2 In 1: I'm Reed Fish and Adaptation.

This 2 In 1 focuses on two movies that play with similar narrative ideas. I don’t want to go into too much detail here, but this first movie did remind me of the second (which I saw a while back, and am going to finally review). So without dragging this out too much, here you go (Oh, and the second review might be slightly spoilerous only if you have no idea what you're getting yourself into and/or have never heard of the movie or Charlie Kaufman).

I’m Reed Fish.

While this movie’s plot makes it sound like your average, run-of-the-mill romantic comedy, it’s really anything but. Instead, it’s more of a dramedy with a bit of narrative flair. Reed Fish (Jay Baruchel) is the local radio show host/news anchor for the incredibly small town of Mud Meadows, working along side best friend Frank (Victor Rasuk) and the small town mayor, Maureen (Katey Sagal). He’s soon to be married to the lovely Kate (Alexis Bledel), as well, and everything is going to plan. But then an old childhood crush, Amy (Schuyler Fisk), returns for the summer, and everything turns to chaos. Also starring are the likes of DJ Qualls, Shiri Appleby, Chris Parnell, A.J. Cook, and Blake Clark.

If ever there were a movie with an ensemble cast full of underused and/or unappreciated actors and actresses, it’s this one. But it really is Jay Baruchel who holds the whole movie together, finally getting some time to shine in a leading role as opposed to his supporting roles in most Judd Apatow films (or the like). Though, for fans of Alexis Bledel, she’s actually not in the film all that much, despite being the main character’s fiancé (well, for a little while).

And what I mean by that last statement is this: You know how in basically every romantic comedy, there’s the build up between the romantic leads that just builds and builds until the end of the movie when it reaches a point where there’s a big fight and the guy has to try and better himself and fix everything? Well, that moment happens in this movie, too, except within the first thirty minutes. The rest of the movie is built around the relationships that Reed has with his small town, while he also tries to patch himself together and fix things. The relationships between Reed, Kate, and Amy, on the other hand, were the weakest point of the movie. It almost felt as if the film were not really a love story, and that the romance part of the film was one of the lesser aspects that needed to be brought forward. But I felt this only hurt the film in the end, when it tried to tie up all the loose ends and fix relationships. I just didn’t feel the character connections, and I even felt confused as to certain character reactions.

But confusion ran high toward the end (and a little ways into the beginning) when you’re thrown for a pretty interesting loop. Not only is this not your everyday Rom Com, but it’s not your typical narrative telling. It really did get into some weird Adaptation territory (or a better example, even though I haven’t seen it, but to compare it to things I’ve heard about the plot, is Synecdoche, New York). And similar to Adaptation, Reed Fish is actually the writer of the film (much like Charlie Kaufman was the writer for the aforementioned film, as well as the main character). But this is no Adaptation. This is maybe Adaptation Lite. But it’s still a fun little film.

So whatever your preference is, whether you’d like to see Jay Baruchel really get a chance to carry a film, to see Alexis Bledel outside of Gilmore Girls or those Pants movies (and don’t feel like watching the broody Sin City), to see Schuyler Fisk in something for what feels like the first time since Orange County, or just because you’re a fan of wacky narratives, I would recommend the film. It’s no masterpiece, and it could have used a bit of tweaking in the story department, but it’s a good little film.

I Am McLovin!

Adaptation.

When I first saw this movie a while back, I thought it was a total mind trip. Well, I finally got around to seeing it again so that I can review it. So how exactly do you adapt a book that can’t be adapted? You make it into a movie about your struggles adapting it into a movie and add in all the Hollywood-esque romance and conflict you didn’t want to add in the first place, but this time as a straight-up commentary on the idea of Hollywood screenwriting. Nicolas Cage stars as Charlie Kaufman and (fake) brother Donald. Charlie struggles with adapting the book “The Orchid Thief” for the big screen while Donald flourishes with a common thriller that includes everything Charlie hates about modern cinema. Meanwhile, in flashbacks, we are shown the relationship between the author of “The Orchid Thief,” Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) and the man she interviewed, John Laroche (Chris Cooper).

Just the mere thought of this movie is enough to make one’s brain hurt. It’s a fictionalized version of Charlie Kaufman’s attempt to adapt a non-fiction book without fictionalizing it. And then it throws in everything that Charlie claims he wants to stay away from. Events that occur in the movie are later established by Charlie as he attempts to get over his writer’s block, making you wonder if anything you’ve seen thus far (or have yet to see) actually happened within the realm of the film or is just the adaptation of the adaptation about the adaptation (I had to think about it just to figure that out). And then there’s the whole mystery about whether or not Donald is real or just a split personality based on a conversation they have about multiple personalities being a Hollywood cliché (which is a perfect thing to add into this movie), so as to juxtapose it next to Donald’s screenplay about a serial killer with multiple personality disorder. But then you see Donald interacting with other people, but then you wonder if those people actually exist, too. This movie messes with your head so much it’s quite literally insane. And I love every bit of it.

The acting is done so well. This has to be Nic Cage’s best movie (or at least one of them). Just to see his range difference between the characters of Charlie and Donald is amazing enough. And I read that Mr. Cage decided to go against acting instincts for this movie and just do the character exactly as the director (Spike Jonze) told him to. And he got an Oscar Nom for it. I think that says something. Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper also do a fine job, especially Chris Cooper, who I really didn’t recognize at all in the film despite his large role. And then, of course, you have the brief supporting roles of Tilda Swinton, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Ron Livingston, all of which do just fine.

I can’t say much else. This movie is all about the story and the acting, though especially the mind-freak of a story. Funnily enough, both Charlie and Donald (who doesn’t even exist) Kaufman are both credited as writers of the movie, adding to the zaniness. If you haven’t seen this one already, I really do recommend it at least once. It’s worth the ‘trip’, especially if you know who Charlie Kaufman is and are a fan of film.

Royale With Cheese

THE STRANGERS.

I saw this movie last Friday, but I had to finish the blog-a-thon before I could post it. But here it is now. But before I get into the actual movie and review, I must set up my personal experience for you first, because I didn’t really see the movie. I haven’t had a movie-going experience this annoying in a long time… but here goes. So first of all, this is an R-Rated horror movie. LEAVE YOUR KIDS AT HOME, DAMNIT. As the trailers were going (including a very misplaced Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 trailer), this young kid is already whimpering and damn near hyperventilating (from the scary trailers, not from seeing Alexis Bledel). As the opening credits start rolling, the two guys that are with this kid are jabbering away to each other, and if the kid says anything, they immediately shush him, but then keep talking themselves.

But finally, after about 10-15 minutes (not like I missed anything in that boring beginning anyway), they stop. Then, right before ‘the strangers’ show up, some toddler starts babbling incoherently somewhere in the back of the theater (I’m closer to the front). I mean, this kid is making noises I didn’t even know could be made. And then when the suspense starts, the kid starts crying. And all I hear is crying from the kid and ‘SHH’ from the mother. Finally, I hear a stage-whisper of “I’ll take him outside.” So they start descending the stairs as noisily and as slowly as humanly possible… only to stop at the entrance/exit ramp to watch the movie from there, instead. She never takes him outside. The kid is still crying. Let me repeat that:

Kid is crying.

Stops at bottom of stairs to watch movie.

Kid is still crying.

She’s still watching movie.

Kid is still crying.

SHE’S NOT TAKING HIM OUTSIDE.

And she never does. Eventually the kid reverts back to incoherent babbling, mixed with laughing shushes from the mother. And so the mother never takes the kid back to their seat, but decides to remain closer to me near the entrance/exit ramp. This continues for at least the first half of the movie before I finally realize the kid has stopped making noises completely.

So I’m finally trying to get into the movie… and remember those two guys and the other young kid from the beginning? Yeah, one of those guys’ cell phone goes off. He catches it pretty quickly, so I shrug it off. I try to get into the movie again. Then the kid with the guys starts talking again… and they shush him… so that the two guys can start talking again.

All of this finally dies down… until, you guessed it… the babbling/crying kid starts acting up again. It was like Circus Babies, trampezing back and forth. So anyway… that was this movie experience to let you know how this review was affected by that experience. Now to the actual review…

Imagine the potato sack boy from The Orphanage all grown up and having moved on from shoving and locking people in bathrooms to mentally torturing and killing. James (Scott Speedman) and Kristen (Liv Tyler) have just left a wedding reception where, apparently, James asked Kristen to marry him… and was denied. They groan about for 20 minutes or so before a girl shows up asking if some random person ('Tamara', I believe) is there. Not long after, three people in masks show up and start psychologically torturing the couple.

That’s about all there is to it. I didn’t really care about the characters at all, and I realized this toward the end when Scott Speedman goes missing from the movie for about 10-15 minutes or so, and I realized I wasn’t even worried about what the heck happened to him. The acting was about as bland as Liv Tyler’s voice. But the writing was the big issue of the movie, as already implied by the not caring for the characters bit. The whole first 15-20 minutes of the movie is all about how they’re drifting apart now that the proposal was denied and how they need time apart from each other and really don’t even want to speak to each other (which is odd to me in and of itself). And then, out of nowhere, they start making out and he starts to pull off her panties to have sex.

Funny side note… around this time, one of the guys with the kid behind me told the kid “close your eyes” when Scott Speedman started to pull off the panties. Might I just relay that you’re in a freaking R-RATED HORROR MOVIE? This isn’t Kung Fu Panda, sir. You shouldn’t be bringing that kid here to begin with. If you’re gonna show him torture and murder, he should be able to see something more endearing and natural like sex.

So anyway, there is actually a fair amount of suspense that did hold my attention some of the time. But the movie was really a one-trick pony: have the strangers show up randomly in the background, shift camera, look back, show them gone. Or… have a noise in the other room, show something that wasn’t there before. Rinse, repeat. It was the same tricks over and over again. And they were effective the first few times, but by the end of the movie, it’s really old. If the poster (which is a scene in the movie) isn't enough, here's some examples of how the movie basically works via picture form... through the majority of the film:

And no, much like the other pictures, she does not know she's being followed at this point in time. And no, they never learn to turn around, but always keep their eyes straight ahead.

Not to mention the end of the movie itself. There’s all that build-up for… that? That’s it? And you don’t even SHOW it? Not to mention the very last frame was beyond predictable.

So here are a few other random tidbits of likes/dislikes:

-I liked how, at least in the house, the only music was on the record player.

-The cameraman had to have Parkinson’s disease, because that camera was unnecessarily bouncy, even in scenes that were supposed to be straight, calm shots.

-The movie, on the whole, was quite predictable.

-When Liv Tyler falls down and hurts her leg (horror movie cliché), she’s crawling around on the ground for the next 5 minutes or so like she could barely stand (as portrayed in the last picture). Then, not even 5 minutes after that, she’s walking around no problem. Seriously?

-The only reason this movie was rated R had to be because of more than one F-bomb… because there was relatively little blood, with two scene exceptions, and there was very little actual physical violence. Most of the horror came from psychological things being done, which is all fine and dandy. I'm no gore-hound (in that I need it to be scared). I actually prefer psychological horror.

The movie on a whole wasn’t God-awful, and it’d be okay to watch on Showtime or whatever when it comes on TV. But it really isn’t worth rushing out to the theater to see. The main characters (good and bad) could have been deeper, the story could have been tighter, and the movie could have used a lot fewer clichés. It was suspenseful, from the parts I could focus on, but that’s about it.

Stupid parents.

Feed Me, Seymour!

(P.S. The audience experience really didn't have an effect on my rating... I would have felt the same regardless. It was just an interesting story to add on to the review, really).