Johnny Simmons

Friends with Benefits: directed by Will Gluck; written by Keith Merryman, David A. Newman and Will Gluck
  
After seeing Friends with Benefits I came across some interviews that director/writer Will Gluck gave in relation to the film and my attention was immediately caught when I saw him compare it to a Tracy/Hepburn scenario. More arresting, though, was his concept of the characters’ mindfulness. A significant scene in the film sees the two, until then, sex starved protagonists Dylan (Justin Timberlake) and Jamie (Mila Kunis) watching a romantic couple on screen played to anachronistic perfection by Jason Segel and the lovely Rashida Jones. Because these characters are so wise they’re able to point out the silliness of the romantic genre and the ludicrousness that has all those platitudes culminate in a happy ever after ending. The scene is delivered with a level of snark I accept, because even if I do feel badly for the genre romantic comedies tend to be embellished as of late with little to redeem them. In theory, it seems Gluck flirts with the idea of creating a response to decade and more of tired clichés – but, not quite...

A week after the fact, the occasional insularity of the film’s world gives me pause. Dylan is a mere denizen in New York, so that would explain his apparent isolation, but it’s odd that Jamie (portrayed as the poster-girl for all things New York) would have not a single friend in the city other than a man she’s met mere weeks before. The conceit of the film rests on the concept that the two, islands in the proverbial stream, are both lonely and horny and deciding that sex should be as friendly and casual as a game tennis decide to begin a game – a sports’ metaphor that’s awfully trite*. I think I’m getting lost in mixed metaphors. Naturally, the situation will go awry when one – or god forbid, both – of them realises that the situation isn’t as foolproof as it seems. Even tennis has its causalities.

More than a number of persons have credited the “success” of the film to the charisma of the two leads and Timberlake and Kunis definitely do have searing chemistry. For all his recent ubiquity, I like Justin Timberlake (although that’s more than possibly just residual appreciation from his music career) and though I’ve not seen Kunis in enough for her to move me I’m still interested in when she steps up the base line to serve (another sports’ metaphor, whoa). Still, fairly good performances hardly make fine cinema and though nothing about the film screams abysmal, the film around them doesn’t suggest priority. Patricia Clarkson shows up, as is her wont, to inject even more enthusiasm to the situation as Jamie’s kooky and somewhat loose mother. There’s a scene in the film which seems intended to mirror a similar one in Gluck’s last feature Easy A, and it doesn’t roll over the net unimpeded (ahem). It’s because Friends with Benefits spends a curiously short amount of time examining the purported issues of the characters. The film opens with respective hook-ups of Jamie and Dylan telling them that they’re emotionally undeveloped and damaged, and it’s not until well into the second half that they make up on any indication these emotional issues. Otherwise, Timberlake and Kunis prance around like any normal, good-looking young adult.
The clichéd romantic comedy within a romantic comedy which Segel and Jones star in plays on a loop at occasional parts of the film and Gluck’s intent is as subtle as a hammer to the head. The insertion is too saccharine to be condescending; it borders more on being annoyingly expedient. This, he seems to say, is the clichéd way – we’re going to be more self-aware. But, imprudently Gluck seems to think that acknowledging that a mountain is huge is as good as moving it. So, he mires his film down with a slew of witty comments on the state of affairs in the genre while resorting to the same ones to keep the film afloat, which results in an experience where the occasional pleasures are subverted by a pervading sense of confusion. I think I’d have appreciated Friends with Benefits more if it didn’t try to land its serve with a backhanded (gah, that metaphor again). It delivers in a cutesy ways of the genre, but by destroying the naive geniality of the genre it leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth. And, for all their clichés – the last thing you want is a romantic comedy which leaves you feeling uncomfortable. Gluck shows moments of perception, but they aren’t well imbued. Gluck takes the dive, but he doesn’t stick his landing.

(*I’m done with the sports’ metaphors, I promise. See how gauche that was, with the constant use of sports’ metaphors even as I said that they’re awkward? That’s sort of how Friends with Benefits comes off.)


C

♡ Chelsey

1. Grab just a small chunk of your bangs right up against your part, I started on the right side of my head (if your bangs are super short... just let them hang and grab some hair behind them).
2. Start braiding (Or, french braiding I guess). I braid to create a sort of crown of braid on my head... grabbing small chunks of hair to weave in and hold the braid up every couple of braids or so.
3. When you get to the back of your head start braiding down to bottom of the opposite side of your head (for me this is the left side). When you reach the opposite side of your head: stop grabbing hair to weave in and just finish off that braid and put a hair tie on it.
4. Split your hair in half in the back. Take the remaining hair on the right side and start french braiding the hair on the nape of your neck towards the left side. (This is a great step I take for me. My hair is super slick and always slips out if I don't do a second braid by my neck.) 
5. When you get to the back left side of your head finish off the braid and put a hair tie on it.
6. Now, with all of your hair on the left side split your hair into four pieces (the 2 braids will each count as a piece). And, you'll do a four chunk braid. I have no idea what this sort of braid is called... but, it makes my normally skinny braid SO much thicker. How about instead of me trying to explain it... just check out this image I found below. It really is simple once you get the hang of it. 
7. That's it! You now have a super/amazing/awesome wrap-around side-braid. Ta-dah!

{Found here.}

If you try this hairstyle out and blog about it with a link back to me... let me know! I'd love to link you to this post to inspire others to create pretty hair!



♡ Chelsey

Insidious: directed by James Wan; written by Leigh Whannell

From what I could tell Insidious was being sold on the apparent strength of the Paranormal Activity series. This didn’t actually work on me, though, because I’ve not seen any of the Paranormal Activity films. I’m not a fan of horror films – I’m either too nervy to enjoy them without my imagination running away with me; or I’m so caught in up solving all the plot-points that I overanalyse it to the point that I don’t feel anything for it. Somehow, Insidious fell through the tracks and I ended up seeing it, though. And as far as set-up goes, even though I’m not a devotee of the genre I could make out the obvious particulars. A conventional family moves into a house which seems to be haunted, and the haunts follow them when they move. But more than any other genre, I’d imagine that horror depends more on the feeling than the particulars and every horror film depends on a haunting but Insidious like its name offers more.
Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne star as our couple in distress, and it’s an immediately curious union. Both actors emanate a sort of steely grace about them so that it’s difficult to completely relish the authenticity in their performances. Even at her best Byrne always seems to be the slightest bit affected. Wilson, too, always seems to be on the wrong side of disarming often seeming more suspicious than dashing (a trait he put to good use in Little Children). And, even though they the turn in good work there's that feeling that they're oddly matched (as nice as they look together). Thus, I’m immediately moved to distrust the veneer of easiness which the film thwarts in all of ten minutes, anyhow. Before long one of the Lambert’s son Dalton enters a bizarre coma and before long the house seems to be acting up and before long a psychic, Elise, is brought in. Insidious harbours a surprisingly logical screenplay. The movement from subtle scares to larger ones is especially organic; the film isn’t interested in the most obvious of thrills.

The concept of possession has always been one that promises potential goodness and the manner in which the notion is handled here is striking. Lin Shave gives a fine performance as the psychic and in a scene (which serves as a set-up for the film’s actual climax) she sits at a table conducting some strange twist on a séance wearing a contraption that’s more ridiculous than horrific. Even if questions are left unanswered, it’s difficult to accuse the film of plot-holes and at the crux of the film as we enter a world referred to as “The Further” the dreamscape quality is beautifully rendered – it’s as much terrible as it is stunning to behold which only adds to the ramifications it unearths. Fantasy seems like such an obvious addendum to horror, and although the film seems more interested in its contemporary trappings Wan is especially adept at tying the fantastical with the horrific in the final act.
And, what an act. True, there’s a slight feeling of intertie in the last ten minutes – as if the film could have wrapped it all up more tidily. And the introduction of two...Ghostbusters ends up being more exasperating than comedic. Otherwise, though, the cast is uniformly game – Barbara Hershey in a small role is surprisingly moving. The final moments of the film live up to its title. More than granting us a visceral scare it leaves the audience with a palpable sense of unease so that at the end you’re tempted to go home and wash off all the traces of the insidiousness – as if your body was the one susceptible to the fiends.

B

This weeks challenge: Whatever!

• First time joining the Paper Mama photo challenge? Start here for rules and upcoming challenges. :)

<a href="http://thepapermama.blogspot.com"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4103/5085242350_8096c64354.jpg" alt="The Paper Mama" width="150" height="150" /></a>♡ Chelsey

The Adjustment Bureau: directed and written by George Nolfi
    
For a while I was confused between Source Code and The Adjustment Bureau. I vaguely remember seeing snippets of them at the beginning of the year and both seemed to tell a story about a dashing male lead a generally charming woman doing a lot of running holding hands. That sounds like a fairly snarky synopsis, but that IS what I remember. I’d hate to move into some bland platitude about how timing is everything and so on. The thing is, I’ve been having a terrible year movie-wise. My highest grade was the B I gave to Hanna and other than that it’s been fair, okay, and good-ish but nothing exceptional, or not even anything legitimately good. So, I wonder if that movie doldrums made me all the more anxious for something to latch on to. But, let me use my words…

I can’t help but roll my eyes when films try to take on larger than life issues and still be popcorn friendly and in theory that’s what The Adjustment Bureau aims to do. It’s about the age-old philosophy of Determinism. That, right there, is the impetus for thousands – perhaps millions – of literary pieces and The Adjustment Bureau immediately sets itself up for something like defeat because a film more interested in its romance arc is probably not going to do as much justice to the dilatation as it deserves. The story is David Norris (no relation to Chuck), a New York senator to be who on a fateful night meets a contemporary dancer Elis (played by the lovely Emily Blunt). It’s one of those “life-defining” moments and meeting her changes his outlook on life and politics. But, things go awry when he meets her – accidentally – some time later throwing the course of his life all track and giving the members of The Adjustment Bureau (a dubious organisation which ensures that everything happens “as it should”) decide that they shouldn’t be together.

It sounds a bit silly when I put the machinations of the film into a single paragraph and I know that my annoying habit to overanalyse would make me doubt the film if I keep ruminating on it, but The Adjustment Bureau, although not a particularly riveting stylistic entry, benefits not as much from the admittedly interesting concept as it does from a difficult-to-define mood of easiness that emanates from screen each time that Emily Blunt and Matt Damon pair up. The film is billed as a romantic thriller and it’s backed by an absolutely atrocious poster (really, what IS that?) and the film doesn’t quite make good on the thrilling aspects. It’s riveting, no doubt and Anthony Mackie spends a significant amount of time looking especially dour – but, few of his contemporaries make dour look so good, so I’m more than game.

In the end, I can’t quite surrender my over analytical brain to completely LOVING The Adjustment Bureau but I have no qualms about saying that it’s a completely enjoyable film. I’d have been more willing to buy in to its conceit if those last five minutes weren’t just too…bland? It sort of subverted what went prior, capping off a movie that seemed to be devoid of any agenda with a conclusion that isn’t woeful, but just feels tonally jerky. Which, of course, returns to the point that any film which flirts with such significant concepts must be willing to do what it promises. Still, The Adjustment Bureau thrives more than it doesn’t not only because Nolfi is in control of his story (for the most part) but because in the most innocuous of moments Damon and especially Blunt make some thrilling choices as actors that make characters we have no significant knowledge of into people we root for. Maybe I didn’t fall in love with it, but I fell in like…a lot.
   
B

Larry Crowne: directed by Tom Hanks; written Tom Hanks and Nia Vardolos

I pay so little attention to general critical consensus that it was mere happenstance which led me to the Rotten Tomatoes page of Larry Crowne where I saw what a critical tongue lashing it had taken. And, in a way, I think that Larry Crowne is one of those films which exposes all that is wrong with the mob psychology tendencies that tend to overtake film criticism at times. For the record, I’d hardly intimate that it’s an excellent film but what’s interesting about Larry Crowne is that despite its cast of generally big names from Tom Hanks to Julia Roberts to Taraji P. Henson to Bryan Cranston and son on, the film is comfortable being a commendable dramedy about a man – somewhat tritely – finding “himself”. Hanks and Roberts are stars of such great megawatts that by default one demands that a film of theirs be an unbridled success, anything less is an unmitigated failure. And, Larry Crowne is far from a massive successive but I curse the black-and-white world where because it’s not a success it means that it’s a failure.

I would guess that much of the trouble comes in the way that it was advertised. The scant bits of ads I paid attention to seemed to pitch the film as some sort of zeitgeist film looking at how unemployment is affecting the middle class. And, true, the film begins with Larry getting fired but it’s as much about unemployment as Hanna is about hunting animals. It’s a showcase for Tom Hanks to play his good natured good guy as he tries to fit into college. And the film rolls ago in that sometimes too comfortable way, but it is surprisingly unwilling to pander to the most obvious of stereotypes. True, Larry will meet a group of madcap students (somewhat) and he’ll fall in love but the way in which everything comes off as not the least bit clichéd is particularly impressive, even if Hanks is nothing special.

For me, the film is about Julia Roberts. She plays an unrelentingly bitter professor and she’s not quite the leading lady, even if she’s not quite supporting and as the object of Larry’s affection she’s a bit wasted but the film cares about her (as it does about most of its characters). More importantly, she’s fun in the role. She approaches with a winning gusto and say what you will about Julia – she’s fun to watch. There’s a scene where she enters a classroom she doesn’t want to be in and for a few seconds feels she might have the luck to not have to teach them. The myriad of emotions that runs through her face at not having to have human contact is interesting to watch, and even though her trajectory from bitter to smitten is a bit too “la-de-da” – the film tries to approach it with so much honesty, I can’t hate it too much.
It would seem that my grade subverts everything I’ve said so far, but I don’t consider the actual grade a particularly bad one. It’s a passable summation, as is the entire film. Larry Crowne is nowhere bad as it’s being made out to be. True, on occasion it might approach its protagonist with a significant amount of blandness but never mistake the sometimes pervading treacly feeling for a lack of caring. Perhaps I would have liked for it to have a bit more gumption in its cabals but in the long-run it perseveres as – mostly – honest look at a middle-aged man at a turning point. Hardly riveting, but certainly not abysmal.


C+

Alright lovelies! I'm off! I can't believe TOMORROW I'm flying out for BlogHer. It seems like I've been talking and blabbing about this FOREVER! And, now it's time! I have a super early flight.... so, today's post is short and sweet.

I got my hairs all prettied and my shoes and I are headed out. See you all next week! BUT... don't forget to visit! I have a some AMAZING bloggers lined up to guest post while I'm away. So much fun! Be sure to check it out! And, I may or may not pop in here and there on the blog... we'll see. ;) You will definitely find me wandering around on twitter for sure. Check it out: @thepapermama

Byeeeeeeeee!

♡ Chelsey

Captain America: directed by Joe Johnston; written by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely

In the grander scheme of things, I suppose that a current tally of seventeen reviews films for 2011 is not as abysmal as I make it out to be. But, each time I peruse the films I’ve watched this year I feel like I haven’t watched much, and maybe that’s because the films I have seen haven’t made much impact on me. I wasn’t madly excited about Captain America’s release but I couldn’t help but hear positive rumblings from people who always have interesting things to say, and the promise of the throwback to the 40s piqued my interest. It’s another Avengers prequel, and I know virtually nothing of its source material – I’m not American, so perhaps that accounts for the divide. I don’t mean to me flippant at all, but the prospect of reviewing Captain America had be feeling grossly ambivalent. Perhaps it’s not a terrible film, but almost everything ended up rubbing me the wrong way.

Like every superhero (with the exception Clark Kent, and perhaps, Thor) Captain America’s powers aren’t inherent. He begins the film as Steve Rogers, a diminutive Brooklyn boy in the forties with dreams of defending his country at war despite his incessant list of ailments. By way of a dubious scientist he ends up getting the opportunity he seeks, but it’s really to act as a guinea pig for some scientific breakthrough which sees the scrawny Rogers turning into the very buff Captain America, the prototypical image of American valour, I suppose. The muscles, apparently, aren’t essentially because Captain America’s purpose is to be a propaganda machine of sorts – a pretty face for the war. But, that wasn’t Rogers aims and eventually he puts those muscles to good use and saves a couple hundred men from Nazi capture (in a manner I’m still uncertain of).
I can’t even muster up the energy to adequately assess what my issues with the film are but essentially I find Captain America to be woefully lacking in bite. The movies looks lovely, but the movie is not very compelling. What reason do we have to follow Steve’s trajectory? His would-be relationship with Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell)? Evan’s charisma? A band of riveting supporting players? No one all counts. Evans and Atwell have scant chemistry, and Evans lacks the drive to carry the film. And the supporting characters hardly demand your attention and it doesn't help that the film moves along for the most part in a humourless stupor.. I don’t know, maybe my general movie funk has blinded me to the good in Captain America, but I feel as if I’ve missed the bus on this one. I’d love to get the memo as to its worth, but I don’t get the reason for the fuss.
          
C/C-

This weeks challenge: Yellow
The challenge: The challenge will be based around your children. Take or find a photo of your baby (or kid... or puppy... or kitty). With or around yellow stuff! *Winners will be chosen by Ashley Sisk this week since I'll be at BlogHer! :D

• First time joining the Paper Mama photo challenge? Start here for rules and upcoming challenges. :)

<a href="http://thepapermama.blogspot.com"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4103/5085242350_8096c64354.jpg" alt="The Paper Mama" width="150" height="150" /></a>
♡ Chelsey

♡ Chelsey