The Intouchables (2012)

I've spent a lot ot time thinking about the name of this movie, ever since I saw a trailer for it around Christmas time last year. 'In' and 'im' meant not, as in "not touchable" where the more familiar "untouchable" means that it can be touched but it wasn't. I'm not sure that intouchable is actually a word, but it should be, especially if used as a proper noun, as in, "they are the intouchables", which might describe a caste of people, etc. I've also thought that it might just be a bad translation of the French title of this film, but really, my take is sexier.
This film is really a buddy picture - two men from different worlds brought together and getting more out of their life because of the other. It just so happens that in this particular story one of the men is a quadriplegic who can feel nothing from the neck down. The two men meet when Philip hires Driss to be his caregiver. The two men bond and have a faith in the other from the beginning that allows them to get passed the artificial barriers imposed by society and just be friends.
This is one of those sneaker movies that are really a "feel good" movie wrapped up in artistry and authenticity and humor that catches you off-guard. You find yourself totally wrapped up in their lives, which are by no means perfect but handled well, each playing the cards dealt to him by fate. What makes this story even more impressive is that it's based on a true story, and as the credits roll, you get to see the real men that this film is based on.
I am so glad that I watched this film and broke my bad luck streak with "19 best movies you didn't see in 2012" as this certainly was a great movie and belongs on a best-off list

The Intouchables on IMDb

Hyde Park on Hudson (2012)

This is a beautifully shot movie. It is reminiscent of BBC period pieces, though everything looks more opulent. I suspect this may be because it's the President being shown, and not the rest of America during the Depression. The Roosevelts were American aristocracy and this movie makes that very evident. The cinematography really stands out though, as it is much more artsy than most historical dramas. There are lots of lingering shots and widely framed shots, not to mention shots of the backs of people's necks. It must be an art thing.
Bill Murray is excellent as Franklin Roosevelt. It's hard to believe that this is the same actor from Saturday Night Live and Ghostbusters. He is both stately and understated at the same time. He looks the part and sounds the part. Actually everyone does an excellent job, all on the understated side except for Olivia Williams as Eleanor Roosevelt, who is portrayed not only as a 'raging' feminist but as a closeted lesbian.
The visit of the British royals is incredibly awkward and I'm not sure how much of it was intended and how much of it was the reserve of the whole movie makes the awkwardness more palpable. I know this period in British American relationships were difficult, but I'm not sure as to the relationship between Roosevelt and King George, but this film portrays it as one long humiliation for the King with Roosevelt occasionally letting him know he was doing a good job, but that the King of England was just not as important as the President of the United States.
The affair between President Roosevelt and his cousin Daisy is something I had heard of before, but not thought that much about. I certainly didn't think of ol' Franklin as a player, which this film makes him out ot be. I guess I had never thought of this possibility because when I studied FDR in school I was a boy and didn't think about anyone leading this kind of life. As an adult, I am not surprised by this, just hadn't thought about it. You kind of feel for Daisy when she discovers that she is one of many, or at least several other women in the President's life. I suppose it was naive of her to think that she would be the only one. Love is a fickle thing, I suppose.
I honestly can't decide if I like this film or not. It is exceptionally well made. It's quirky and oddly paced. The voice-over by Daisy does a wonderful job of humanizing the drama, but I think it gets over-used in the last quarter of the movie which relies heavily on exposition instead of dialogue and drama.

Hyde Park on the Hudson on IMDb

Safe (2012)

This is your typical Statham flick - bad guy who is really a good guy but for some reason has been doing seemingly bad things is put in a situation where he does the right thing in an incredibly bad-ass way. Nothing new on that front. This movie is a lot bigger than most of his films, instead of a cast of a few dozen, there are hundreds. The mechanics of the film - the lighting, cinematography, sound, continuity - are all very good and bespeak of a larger investment than most of his films. And the story is better too. In this film, Statham actually sounds like an American. This may be his best film. So, if you're a Jason Statham fan, watch this.
What I found really interesting, however, didn't really have anything to do with Statham. The plot of the movie revolves a Chinese gangster who in this age of ubiquitous electronics and computers doesn't trust them to keep track of his funds because he knows that anyone can steal them, so he uses a little girl named Mai, played wonderfully by Catherince Chan, to store his numbers. I find it very intriguing that the better technology gets, the safest way to store sensitive information is by not using any technology at all.
The second interesting feature of this film is the background of Luke Wright (Statham). After 9/11, the mayor of New York had to put almost all of his resources into dealing with the potential terrorist threat. He asked for help from the shadow government who was really running the country then and they sent the mayor two men to use in sensitive situations. One of these men was Wright who killed many criminals who were relatively high up the food chain. He was serving the mayor, but also an agenda from the people who sent him to NYC. At some point years later, Wright figures out that thanks to his actions, a cadre of dirty cops have filled in the vacancies in the insurance and extortion racket in NYC. He does the only thing he can, and goes to IA and narcs them out. I find the notion of a shadow government loaning out or giving away a super agent, think Bourne Identity here, to accomplish things that regular police officers can't do.
These ideas are not bad for an action flick. I would have loved to see them developed more, but then what they do in the sequel then?

Safe at IMDb

Fright Night (2011)

There are all kinds of vampire films. I like the kind that are full of tradition which doesn't mean necessarily that the vampires have to fit the classical model but if they don't, I want a rich background that explains or at least shows why they are the way they are. This kind of film if it portrays a little bit of humor or a little bit of sexy or a little bit of action or all three. I like these films to be about vulnerable characters, whether they are the human or the vampire, protagonist or antagonist. The vampire myth is all about power and I think it is integral to the genre to show the imbalance of power, and for both parties to know that this imbalance exists - especially when it first occurs to one of the parties that they are at the mercy of the other(s).
Fright Night gives me everything I want out of a vampire movie. You've got bad-ass Colin Farrell set up as the powerful vampire, Jerry. Anton Yelchin is the protagonist, a senior in high school who doesn't believe in vampires at the start of the film who is willing to turn his back on his former friends for the affection of a pretty girl played by Imogen Poots. The mom, who is the West Wing's Toni Collette, thinks her son is playing a practical joke talking about vampires until she learns firsthand that he is not. We're eventually joined by David Tennant's sexy illusionist and vampire hunter.
This movie is self-aware of it's genre and most of the characters get at least one line commenting on the situation instead of ust not believing in vampire until it's too late. Tennant's character is almost a spoof on vampire hunter's but doesn't quite get that far. The film is aware of it's genre, too, taking the time to discuss the Twilight Saga and why those films/books are not about real vampires whiuch of course implies that this tale is.

Fright Night on IMDb

Bernie (2011)

This is supposedly based on a true story. At least it seems supposed at the beginning as you anxiously await for the movie to go from the set-up to the zinger that will make it funny, but by the second half of the movie you realize there is no zing, no great (or minor) revelation. I concluded that this could only be based on real life as it was so damned boring. When the credits roll and the real Bernie is shown, I found it credible.
This is another one of the movies off the "19 best movie of 2012 that you didn't see". (Interesting it's on this list since IMDb says it's 2011.) Like Casa de mi Padre, this film stars an actor, Jack Black, who when he is on his A game in a good movie borders on comic genius, but like CdmP, this ain't that film, and when Black is not on his game as he is not in this film and when the film is not top notch as this film is not, it is agonizing to watch him because it is so, so very banal and utterly boring. You can always say when Ferrell does this that it's the Saturday Night Live skit that should have been cut - you know, the one that was obviously funny to the writers (at least hopefully was), is at least five minutes too long and runs as close to one a.m. as possible, the kind of skit that makes you question your own judgment on whether you should be allowed to stay up so late and be in control of your own television watching.
While he was the star of this movie, Black seemed like he was cast as the co-star. His performance was consistent throughout, but not worthy of center stage. I don't know that this is his fault, as I think the story is pretty weak as presented. Shirley McClaine is completely wasted as the mean old spinster, Maurjorie Nugent. 90% of her onscreen time is spent with the same look on her face, which I guess was supposed to be meanness, but looked more like constipation, and she doesn't speak most of that time. The third star, Matthew Conaghey was the more engaging actor, playing a more engaging character that of a not unbelievable slimeball district attorney, but still a character lacking the ability to carry a movie on his own.
I've long been a fan of the film's director Richard Linklater. His initial film, Slacker, was brilliant, both in it's simplicity and style. While it seemed to lack a narrative thread, it really had one, casting a spotlight on Generation X in Austin TX, which illuminated our generation throughout the U.S. In subsequent films, Linklater moved to a more mainstream style of story telling with mainstream hits like Dazed and Confused and The School of Rock which starred Jack Black. All of his films take small slices of life and put them under the movie lense to apply to some greater truth, typically with a humorous side. I can only think that Linklater was trying to do the same with Bernie as he took a first leap into making a "True Crime" film that centers around a character in small town Texas. Unfortunately, while there may actually be a broader truth to be exposed with this film, Linklater commits the greatest sin in movie making - he made a boring movie.

Bernie at IMDb

Casa de mi Padre (2012)

Umm, did I miss something here? Did Will Ferrell think, "Damn, Jack Black got to do Nacho Libre, but I wanted to do it!" and then through himself on the floor kicking and pounding it with clenched fists until he realized, "Ah ha! I will do a melodrama!" At which point he had his helper monkey bring him his cell phone so he could call his agent and get him looking to put this film together.
I get that this is a spoof. Really. But spoofs generally come out of a love for the subject being spoofed and/or poking fun at the audience's guilty pleasures. I'm trying to decide if this is a spoof that just didn't click with it's audience of one, or if it's just offensive because they're intentionally exacgerating stereotypes for an audience that is not too familiar with the genre being spoofed. I'm not saying that they were trying to be offensive, per se, just that I think this film was in spots. Okay, I think they were trying to make a really funny and perhaps even poignant spoof of Mexican melodramas and soap operas and just kind of missed the mark and ended up being a little offensive along the way, which I have to believe was unintentional. Okay, I don't have to believe this, but I do. Helper monkey aside, every interview I've seen with Ferrell, whether he's joking around or not, he seems like a really nice guy. But he also has a weird sense of humor that I don't think always transfers well. Yet it could be that I am not the target audience. I came out of watching Step Brothers thinking that there were a couple of funny moments but that it was really banal, whereas my teen-aged nephews thought it was the funniest thing since Paul Blart, Mallcop. Which says more about our different tastes than anything else I could say.
What's good about this flick? Well, seeing Genesis Rodriquez butt was okay, but the immediate following scene where her and Ferrell's characters are supposed to be making love and he is very noticeably dry humping a manikin is very damned funny. Along the same lines are the white tiger puppet and fake horses used in some scenes. Not so funny, more what-the-hell is the scene where Ferrell drives into town to confront his brother and they use a (bad) model and toy cars pulled by visible wires.
This film was listed in an article of the "19 best films of 2012 that you didn't see". That is mostly true - if you leave out the word "best", I would completely agree. Though, I do admit the possibility that of all of the 2012 films that came out and that I didn't see, that this is one of the 19 best - the point being that I didn't miss that many good films. This is a bit unfair to the list which did have Robot & Frank (the only one on the list that I had seen) and that was a very sweet little movie.

Casa de mi Padre on IMDb

Casa de mi Padre (2012)

Umm, did I miss something here? Did Will Ferrell think, "Damn, Jack Black got to do Nacho Libre, but I wanted to do it!" and then through himself on the floor kicking and pounding it with clenched fists until he realized, "Ah ha! I will do a melodrama!" At which point he had his helper monkey bring him his cell phone so he could call his agent and get him looking to put this film together.
I get that this is a spoof. Really. But spoofs generally come out of a love for the subject being spoofed and/or poking fun at the audience's guilty pleasures. I'm trying to decide if this is a spoof that just didn't click with it's audience of one, or if it's just offensive because they're intentionally exaggerating stereotypes for an audience that is not too familiar with the genre being spoofed. I'm not saying that they were trying to be offensive, per se, just that I think this film was in spots. Okay, I think they were trying to make a really funny and perhaps even poignant spoof of Mexican melodramas and soap operas and just kind of missed the mark and ended up being a little offensive along the way, which I have to believe was unintentional. Okay, I don't have to believe this, but I do. Helper monkey aside, every interview I've seen with Ferrell, whether he's joking around or not, he seems like a really nice guy. But he also has a weird sense of humor that I don't think always transfers well. Yet it could be that I am not the target audience. I came out of watching Step Brothers thinking that there were a couple of funny moments but that it was really banal, whereas my teen-aged nephews thought it was the funniest thing since Paul Blart, Mallcop. Which says more about our different tastes than anything else I could say.
What's good about this flick? Well, seeing Genesis Rodriquez butt was okay, but the immediate following scene where her and Ferrell's characters are supposed to be making love and he is very noticeably dry humping a manikin is very damned funny. Along the same lines are the white tiger puppet and fake horses used in some scenes. Not so funny, more what-the-hell is the scene where Ferrell drives into town to confront his brother and they use a (bad) model and toy cars pulled by visible wires.
This film was listed in an article of the "19 best films of 2012 that you didn't see". That is mostly true - if you leave out the word "best", I would completely agree. Though, I do admit the possibility that of all of the 2012 films that came out and that I didn't see, that this is one of the 19 best - the point being that I didn't miss that many good films. This is a bit unfair to the list which did have Robot & Frank (the only one on the list that I had seen) and that was a very sweet little movie.

Casa de mi Padre on IMDb

Whitechapel (2009)

This is pretty typical BBC fare. Take your gritty cop show, throw in a copycat serial killer, add a pinch of new guy trying to fit in, shake and server over three episodes. There was nothing groundbreaking about this show, but that's really okay. It's a drama, but also a police procedural, so I'm good with it. The British cops handle things a bit differently their American counterparts. They show up at crime scenes prepared - their forensics investigators bring tents to cover the body if it's outdoors, anyone in the scene is not only wearing booties and gloves, but a full jumpsuit that serves to keep their suit clean and to keep them from contaminating the crime scene. In American police procedurals, the only time you see the cops or CSI break out the jump suits is if a biohazard is involved. I can't think of how many times I've been watching CSI and thought to myself, "Sure, she has beautiful hair, but shouldn't it be pulled back and under a cap so she doesn't contaminate the scene?", British cop shows are all about the authenticity, even if that means their handsome young star has to put on one of the jumpers including hood and face mask for a couple of minutes.
There are two other things that pop to mind when thinking of how this show was different from it's American counterpart. First, a love interest for the lead was not part of the story and they didn't feel the need to show him in a way that indicated anything about a relationship or lack thereof because it did not pertain to the story. Second, there are far more older characters, characters who are average to overweight and characters who are average looking but not what you would call attractive.

Whitechapel on IMDb

Black Mirror Series 1 (2011)

Black Mirror Series 1 (2011)

Episode 1: The National Anthem
You don't see this kind of television program on American networks, not even cable networks like HBO or Showtime. But then, I suppose the American President is not quite at the whim of the people the way the British Prime Minister is. Without going into too much detail and ruining a good "what if?" story, the British PM is forced to do something unspeakable to save the life of the kidnapped Princess. In America, a term which I am using to illicit the notion that we are a unified country, the President could not be put in such a situation as there is no royal family - well duh, but also because since Ronald Reagan the President has been saying that he will never deal with terrorists, and to prove this statement has sent hundreds of thousands of men and women all around the world to kill people and be killed by people. If this story were to take place in America, hmmm, contemplating using Amerika now, the President would send Navy SEALs to hunt down the person responsible, and if the Princess-stand-in were killed as a result of not performing the ransom act, the President would thump his chest and say that terrorists are horrible even while the SEALs were blowing up an abandoned tenement building that the kidnapper had held up in. There is no scenario where the Amerikan President (great, now I've probably tripped a spider and am going to be on a watch list) does not end up by announcing that someone has died and that we must come together as a people on this solemn occassion and be prepared to kill or be killed, cue the Army Brass Band, pan to the Amerikan flag and the Presidential seal of an angry eagle clutching an M-16 and fade to black.

Episode 2: 15 Million Merits
Oh man. I don't even have anything to say for this one because it hits so close to the mark. Well, I have gone from feeling slightly anxious about something not related to my watching habits to feeling gloomy. Yay televsion, you really know how to move a guy along.
This episode is set in a future that takes the internet and online life to a not unreasonable crossroads with entertainment, particularly reality shows. Throw in a bit of Max Headroom, the part where you can't turn off the programming (though modified a bit to fit this story) and you've got this episode. The morale of this episode is that everyone sucks and no one is genuine. No one can stand up to the might of the crowd and when stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea, everyone will always choose the devil.
There were only two ways for this to end, the way I wanted it to so that I wouldn't hate myself and everyone else, and the way I knew it would end. Most episodic television is built on a rather simple structure. You watch a few episodes and you generally know how they will all go. Don't believe me? Watch any American-made broadcast network television show that is episodic. Watch any British-made program. Watch any French-made program. You get the idea. Black Mirrors has the structure of setting up a simple morality play wrapped in the absurd/possible future/whatever, build this up for three acts and in the fourth act take the option that is most likely to piss Eric off, while at the same time making him feel the gloom of knowing that this it is valid social commentary.
The only bright spot is that this episode starred Daniel Kaluuya. But, since his character is kind of an asshole, mostly through insensitivity in the beginning, I had a hard time feeling for him through the middle.
Two of my friends are watching these. I should say were, since they are done. One is not really a friend, but more than an acquaintance. And I think I should really stop following his viewing advice. I won't mention all the grief he gives me over stuff I watch before he then hoists something onto my queue that I know I will have issues with, though not always bad issues. I feel like he's trying to shock me into thinking he's cool, like he's 17 or 20 instead of 63. I also have the urge to go off on his tastes right now, knowing that he'll never read this because as he told me one day, even a "retarded monkey" can write a blog that has at least 100 followers, so he never reads anything with less than that. But maybe he's right. My other friend, the one that I passed the series on to, she stopped half-way through this episode. I understand why. I feel like I should stop now, too. But I won't. Are these episodes depressing the fuck out of me? Yes, but I am embracing both of my emotions during National Poetry Month - depression and anxiety. These first two episodes have also elicited from me a pretty visceral feeling of anger, not so much at the shows, but at them being right in their conclusions and me, sitting here feeling that there is nothing I can do to change that. But even though I don't feel that I can really do anything, I have this anger energy that I either have to channel into something creative or just get back on the bike and peddle harder.

Episode 3: The Entire History of You
This episode is not like the first two, in that you never build up any empathy for the main character. In fact all the guys turn out to be kind of dicks or full on dicks. I have a hard time getting emotionally involved in stories where I don't really care about the characters. So, as the episode progresses and the drama gets more intense, i find myself not rooting for anyone. I mean, here we have this bloke who is figuring out that his wife cheated on him and that his child might not even be his and he handles it so poorly that he comes across as a dick, and I don't care about him. Now, maybe this was the intention - to give us a protagonist who turns out to be less than a nice guy, and thus show us that in relationships gone bad, there is no good guy or bad guy, just humans. They totally missed the mark, though, because I just don't care if it turns out shitty or brilliantly for this guy. I feel that the way the show was structured that we the audience are meant to feel empathy for Liam because his wife has put him through crap and lied to cover it up.
Maybe my apathy towards the episode is due in part to the residual effects of my feelings toward the previous episode. I don't think this is a show that anyone intended for your to sit down and watch back-to-back episodes, especially someone as easily manipulated as I feel tonight. On the other hand, might I be saying that this show is really effective social commentary because it does make me feel something? Sure. I don't want to deny that - this show sets you up to feel a certain way and rams that emotion down your throat. I get that. I just don't think I'm feeling the way they intended, nor to the degree which they intended.
What could they have done differently? Well, certainly they could have shown us the main character being a nice fellow, or at the very least not an asshole. They also could have shown that he was a bit more upset which leads to self-reflection, not to spousal (psychological) abuse. They also might have picked more of a societal lense to show this one, than the first person drama-antics.
I've got to say that never have iI so looked forward to watching a series and then been so disappointed. I know that Tor.com has said the second season is something to the effect of "even better than the first" and I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree with them and take a pass.

Black Mirror at IMDb