Johnny Simmons

Both Frankie & Alice, and Night Catches Us examine race relations in the seventies – one more overtly than the other. They both had the unfortunate fate of being released and getting lukewarm reception from audiences (although Frankie & Alice is only now expanding in theatres).

           

Geoffrey Sax directs Frankie & Alice without palpable interest for the time period, in fact Sax seems least interested in any extraneous bit of his characters opting to single insularly put his focus on Berry – which ends up being a decision that works for him. Halle Berry has never ranked among my favourite actors but I am elated to see her returning to the good work that I know she’s capable. 

It’s difficult to separate the film’s somewhat generic plot from the multiple incarnations of people with dissociative identity disorder. It’s a theme that ostensibly suggests mugging for the camera (and by extension) awards’ bait. But, Berry approaches the role with a striking amount of integrity ignoring – on the most obvious of levels at least – the potential for gimmickries that lies in the film. The fact that one of her multiple personalities is a racist ends up developing as a plot-point not played for the obvious shock potential one would expect. Even, Berry, in her occasional tendency to overdo employs a restraint here and plays well opposite Stellan Skarsgård. The two get the most signficant screen time, but Chandra Wilson and Phylicia Rashad offer up poignant supporting turns suggesting that they both deserve more recognition on the big screen. There comes a moment towards the end when the film becomes a bit too interested in being histrionic, but Vanessa Morgan (as a young Frankie) is surprisingly good in her part delivering on the emotional resonance along with Berry.

         

And, yet, though Night Catches Us exists with the very taut racial tension of the era Tanya Hamilton (writer and director) never takes it too far. There’s an admirable dormancy to the atmosphere that works in evoking that sort of unrest after great activity and in the midst of all this dissonance Marcus (Mackie) returns to his old neighbourhood where he may or may not have caused the death of his brother by ratting him out to the police. 

 

Hamilton avoids the usual tricks, like making that issue a major plotpoint. Instead, she has Mackie and Washington playing opposite each other to great results. Hamilton is interested in studying her characters – each of them, an she almost always goes for the sedate instead of the jarring which works for her. The race relations are almost aside to the main arc of the broken characters trying to rebuild their lives, and though her sedateness could be mistaken for reticent she deserves praise either way.

I saw both of these quite some time ago and have been mustering up the will to review them. I feel a bit terrible, because – really – little is coming. But, I must, because duty calls or something like that.

   

On Conviction

It feels like lazy journalism to say that this seems like one of those low-rent films that would be on Lifetime, but that doesn’t make it any less true. Sure, Goldwyn tries to do some interesting things in trying to make us care about this filial pair but it’s all so terribly tepid and there’s a surprising lack of urgency in a film that should feel a little bit more profound. Rockwell sure is diverting, but even he ends up seeming eventually disinterested in it all. Swank tries, too, but she’s just not luminous enough to make this work.

And True Grit

There’s just something about the tone of True Grit that seems a bit pleased with itself, perhaps it’s the Western genre but it doesn’t really feel like a true Western. I’m not one for the genre, and sure being a western is more internal than external but it’s more striking as a straight coming of age drama than a traditional western which doesn’t make it a worse film but makes me wonder why we’re being built up for the appearance of Brolin’s Chaney which falls limp – and is wholly flat, easily a disservice to the fine attempts before.

                

As an aside, it’s weird how both Conviction and True Grit set their lead women up for glory – character-wise, and role-wise. The general cast end up bowing down to them both and they’re both given roles that we’re almost forced to appreciate on face value.

           

Both of these films were seen in early August – (the last new movies I saw: loathsome, I know).

The thing is Salt wasn’t bad, it was fairly interesting and I can’t recall a movie being worse for having Angelina Jolie in it. But that doesn’t say much. The phrase that comes to mind when I think of it first is that: Angie is better than Salt. Take that for what you will, she could do much worse, and so could we. But that doesn’t make it a poor venture. When I think of recent films in the genre Salt is at least better than most, it’s ridiculous at times but it does what it does in earnest.

C+

I feel I should watch this again. It’s another fairly good venture, but once again I’m left unmoved for the most part. The premise is good, but Splice never seems to go anywhere that makes me single it out for being particularly riveting. It’s a bit like a dalliance in something that’s meant to shock us – and though I was not disappointed I was not very impressed either. The attempt at mixing genre doesn’t work for me as well as I think it ought to. I’ll praise the valiant attempts – that’s about as much as I’m willing to do.

C

I saw both these releases over a month ago, and I couldn't muster up a credible review for either. So with 99 words a piece, here goes.

     

Two months ago I said I liked Jennifer Lopez, Jose asked me why and it took me weeks to find an answer. I’m drawn to her personality. Yet, for someone emanating so much charisma Lopez has a bewildering propensity to choose the most frivolous films. The Back-Up Plan is an unfortunately rote exercise that borders on pointless. Certainly, most romantic comedies are about the journey – not the destination – but The Back-Up Plan fails on both counts – we know where it will end, and the journey there is pedestrian throughout. Lopez is still charming…but the film and characters? Less so.

The Clash of the Titans features three actors (Postlewaite, Fiennes, Neeson) who were deserving of accolades for their acting 1993; they’re not doing their best work here. Despite all its attempts (and its mere 90 minutes running time), The Clash of the Titans is often oddly boring. Though well intentioned, it joins the ranks of other inoffensive and pointless derivatives of Greek Mythology with nothing new or special to see. Although I’m uncertain if Sam Worthington is headed to great things in the future, he is at least charming enough to make us interested (barely) throughout the film’s narrative.

I didn’t cover The Wizard of Oz on Sunday – because it’s not my absolutely favourite musical – it’s the ever dreaded #2. Jose and Ruben both looked deeper into the classic spotting things that had never occurred. Of course, that’s one of the main indicators that a film is excellent – when you can keep returning to it and finding new things. The thing is, I often forget that the The Wizard of Oz is a musical. It’s not that the songs are poor, headlined by the class “Over the Rainbow” and backed up with sweet tunes like “If I Were the King of the Forest” and “If I Only Had A Brain” it is just as fulfilling in its moments of adventure as it is in its moments of music. What I remember The Wizard of Oz for most is the one thing that has been borrowed by countless story tellers (on film and otherwise) – our hero’s departure to a strange, new world that turns out to be a dream. Incidentally this running gag is the weakest part of The Wizard of Oz’s strong story, but all things considered it’s only weak by comparison and it’s only lost its brilliance today because of our overexposure to it.

The Wizard of Oz is one of the films I remember earliest from my childhood. I can’t recall the exact age, but I know I saw it when it had all switched to Technicolor. Upon my “discovery” of the earlier sepia toned portion I found myself more charmed by Dorothy’s adventures (or lack thereof) in Kansas. She’s obviously out of place, and it made me realise how important this portion is to her “development”, and I couldn't help but smile every time Judy said "Oh, Aunty Em" in that earnest way of hers. The Wizard of Oz is doing so much even though it seems like a standard home, away and back home story. I always marvel at Judy’s ability to be meek while still having a sort of bravura that’s most attractive. She has a thing for line readings, even at that age, and sure she spends a significant portion of the film admonishing the things she meets it’s never too much. Of course Dorothy’s growing dissatisfaction with Oz is key to the message the story has to tell us. It’s part of the weirdness of the entire film though. Sure, the Wicked Witch of the East is evil and all, but the celebration is almost perverse as we watch those crazy Munchkins rejoicing.

It’s nice that The Wizard of Oz has endured for so long. As much as I love Shirley Temple I balk at the idea of her as Dorothy. It’s a little gem, that works as much for the adult as for the child – and that’s a bit of a rarity. It’s #19 on my list of favourite films.

When A Room With A View closes and we segue into the ending – unlike anything Forster had written – I’ll admit, I get a little happy. I’m always wont to call myself a cynic, I usually am, but I can’t deny that Lucy Honeychurch’s happiness makes me just (vicariously, of course) as pleased. It’s one of the reasons I don’t read A Room With A View in its entirety, even though I’m sensitive to the fact that a happy ending makes us lose Forster’s point – but so be it. It’s a little similar to my response to Atonement’s end, so I guess I’m really an idealist at heart.

I wonder if there’s some point that on all three of Merchant Ivory’s Oscar bids they lost to films that were more (broadly at least) male centred. Truth is, I’d have given The Age of Innocence the win in the last bid, but Scorsese’s tempered piece wasn’t even in the running. It’s not that Merchant Ivory is women based, regardless of how much I adore film books will always be my first love and it’s in this same way that Merchant Ivory is not for everyone. Of course, neither Platoon, Schindler’s List or Unforgiven are films for everyone but easily – the audience base is wider. A Room With A View, like so many of Forster’s works, examines the issue of class divisions in England but unlike a certain other class division piece A Room With A View is definitely milder – not for the worst, though. The film concerns…

A Room With A View stars Maggie Smith in a register she’s particularly used to playing, and yet her Charlotte is not a lazy characterisation...and Helena Bonham Carter as Lucy Honeychurch is lovely...it's her second film so she's not as developed as she was in the nineties but as Jose says...Her Lucy's combination of sexual awakening and innocence is delightful and sweeping. You can't put it any better than that. She's so lovely and she's only a part of the excellent cast. Denholm Elliot and Julian Sands are good as is Daniel Day Lewis and Judi Dench is small but fulfilling roles - before they became legends of the trade. I don't know why A Room With A View isn't remembered just a little more, it's such an excellent piece and it's so much fun....but not in the way you'd expect. It's thoroughly British and thoroughly entertaining and #13 on my list of favourites...What do you think of it?

          

Iron Man has always been rooted its cynical take on the contemporary world – contemporary America to be exact. It’s steeped in its glitz, the glamour, cheap thrills. The first film toed that line between decadence and intelligence that made it less of a by-the-book “superhero” movie and something not necessarily better, but more original. When watching Iron Man 2 my mind immediately went to the other sequel I saw recently. Sure, it’s for an entirely different audience but in its way Nanny McPhee routine “saving” of children is an incarnation of Downey Jr’s superhero. It’s obvious though, Thompson’s tale improves on the original… Iron Man 2.

I can’t explain how it’s taking me so long to give my thoughts on this; I guess the general apathy I feel towards doesn’t help much. I have to purge, so on with the words.  

It’s an action flick, and in that realm I suppose Favreau feels the duty to give his audience what they want – endless thrills. The thing is, the film starts out for thirty minutes without trying to give us any outlandish, or obvious thrills and this is where it works the best. Sure, Stark is still something of a prick, but Downey Jr. can pull that off. And sure Palthrow’s Pepper continues to be written as little more than a caricature making her work even harder, but she can handle it. You’d think that with a fairly good starting it’d be off to a good film, but no – false alarm. Moreover, I can’t even be certain why, but I have my ideas. It’s as if Theroux thinks that by injecting the film with character after character, and plot point after plot point he’s going to make the film better. But we can’t build any one character in such a muddle. The film seems to be lacking any significant plot, even as I’m well aware that there’s quite a lot going on. Stark has revealed he’s Iron Man, he’s dying, Pepper is the new CEO of the Company, he’s being pressured to turn over his “weapons”, Ivan Vanko wants to kill him, so does Justin Hammer, a new assistant is more than the benign girl Stark believes her to be, oh and his father also arrives from beyond the grave to order words of wisdom. Did I miss anything? In this way Iron Man 2 reminds me of a huge roll of cotton candy, eye catching and ostensibly sweet but  ultimately unfulfilling (and unhealthy too). But it’s not a bad film….

Iron Man 2 reminds me of Alice in Wonderland - but whereas Alice in Wonderland despite it’s obvious poorness at times, stays on point and features excellent performances from Bonham Carter and Anne Hathaway Iron Man 2 doesn’t succeed as much. Downey Jr. charms wear thin eventually and Palthrow is wasted, even if Pepper has an ostensibly large role. Samuel Jackson, Scarlett Johansson and even the much feted Mickey Rourke add nothing substantial to the film – not because they’re not trying but because no one seems sure what exactly they’re supposed to be offering. I’m not mad at it, though, because it does all it does with honesty at least, and truthfully I hope it makes all the money it can. But really, I’m neither here nor there on it…which is shame considering on all that could have been…

                             

It seems I've been had. Well not quite, a few months back The Mad Hatter remarked that sometimes a rewatch of a film helps with grading it. It's never happened to me, so I didn't really take it to mean much. I'm fixed in my ways for the most part, especially on those light and easy films which are just for fun like real concerts (do you pick up the reference?). But I digress. I rewatched He's Not That Into You - against my will, mind you - and I realise I was wrong. Even when In Contention was championing it I didn't feel the need to rewatch, but it's an absolute breeze and I need to move it from that meagre C to a B. I didn't even review, I wonder if I dreamt I saw it and didn't like it. I can't believe I just did that, trust me this surprises me more than it does you. A film with people I do not care for (Connelly, Aniston, Afleck), and people I have no feelings towards (the Entourage guy I'm too lazy to find the name of, Ginnifer Goodwin) manages to please me. Sure it has the lovely ScarJo, but did they have to give her that role? Still, she's fine, as is Justin Long and Drew - and the entire cast actually. Definitely underrated, but definitely took me for surprise on second viewing, I guess Mad Hatter was on to something...

          

In this age if star power it’s always good to see films succeed with relative unknowns at the head. Two of the bigger films of the last year – The Hurt Locker and Avatar both thrived without any notable stars in the lead roles and British comedy In the Loop continues that trend. Explaining the plot of In the Loop would prove quite a dilemma for me. It’s enough to say that it juxtaposes the opposing Brits and Americans as both sides of Ocean debate on their immanent involvement in war. However with a summation like that In the Loop sounds more pedantic than it is. Despite the seemingly studious overtone In the Loop is a thoroughly comedic ensemble piece.

                                

In the Loop has garnered laurels for its writing which is good, but the beacon of its film is the acting – Mimi Kennedy gives an excellent performance as a Deputy Secretary of State, Tom Hollander plays to his strengths as a Minister and he’s quite good as is James Gandolfini in a role that could have become nondescript. It’s an interesting film that doesn’t really have villains or heroes as it does normal people caught on different sides of the track. In the Loop is a good film, though I’m uncertain if enough people have seen it. It’s a hilarious but intelligent comedy that encompasses all the qualities I love in the British.

Someone, who I cannot recall, commented to the chagrin of the majority that A Serious Man was a film for Jews only. I wouldn’t make that claim, as much as I would say that knowledge of the Jews would probably increase you’re appreciation of the piece. In Guyana the religious spectrum is almost evenly divided among Christians, Muslims and Hindus. To my knowledge, I’ve never met a Jew. So my knowledge of the Jews is minimal at best. I say this preamble because watching A Serious Man I couldn’t help feeling that I was missing something that would illuminate the entire film and show some wisdom that the Coen’s were attempting to imbue to the film. But, alas, I can’t be certain what that something is, or even if there is a veritable anything that I was missing form the narrative.

On a superficial level, A Serious Man is competent. Michael Stuhlberg plays our hero [?] college Physics teacher with some serious issues, both professionally and domestically. I can’t fault Stuhlberg, even though I feel that he’s been written into a sort of box. There doesn’t seem to be any significant character arc that the Coens’ have written for him, so it all feels feel rather pointless after the fact, which is not an unnatural feeling after any Coen film. I always feel like their intent is always to make us leave their films thinking “what just happened”. Sometimes it serves the plot, but I just wonder if A Serious Man may have been more successful it had a little more structure. I wish the Coen’s would have done a movie instead of trying to make some [existentialist? Jewish?] point.

                

I’m hitting an impasse trying to write about this film. I wish I could have loved Stuhlbarg physics' professor a bit more, and I wish that Sari Lennick would have been given a real role instead of being relegated to mere prop device - she's sensational at times. I really wanted to at least appreciate it for its merits but it all ends up feeling slightly clunky to me.

                    

I wrote the above early January which was a few weeks after actually seeing A Serious Man. Since, I've heard the "explanation" that it's a Jewish account of the Book of Job which only annoys me even more - parallels are there. The issue with the Coen's is that the don't seem to take anything seriously and at the end of the day I look Larry not even with empathy, or sympathy but just exasperation. Perhaps, a C+ in retrospect...then again, no.

So it’s late in the year and this has been released for months. But I finally saw it yesterday. Judd Apatow’s Funny People. I’m not too big on Apatow, so didn’t anticipate much. And the reviews were not exceptional. It tells the story of George. A professional comedian played by Sandler who finds out he may have a fatal disease. Buoyed by the reality of his looming death he hires an assistant [Seth Rogen] and schemes to win back his old girlfriend [Leslie Mann] who is now married with children.

                 

Funny People is the perfect example of a good idea gone bad. The premise is fine, but the execution is not. The film never knows what it wants to be. Is it Sandler’s film, is it Rogen’s? Sometimes it even wants to be Mann’s. The pacing is horrible and the script though fine in spots, is ultimately spotty. I could imagine Apatow writing this hoping for mainstream and critical success, and that’s just the problem. It’s trying too hard. It wants to be witty, romantic, dramatic, and gross-out funny. In the end, it can’t decide which and it fails on all accounts.

These reviews are somewhat overdue, I don’t know why I didn’t put up the grades earlier. Anyhow, here they are.

      

It’s generally agreed that Tyler Perry’s brand of madness is more suited for the stage from where he originated. His outlandish plots and dialogue are legitimately funny there, not so much onscreen. I’ve never been overly fond of his stage to screen adaptations. I Can Do Bad All By Myself centres on Taraji P. Henson’s character, April. She is a nightclub singer who is having an affair with a married man. When her niece and two nephews become homeless she starts to tentatively forge a relationship with them and a Colombian boarder. I Can Do Bad All By Myself is a here and there film wrapped around an eclectic performance by Ms. Henson. Nick said it, James said it and I’ll say it too – the woman’s quite good here. It’s a pity the film is tripping all over its heels. That’s not to say that the film has nothing more to offer than Taraji. There are a number of musical scenes speckled throughout and I must say that Tyler Perry’s direction in these scenes were effective and inspired. In fact, I don’t really have anything overtly negative to say about his direction on the whole. The film’s crutch is its script, through and through. It gets more and more convoluted and at the end almost sinks Taraji’s good performance. Still, it’s a spottily enjoyable if predictable thing.

      

It’s actually just as predictable as The Proposal. What can I say about this? Sandra Bullock has always excelled at playing the good girl; I suppose this is why persons have stressed on that ridiculous comparison to Julia Roberts. It is this good girl character of her that fits like a glove that makes her excursions in The Proposal underwhelming. Say what you want about Julia, but she can play mean when she must. Sandra is not so convincing. The Proposal is fine of course. Nathaniel accurately points out the gender duplicity, and it’s obvious. Of course, it’s become rote in romantic comedies. It’s sad that The Proposal [and The Blind Side] have made me dislike Sandra. I never wanted to be that guy who begins to hate something because everyone loves it. I previously liked Sandra when she stayed in her niche, I even forgave her for Crash. Kind of. It wasn’t until I was bemoaning the injustice of her nominations that I realised I used to like her. Actually I still do. I can’t speak for The Blind Side which I’m yet to see, but this isn’t a performance worthy of a Globe nod. In a tale of two Cs Taraji wipes the floor with Sandra – and that’s just getting started in a year of Michelle Pfeiffer, Zoey Daschnell, Evan Rachel Wood, Maya Rudolph and on and on and on. But that’s awards for you.

You'd probably remember that I sporadically posted my thoughts on The Office every now and then. And you'll have noticed it's gotten less and less consistent. I just don't have the longevity to blog about a show for a year or more, but it's always cool to look at a specific TV episode in isolation, and today I think I'd like to talk about last week's episode of Parks & Recreation "Ron & Tammy". Why does this episode warrant a blog post? Only because the delightful Megan Mullally made a guest appearance as the eponymous Tammy, the ex-wife of Leslie's [Amy Poehler] boss. I'm not going to obsess about this guest turn like I did with Amy Ryan, since it got me nowhere, but it is a wicked good guest stint. It's so weird seeing Megan with out that shrieky cackle I've come to [fondly] associate with her Karen Walker. Still, this episode was very good, although I had my issues.

For some reason Rashida Jones and Paul Schneider are now a couple. They are two actors I like, but not together. It's even more uncomfortable than her and Paul Rudd. Remember that? B+

        

Grey's Anatomy "Invest in Love" A-

The Office "Double Date" B

Community "Home Economics" B-

30 Rock "Audition Day" B

Desperate Housewives "Careful the things You Say" B

So You Think You Can Dance "Top 16" B

I realise that my posting of The Office has turned into a fortnightly thing. I’ll try to abate that next week. Anyhow, tonight saw the return of Pam and Jim to The Office and what ensued was one of my favourite episodes. Ever. The follow-up to Niagara [Mafia] was enjoyable but not outstanding but this episode really was good. It focused on Pam finding out that her mother and Michael are a couple.

                                    

I’ve noticed that the cold openings have become more and more integrated with the plot. This opening concerned the newlyweds returning and their reception. I love when Meredith has her one liners. This time she can’t beehive that all Pam and Jim brought back was Puerto Rican candy. Before I get to the meat of the episode, I have to address the ridiculously wonderful subplot. In an attempt to undermine Jim, Dwight gives him a wooden mallard [a duck] with a listening device on it. Don’t ask what Dwight expects to hear Jim saying, but of course Jim finds it and what he does to Dwight is quite funny.

                    

But back to the main plot. Jim finds out first about the relationship and I’m a bit nonplussed about his reaction. He immediately flies off the handling warning Michael not to tell her. Due to Erin [the new receptionist’s] all around dumbness Michael is pushed to tell Pam and she freaks out. Let me just say that Jenna Fischer has to submit this episode for her Emmy reel next year and she must be nominated. It’s Pam like we’ve never seen her. She calls her mother in a rage and it all culminates in a board room meeting that pits Michael against Pam. It’s funny with hints of sadness and it’s all handled so well. It’s just perfect.

                   

At the end you can’t help feeling bad for Michael but we don’t know what will happen since it’s more or less left open. And the sadness of the episode is dimmed by Dwight’s last few seconds. Apparently the mallard was a decoy, the real listening device is in a pen on Jim’s desk. The look of intent as Dwight listens to his six hours of tape is both ludicrous, funny and oddly scary.

                

           

Of course you’re not, Dwight. Of course, you’re not.

                    

A+

                   

The episode really was a success Krasinski, Wilson, Carell and especially Fsicher shone brightly. And B.J. Novak even had a substantial one liner, two actually, so I was verry happy. I miss Ryan.

The long waited wedding of Pam and Jim of has finally come. It’s one of those special moments that require an entire hour giving every Office member a chance to shine. The cold open grabs me immediately. Due to Pam’s pregnancy she asks the staff to kindly refrain from eating lunches with pungent smells in the work area. She also requests that persons with particularly aromatic soaps and perfumes hold off for the next month.

            

Phyllis: This is just ridiculous.

           

Dwight of course has to be the ass

         

Dwight: I’m sorry. Did anyone vote for Pam to get pregnant?

         

So he proceeds to eat his pungent hardboiled eggs in front of pan…who proceeds to vomit into her garbage bin right in front of him. It’s like a domino effect and everyone vomits as Dwight looks around confused. And somehow this turns out way funnier and a lot less gross than it sounds.

                

Pam and Jim ask everyone to keep quiet about the pregnancy because Pam’s grandmother doesn’t know…and she’s quite old fashioned. And it is cute when Michael threatens everyone to be on their best behaviour at the wedding. Although the person he should be warning is himself The drive down to Niagara is funny in it’s own right.

Andy: Not only is Erin sweet and cute. She smells like my mom.

I don’t know who’s sadder. Kevin or Andy.

                 

Michael ends up with no room due to his stupidity.

     

Michael: When Mary was denied a room at the inn, Jesus was born. When Michael was denied a room at the inn…we don’t know what happened. That story hasn’t happened as yet.

        

We are introduced to Pam’s grandmother, and she is a freak. She's one angry looking old woman. One of my favourite moments comes when Pam’s sister mistakes Kevin for a gay man, and Oscar’s date.

              

Oscar: You thought I was dating him? HIM? You owe me an apology.

              

Oscar’s delivery is just splendid. Poor guy, he really can’t catch a break.

               

The rehearsal dinner of course must be eventful and Jim eventually spills the beans about you know what in front of you know There's this wicked line deliver.

             

Mamaw: This movie called Bruno was on... and I couldn't get the TV off. I had to just sit there while it happened to me. And I thought, 'why would they pick a hotel like this'. Now I know.

              

…but that’s the just the tip of the iceberg and the episode improves as it goes on. The ending of the episode is both sweet and funny and it has some of the best Office moments of the year...as Andy splits his banana [you know what I mean], Kevin dons a wig, and Dwight hooks up with one of the bridesmaids. Ew. It's a great episode. I hope you didn't miss it...and if you did. Try to see it.

First half A

Third Quarter  B+

Last give minutes A+

Over all Grade: A

Off topic:           

This episode of The Office was better than last week’s episode. Jim and Michael must now deal with being co-managers and the end result was quite amusing. When David Wallace calls to inform the two that the company is experiencing some financial difficulties it is their job to decide how raises will be given. This leads to my favourite scene in the episode where Jim and Michael brainstorm for ideas. Actually, it’s more like Jim brainstorming and Michael being Michael. Jim being a good worker ponders how to make the decreased revenue work for everyone.

                               

Michael to Jim “Don’t take this the wrong way, but I think you use your brain too much.”

            

Typical Michael moment. As Jim makes list after list of pros and cons Michael gets more and more annoyed. He sets Jim up for the fall when he lets Jim go out and announce his idea. Only the sales persons get raises. Dwight, who is of course pissed that Jim got promoted, is ready to rile up the other non sales staff even though he’s on the sales staff and would be getting a raise. Everyone in the office gets annoyed.

      

Meredith to Jim “My kid needs new shoes. Do you wanna tell my kid he can’t get shoes?”

              

Eventually Jim and Michael go back to the drawing board but not with any substantial results. In fact the episode ends and their dilemma is unsolved but Michael realises the pros of having Jim as co-manager because he doesn’t have to make the tough decisions alone. He bashfully tells Jim to wait as he goes and gets a gift from his office. He comes back with two coffee mugs.

         

Jim to Michael “What’s in this?

Michael to Jim “Gin.”

                      

The subplot this week concerned Pam coasting for wedding gifts. Apparently she and Jim are going through a rough patch and although they registered for wedding gifts she would prefer if they get money. She tries to hint this to Phyllis, but it kind of goes over her head. When Pam says they’ll accept gifts that are not registered [money] she’s happy. She has a cousin who makes custom made mailbox birth baths.

          

Phyllis to Pam “You’re not registered for birdbaths. Are you?”

             

The last minute before the credits is good if only because B. J. Novak gets something to do. It’s cool as Pam inadvertently becomes Ryan’s gambling buddy. All in all, it was a good episode.

           

Two more reviews that should have been here a month ago...

                           

The Young Victoria

Period pieces are put at such an unfair disadvantage – especially those about the monarchy. They can’t all be Elizabeth and The Lion in Winter. I suppose that’s why The Young Victoria has had such a lukewarm reception. We see the trailer and think it’s going to be heavily baity and then see it and end up being disappointed. Kind of.

This is a fine film. It’s the sort of film that entertains but it doesn’t exactly thrill. But all films aren’t made equally and we can’t all be perfect. Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend star as Victoria and her husband Prince Albert. The two do good work if nothing spectacular. There is something I took issue with. First, the makeup for Emily Blunt. Her performance as Victoria is fine; the majority of her work is portrayed in her voice. She really does sound younger than she usually does, but she doesn’t look so. The thing is Emily Blunt is not old looking but they take so many pains to make her look young that she ends up looking older. It seems like such a silly mistake since actors have been looking younger on screen for decades. Oh well. Rupert Friend is also fine as her soon to be husband. I wonder when his star will rise. Perhaps he can play Pip in the prospective Great Expectations adaptation.

                            

Miranda Richardson plays the mother of the Queen in a throwaway role at best. But this is Miranda Richardson, so she does her best and it’s fine. Paul Bettany is also fine as Lord Melbourne. Notice how I can’t stop using the adjective fine? Because there wasn’t anything that outstanding. The movie wasn’t bad, it was really okay, and with all the crap circulating in cinemas I suppose fine ain’t too shabby? Right?

            

B-

            

Maybe I’ll post a longer review sometime…maybe I won’t.  

                         

There isn’t much to say about this. It’s sort of overkill for me, with Cohen. Where Borat thrived this one seemed to fail. There is only so much that could have been done with this idea, because it offers nothing fresh, no new perspective. Whereas we’ve never thought to think what a Kazakhstan country man would be like we’ve already had the gay goes straight idea, we’ve seen it run the gamut from A to Z and back. So Cohen comes off looking a little one note. I laughed, don’t get me wrong, but mostly it was the sort of cringing-I-can’t-believe-this-shit-so-stupid-wasting-my-time-make-it-stop laughter. There’s a scene at the end where Borat and a white guy claim that they conceived a young black child. For some reason that was my first genuine laugh. And it’s not particularly funny either. But maybe if he toned it down a little we could find the humour instead of it being thrown in our faces. But, if he did that he wouldn’t Sacha Baron Cohen.

                      

This is a film that I might never have looked at again had it not been for StinkyLulu’s Supporting Actress Smackdown. Sidney Pollack’s thriller based on John Grisham’s novel. This is Tom Cruise’s film and its one of those non-acting performances from him [re Top Gun, A Few Good Men] He’s capable, as are most of the cast. Gene Hackman, Jeanne Tripplehorn, Ed Harris, Holly Hunter, David Strathairn give able performances. The film is overly long for one of this genre [it’s two hour and a half] and towards the middle it does tend to flounder. By the end it picks up but by then you’re just waiting for it to be over and done with.

                                       

Now as you know the whole point of looking at this movie is to assess Holly Hunter’s performance in The Firm. I always thought of this nomination as a filler nomination and in some ways I still think so. I was two in 1993 so all the films I saw from that year were done way later. I can think of a heap of women who could have replaced her. It’s not like her performance is bad. Her role is short, and it’s supposed to be the sort of palpable supporting performance that Oscar likes. I feel I would have nominated Jean Tripplehorn over her if I had the chance. Not because her performance was so excellent either, but the character just felt a lot more rounded than Tammy, and obviously they wanted someone from the film. But as I said you can see what the appeal of Holly Hunter is. Not only she is playing a completely different character than she does in The Piano [the same year] – it’s the sort of aggressive/slightly femme fatale/heart of gold character they like [see Mira Sorvino, Marisa Tomei, Kim Bassinger, Mercedes Rhuel], although an insignificant character means she can do nothing with it.

                

In the film there’s a key scene where Jeanne Tripplehorn seduces Gene Hackman. It’s a scene that was originally given to Tammy’s character in the novel. I don’t say would have suddenly made her character more rounded and the nomination less of a head scratcher. But had she a reason for being there I could have liked her more, or maybe not…