, past-his-prime acting skills.  I half expected Alan Thicke to come in with a cup of coffee and give him a heart-to-heart.

"Mike, there comes a time in every man's life where he's gotta stop being such a d-bag..."

Most of the interaction between the main characters seemed fairly believable from the experience I have had in my own marriage and from seeing others around me go through similar circumstances.  I think certain things went overboard, though, which I'll discuss later.

Finally, I truly appreciated that the movie expressed the message that you cannot change anyone else, only yourself.  I spent so much time and effort trying to be Bob the Builder in my marriage.  Sometimes, you can't just "fix" things without changing yourself.  I'm glad that message came across.

Okay, now for the bad, then we'll get to the ugly.

As is my common gripe with an overwhelming majority of Christian films, it was WAAAAAAAAYYYYY too preachy.  It wasn't just the preachiness, though.  It was how ham-fisted and cookie-cutter the preaching was.  I understand that Jesus needs to be central for a film like this, but SERIOUSLY?  Everything goes to shit and can't move forward until you accept Jesus?  Yes, a God-centered perspective will strengthen your marriage, but making it seem like you can't do ANYTHING outside of a Christ-centered relationship is just too much.    Also, it makes it seem like "real Christians" don't have these kind of problems.  The best friend character who had a previous wife?  Pre-conversion.  Of course THAT relationship failed!  Only Christians can have working marriages!  I felt like I was being beat over the head with the salvation message.  Not necessary.  People don't need this shoved down their throats.  It's a turn-off. 

Next, I got the feeling that the director doesn't interact with many people outside of the Christian bubble.  All the non-Christians were so stereotypical and rigid in their "alternative beliefs."  I have met very few people who are so definite in their beliefs or lack there of.  I think Cameron's character, Caleb, was the most realistic.  He didn't know for sure and didn't want to really make it a big thing in his life.  That's what I see most of the time.  The "us vs them" attitude needs to go.  If you want more people to come to Christ and make him a vital part of their marriage, don't portray them as idiots who are "too dumb to realize God loves them."

I liked the salt and pepper shaker illustration, but I hate that it's being adopted by so many couples for their wedding cakes or vow renewals.  I like the imagery, but I hate when good examples become fads.  If you want to make your wedding special, be original or traditional.  Trust me, when you view your wedding video in ten years, it will be cringeworthy.

Moving on, I hate, hate, HATE the way that Catherine was portrayed in this film.  Yes, initially Caleb looked like a chauvinistic jerk and a bit unreasonable, but once the D-word came out of Catherine's mouth, she was transformed into an ice-hearted heinous bitch.  This movie made the whole impending divorce look like her fault and she was portrayed as completely unwavering in her mindset.  Let's be realistic.  If someone had treated you like garbage for 5+ years, would YOU rush back into their arms after only 40 days of a change? Would you need YOUR extremely stereotypically portrayed African American "girlfriend" to put the idea that it was a scam into your head?  I know anytime I see a drastic change in someone's behavior, especially if someone is always mean and suddenly nice, as suspicious.  I've been burned FAR too many times to just bite that hook.  To demonize her character is so awful.  Her reactions are completely predictable.  In fact, too predictable.  They set her up for the fall from the first scene she's in.  They may have just had a neon sign saying "bad guy" pointing at her the whole time.

Speaking of predictable, this whole movie was predictable.  Maybe I've just seen far too many rom-coms or chick flicks or whatever rhyming subgenre you want to use, but I could have told you the whole run of this film in the first ten minutes.  Even the big plot twist at the end was pretty predictable, though they did make me doubt it for a bit (for that, I say well played).

Okay, enough negativity.  Well, there's a couple more things.  But these are more ugly than bad (I forewarned you).

The not-so-subtle stereotypes.  Really, if that one black nurse said "MMMMHMMMM" one more time in that film, I'd have pulled an Elvis and shot the TV.  You might as well have had Al Jolson in blackface portraying Terrell (REALLY?  CAN YOU PICK A MORE STEREOTYPICAL "black" NAME?!).

This offended me less than those nurses and Terrell combined.

Also, it seemed like EVERY female was portrayed in a negative light.  From Catherine's cold behavior throughout the film, to the gossipy nurses, to Caleb's mother initially being seen as the reason for the near divorce between his parents.

Future destroyer of worlds

Last of all, the fat people were all screw-ups.  I'm so sick of overweight people being cast as the dimwitted, clumsy as all get out comic reliefs.  Really, looking at the waistlines of most fundamental evangelicals in the churches I'VE seen, you'd think they'd be seen as the heroes!

I'm a person...

...not your entertainment.

It's so obvious that this movie was written by old white men with no real context of life outside their own demographic.  Sadly, I have to admit that this is one of the best Christian produced movies I've seen.  It brings me to tears.  I feel like Christians in the entertainment industry will never get the respect they deserve unless those who produce evangelical or even just Christian-made movies step up their game and try harder at being relevant in today's society.  In fact, you don't even have to try.  Just make it REAL and not a stereotypical fantasy world.

One last question: Did anyone else think it was a little over-the-top that Caleb smashed his computer to show that he was giving up his pornography addiction?  Really all that said was that he COULDN'T control himself, so he was making it impossible to do it.  Terrible way to do it.  Why not show that he could actually control himself and NOT click on the sex banners?  Oh wait, then he couldn't SHOW his unfeeling wife that he actually did anything.  Never mind.  Bring on the hate.

FIRST!

People tell me I talk too much during movies.  And I do.  If I love a movie, I let those around me know.  They say this ruins the experience for them.  I feel it enhances it in an unwarranted way.  Whatever.  So instead of annoying people with my opinions mid-movie, perhaps I can just annoy them after the fact by sharing my opinions.  Most of my reviews will be for movies that are available on Netflix and Amazon Instant video, as this is my main source of entertainment that doesn't make my wallet too thin (like I use cash...).

So, enjoy.  Or tell me how stupid I am for liking or disliking things.  This is a place for multiple opinions, not just mine.