No need to RSVP to watch "Rachel Getting Married"

Sometimes I wish I could see the world the way an independent filmmaker does; not through rose-colored classes, but blue ones. Why are so many independent films shot with blue tones? Is this a shorthand for the audience? Hey you guys, this movie was made so on the cheap that we couldn't afford proper lighting, but doesn't it make everything look sad and depressing? "Rachel Getting Married" is very blue, but maybe in this film's case, the blue is part of the old wedding tradition, something old, something new...

The movie came out last year and garnered lots of critical acclaim for Anne Hathaway. It also garnered lots of mentions of what a departure the role was from her first in "The Princess Diaries." Boy, I'm sure that's got to be a great feeling, to be constantly reminded of where you started. That's kind of like a bunch of people following you around everywhere and pulling out pictures of you in high-waisted jeans and scrunchy socks everytime you wear something nice and saying "Look how far you've come! Remember how embarrassing this was?!"

The movie follows Hathaway, as Kim, as she returns home after a long stint in rehab for her sister, Rachel's, wedding. Kim may have been in rehab for a while, but we know she is not quite straight yet, what with her heavy black eyeliner and choppy black hair. She's very tough. Though the look is a bit of a cliché, Hathaway is convincing as a former user because she is the former user who grew up in an upper-class Connecticut family. The sisters have a complicated relationship. They're both jealous of one another for the attention they receive from their father. Yet, even when they are in the middle of a fight, they can end up laughing. I liked that the relationship was multi-dimensional, and that no matter what bad thing Kim has done in the past (and she did a pretty bad thing), they are still part of that strange bond called family.

Kim returns home to her pretty sister and their pretty home for the weekend activities of her sister's inexplicable Indian-themed wedding. Her sister is white and her fiancé is black and not once did I see a real Indian person in the movie. This leads me to believe that the choice of the theme was made just for the sake of being quirky. And if there's one thing I hate it's quirkiness for the sake of being quirky.

Kim and Rachel's parents are divorced and each are in a new relationship. Their mother is involved, but distant, and the audience begins to feel as frustrated about that relationship as the daughters do. The thing about the movie is that no character goes through a big change. Even though there is a climactic scene between Kim and her mother, it changes nothing. Kim may make some apologies during the weekend, but in the end, I think she is essentially the same person, just with a couple of blonde highlights in her choppy black bob.

By far the most annoying part of this movie, aside from the fact that it goes nowhere, is the wedding reception. In the middle of the Indian-themed reception, Brazilian Carnival dancers and drummers show up and the next 20 minutes play like an actual wedding video. I don't know anyone who likes to watch wedding videos except for the respective wedding's bride and groom. There is hardly any dialogue during this part and no story development. This editor must have laughed all the way to the bank. And as an added note, remember that this is all taking place in Connecticut. I think this must be the most ethnically diverse event to happen in Connecticut in...well, all of time actually.

Watching this movie, I went through some of the basic movements of the Twelves Steps program myself. First, I admitted I was powerless over the plot. Then I made a decision to turn my filmgoing experience over to the filmmakers. I then made a list of all the people I have ever harmed and promptly called them all during the movie so that I might earn some karmic retribution and the movie would improve. Finally I had a spiritual awakening that this movie was hopeless and promised to carry this message to other potential viewers. You don't need a movie that looks like it was shot by Veruca Salt. Follow the light(ing) to a better movie. You're worth it.

Ode to the Cineplex

Call me old-fashioned. Call me a traditionalist. Just call me. I love movie theaters. I can't get enough of 'em. I would go to watch a movie at the theater every day if I had both the money and two extra hours each day. It's always a great experience, even if there's a crying kid kicking your seat or you're squeezed next to a smelly total stranger. It's the movie theater! Give me stadium seating or the sloped seating or yesteryear. Sticky floors and fabric that oozes with the smell of decades of buttered popcorn. Unhappy minimum-wage-earning employees and perforated tickets. But I wouldn't miss the concession stand. Go ahead and take that.

Even though I'm a Netflix girl, watching a movie on my couch will never compare to a trip to the AMC; 19-inch tv notwithstanding. Netflix was invented specifically for movies starring the likes of Kate Hudson and Lindsay Lohan. Ones you would never pay good money for or would never want other people to see you watching.

But it seems that I am in the minority when it comes to my love. I've heard every excuse under the sun for why people hate movie theaters. They're too expensive; too noisy; sitting too close to the screen makes their neck hurt. Snap out of it people. The ability to go to the cinema is a privilege for which our predecessors fought long and hard for. I don't want to talk down to you. I know you've all heard about the time long ago when theaters were controlled by a monarchy known as Regal Cinemas, and well...you know the rest.

The point is turn off your DVRs, get out there, and live a little! The entire season of "Grey's Anatomy" will still be there tomorrow, but, let's face it, "Pink Panther 2" will only be in the theater one, maybe two weeks, and then you've missed your opportunity forever. Plus, you totally can't ride a rollercoaster on a film strip track at your house. Think about that.

"Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day," which might be a day too long

"Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day" is based on a 1938 book by Winifred Watson. The movie rights were first sold to Universal in 1939 and the movie was released in 2008 so it only took 69 years for it to make its way to the screen. Usually its best for studios to really think about a project before starting production, but what can I say, sometimes they just get so excited about a film that it's full steam ahead. Talk about an impulse production...

"Miss Pettigrew" follows, well, Miss Pettigrew, played by Frances McDormand, through one day in which her circumstances are drastically changed. She evolves from a woman who can't keep a job as a nanny and gets her meals at soup kitchens to become the "social secretary" to actress Delysia LaFosse (Amy Adams).

The story is interesting when looking at both the time the book was written and the time the movie was released in regards to its lead character. Miss Pettigrew herself is a middle-aged, not terribly attractive woman and yet the story revolves around her. For the film's part, there is Amy Adams to bump up the sex appeal, and yet the story is still set squarely on Pettigrew's shoulders, a rarity for films these days. That may explain how this film got lost when it was released in theaters. It's not a very marketable movie because it is not predominantly a romantic comedy or a period piece. It's more of a fairy tale. For adults. Well, for adult women. Try and sell that.

The film couldn't look more authentic to the 1930s if the crew actually went back to that time period in a time machine and shot it. Everything from the sets to the costumes to the actors seem to fit so naturally. There is no feeling of actors "acting" like they're from the 1930s; you just accept that they are from that time. The camera work also echoes that of films made in the actual period. The film succeeds at fully transporting you to the 1930s.

While the film may look and feel authentic, in the end, the story is not particularly interesting. Delysia is a playa who crushes a lot. She juggles men in order to further her cause of becoming a star and must eventually choose the one who really loves her. Yawn. I'm glad Miss Pettigrew got to live for a day; at least someone had a good time during this film.

What I'm looking forward to...

Just a little list of upcoming "theatrical releases" that I'm eagerly anticipating and which could very well find themselves on this blog.

1. Revolutionary Road (it's already out, I know - I must see it!)

2. He's Just Not That Into You (I have to be told again.)

3. Adventureland (the team behind Superbad? Yes please.)

4. I Love You, Man (Paul. Rudd. End of discussion.)

5. All About Steve (Sandra Bullock is back!)

6. Sunshine Cleaning (Amy Adams and Emily Blunt - these girls are too cool.)

7. 17 Again (Because it's time for an updated "Big")

Ok, that should hold me over for the next couple of months. You might notice that they're all comedies except for the first one which is a deeply depressing drama. I'm gonna need all those movies afterward just to get over "Revolutionary Road," but I hope it'll be worth it.

We're going panning for "Gold Diggers of 1933"

No, I'm not talking about the latest episode of "The Real Housewives," "Gold Diggers of 1933" is a Warner Bros. musical from, appropriately enough, 1933. It's black-and-white and stars Dick Powell, Ruby Keeler, and Ginger Rogers. The real draw though is that it was choreographed by Busby Berkeley, the king of 1930s musicals.

I have to admit that my renting this film was not entirely a pure act by a film graduate who wanted to refresh her knowledge of pre-code production. No, it was partially a sense of guilt that made me move this one to the top of my Netflix queue. You see, I have to mix up my films to balance out the cheesier, just-for-fun titles with more serious, or sometimes, just older fare. Being that my previous rental choice had been "The House Bunny" I felt a real need to rent something with a little more, er, um substance.

"Gold Diggers," whose title makes me think of "Gold Diggers: The Secret of Bear Mountain," starring my now-and-forever idol Christina Ricci, is a backstage musical. It's a show-within-a-show. It's, well, pretty much "42nd Street: Revisited." It was greenlit after the success of "42nd Street," also made at Warner Bros. and also starring much of the same cast. You see, you can't complain that "They don't make 'em like they used to" when you hear that "Halloween 15" is coming out because capitalizing on financial success by using familiar formulas has been Hollywood's game the whole time.

The film opens with the number "We're in the Money," which, in these "troubled economic times" might make you want to drive a blunt object through your eye. However, we soon realize that the film is set in 1933; in the middle of the Depression and that our stars are no more in the money than we are. This timing makes for an interesting viewing relationship.

We follow three heroines: Carol, Polly, and Trixie. You know what this means - I've got my names picked out for those triplets I'm going to have one day! These women are chorus girls on Broadway, but financial woes have prevented their last couple of shows from ever opening so now they're poor and sad. Poorness and sadness aside, they seem to live in a pretty nice apartment, as much as the film tries to convince me it's the slums. So it seems that the Hollywood theme of film and television characters living comfortably, far beyond their means, can be dated back to at least the '30s. Monica Geller, I'm looking at you.

Our girl Polly has been hooking up with a poor songwriter, Brad, played by Dick Powell, whose actions throughout the film make him the opposite of his first name. A play producer pitches an idea for a new show and hires the girls to star in it and Brad to write the music. From this point, that storyline is pretty much good to go. There is a secondary storyline, however, that pops up.

We find out that Brad may be a bit wealthier than he has let on. Some of his male family members disapprove when they find out about Polly and try to convince her that she cannot marry Brad. Because of a case of mistaken identity, Carol and Trixie end up fooling the two men who come to stop the marriage. What begins as a prank results in the girls wooing these two men, with Carol actually falling in love and Trixie very clearly just using her man, and pretty much getting whatever they ask for in either actions or material goods.

They are the gold diggers. At the end of the film, I started wondering whether to consider these women feminists or the complete opposite and I actually leaned toward the feminist side. These women are talented actresses with the ability to survive on their own with their work. When the two men come into the picture, however, they see an opportunity for more wealth. They use their intelligence and sexuality to get whatever they want; putting them in charge of the relationship; giving them the power. They don't need these men; they're just fun to have. As a side note, the girls from this 1930s film are actually much more feminist than the girls in "The House Bunny" (2008) which might make you think, or it might not.

The best parts of this movie are the musical numbers choreographed by Berkeley. They are grand in scope, creative, and executed perfectly. They begin as if they are actually being staged in the theater and then they turn into a dream world that could never fit inside a theater. They are the reason to watch this film. The numbers are of course just as good in the better-known "42nd Street" so that might be the movie to see instead. Unless of course you sense that you will, someday soon, find yourself amongst pretentious film majors. Then you must choose "Gold Diggers" or you will be accused of being too mainstream. The horror.

What the heck is a "Slumdog Millionaire"...and where can I find one?

I've been hearing about this film for a while it seems. Everyone from my good friends to Meredith Vieira every morning on "The Today Show" have been telling me I need to see it. I resisted for a while as I do with most things that have a lot of hype surrounding them, but as I realized, some things have a lot of hype because they're actually good.

"Slumdog" had an uphill battle to win my affection. For starters, I was less-than-impressed when I first heard the title. Second, I knew that the director was Danny Boyle whose body of work, aside from including Ewan McGregor, is not my cup of tea. Third, it's about "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" in India - WTF? This sounds horrible. No I do not want to spend my disposable income watching an Indian version of Regis Philbin in "Bend it Like Slumdog." Thanks.

But then the movie swept the Golden Globes which can only mean good things for its chances at the Oscars. I hate feeling out of the loop and clips from the film started looking pretty good - it also doesn't hurt that I realized there was a love story involved - it gets chicks every time. So I decided that resistance was futile and my time to see it had come.

The film follows 18-year-old Jamal during his time as a contestant on India's "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" We quickly find out that Jamal has done very well on the game show and is close to winning the grand prize. However, people in charge of the show assume he has cheated and question how he has gotten all the right answers when he is just a "slumdog." The movie takes place in a series of flashbacks to his life starting as a grade-school-aged child. These flashbacks serve the purpose of driving the narrative but also are a very clever way of showing how Jamal has learned the answers to the questions on the show.

The film is, at many times, difficult to watch with its depictions of life in the slums and the by-products of that kind of hardship. The shots of the shacks and trash that make up the slums of Mumbai are grand and sweeping and in direct contrast to what is depicted within them. Jamal grows up and gets by with his brother Salim and Latika, a girl from the slums that he befriends and falls in love with from the time they meet as children. As in any good love story, however, Jamal and Latika are repeatedly pulled apart by outside forces. His mission then becomes not just to survive, but to find Latika again.

Stylistically, this movie is a little MTV-in-the-90s, trying to be very hip and very young. It's in line with Boyle's previous "The Beach" and "Trainspotting." The end of this film is also reminiscent of "Run Lola Run," with a character racing through a city accompanied by a techno music soundtrack and replacing Berlin with Mumbai.

If there's one thing Boyle likes more than the 90s and scatology (see the diving-into-the-toilet scene in "Trainspotting" and an early scene in "Slumdog") it's canted angles. Straight-on angles are very rarely used in the film. I know we should feel a little disoriented in these settings, particularly us as Western viewers, but too much of a canted angle becomes distracting and draws attention to the fact that we are watching a film; it breaks the suspension of disbelief.

The film is emotionally intense and diverse. The ending in particular will have you feeling one emotion and the next shot will completely change that in an abrupt, but profound way. Be sure to stay for the end credits. If you haven't heard about it already, I won't ruin it, but it was the perfect way to end this film.

In the end "Slumdog Millionaire" gets a solid 4.5 out of 5 stars. It is an incredible film whose flaws are so minute you wouldn't notice them if you weren't planning on writing a blog about them later. Go. See it. Thank me later. Oh yeah and you can thank the people who actually, you know, made the film too.

I think this blog thing is really catching on

It's official. I am now a blogger. I've joined the blogger nation. Suddenly I have all these questions: Should I use my blog to be subversive or mainstream? Good or evil? Ironic or genuine? Only time will tell really. As no-brainer as this blog seems to me now, the inspiration for it actually came from a conversation I had with a student at work. He asked me what I had majored in in school to which I said film studies. He then said, oh so do you blog about movies? And I had a total Oprah a-ha moment (trademarked I'm sure). I don't but of course I should, I thought to myself. And so here it is, a place for me to once again use my brain, to review and critique movies - all kinds from New Releases to ones that I Netflix out of obscurity. I won't write about my life here - let's face it, if you're my friend, you hear enough about it that you don't need a written companion on top of things. So hopefully you'll get a little entertainment out of this and most importantly feel more than free to comment and tell me why the Coen brothers are brilliant. I'll never convert to that school of thought, but I'd love to hear your opinions.