How to Build a Girl

Year 14, Day 71 - 3/12/22 - Movie #4,073

BEFORE: Lucy Punch carries over from "Take Me Home Tonight". Today's film linked to a LOT of other films in this year's romance chain, like "Their Finest" and "Carrington" and also a couple others with Chris O'Dowd that didn't make the cut - so it really wasn't a question of WHETHER I was going to fit this one in, it was just a question of WHERE to fit it in - and of course I spun this whole chain on its end a few times before I found the starting point I wanted, the ending point I wanted, and the "right" film to land on February 14, even if that didn't really turn out to be the best choice.  I make the best decisions I can, given the films that I have available to work with, and then I keep moving forward. 

March is also Women's History Month, and if I haven't done enough yet to showcase women as part of the romance chain, I'll try to do better in the coming days.  Silly rom-coms just aren't going to cut it, but at least there was something of a focus last month on women writers, like Jane Austen and Emily Bronte and, umm, Terry McMillan?  But also "Carrie Pilby" was based on a novel written by a woman, as was "The Diary of a Teenage Girl", and so was "Passing". Hey, so was "Their Finest". There are women authors all over the place this year.

While I'm at it, tomorrow's TCM line-up in their "31 Days of Oscar" programming also celebrates women, the Best Supporting Actress winners who won for these films: 

6:15 am "None But the Lonely Heart" (1944)

8:15 am "Anthony Adverse" (1936)

10:45 am "The V.I.P.s" (1963)

1:00 pm "Elmer Gantry" (1960)
3:45 pm "The Year of Living Dangerously" (1982)

6:00 pm "Bonnie and Clyde" (1967)

and these Oscar-winning films from the 1990s and 2000s:

8:00 pm "Sense and Sensibility" (1995) 

10:30 pm "Good Will Hunting" (1997)

12:45 am "Cold Mountain" (2003)

And hey, "Sense and Sensibility" won the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar for Emma Thompson, who's also in "How to Build a Girl" tonight, how's that for some synergy.  Umm, today's film with tomorrow's TCM schedule, but that's OK.  Believe it or not, I've seen 7 out of these 9 films, all except the first two. Now I've seen 59 out of 139, which gets me up over 42% seen. Doing well, but Monday they'll be back on the 1930's films again. 

THE PLOT: A teenager living with her working-class family on a council estate in Wolverhampton, England, grows up to become a popular but conflicted music journalist. 

AFTER: Well, at first glance this appears to be a take on the film "Almost Famous", with a teen becoming a music journalist and getting too close to their interview subject - they just gender-flipped it and set it in the modern era (umm, I think?) but otherwise it feels very much like a Cameron Crowe knock-off, only different.

I had a lot of trouble with this one, because of the thick British accents - I was watching the film on a DVD I made, so no subtitles - but those might have been a big help.  Yes, I sometimes need help understanding people who are speaking ENGLISH, only it's British English.  You'd think all my years spent watching "Monty Python" and "Benny Hill" would come in handy, but that's no help. What's weird, though, is that I could have sworn Beanie Feldstein was American (she is) so that means she's fronting here, putting on a fake accent.  This, I think, is now known as a "reverse Bel Powley" - Bel had an authentic British accent in "Carrie Pilby" but then spoke like an American teen in "The Diary of a Teenage Girl".  Why not just have the American actress play the American character and the British girl play the British character, would that make too much sense or something?  The only people getting rich here are the dialogue coaches...

Anyway, somehow-British Beanie plays Johanna Morrigan, who's probably a stand-in character for Caitlin Moran, who wrote the book this film is based on.  Yes, I believe I'm correct, Caitlin Moran grew up in Wolverhampton, her father was a rock drummer in the 1960's, and as a young girl she believed she would grow up to become a writer, so the parallels between the writer and her created character are all there. By the age of 16 she was working as a journalist for Melody Maker magazine, before writing for television and then crafting her autobiographical novel. 

Johanna Morrigan, the character, wins some kind of poetry contest, then applies for a job at a music magazine, with an essay about the infamous song "Tomorrow" from the musical "Annie". The magazine editors thought it was a joke, but they hire her anyway and send her out to review bands and records they don't want to listen to.  The joke's on them, because Johanna starts making enough money to get her family's TV back.  (They don't buy TVs in the U.K., they rent them, it's all very weird.). Johanna writes under a pseudonym, Dolly Wylde. Too subtle?

There's a little bit of romance here as Johanna is attracted to one of her interview subjects, a young singer named John Kite. But the editors don't like her review because she damned him with not-faint-enough praise, and part of being a music CRITIC is, you know, criticizing things.  So she turns to the dark side and starts trashing everything and everybody in print, egged on by her magazine editors, who can't get enough of her new "burn everything" style. She's even forced to shoot down her father's attempt at making a record (under the stage name "Mayonnaise") - I mean, literally shoot it down, her editors tell her to use it as target practice. 

All this is happening as she's transitioning from awkward teen to young adult, and becoming sexually active. Again, it's her editors encouraging her, but then when she eavesdrops on them, she finds out they're all making fun of her, and none of them are particularly attracted to her.  At least, I think that's what happened, again there are so many thick British accents here that it's impossible to be sure.  Johanna wins an industry award, but unfortunately it turns out to be for "Arsehole of the Year" (They spell "asshole" differently in the U.K., it's all very weird.)

So she quits school, quits the magazine and then tries to quit life, but her suicide attempt goes all pear-shaped and she recovers in hospital, then calls everyone she ever wrote about to apologize. Against all rational odds, she soon gets another magazine column about being a woman and trying to become a better person in the future.  Yeah, right. 

Watch for a number of famous and semi-famous people making cameos as a number of historical figures and literary types on Johanna's "vision board", which features Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, a couple of the Bronte sisters, Elizabeth Taylor, Sylvia Plath, Cleopatra, Donna Summer and Julie Andrews as Maria Von Trapp.  Johanna imagines that they talk to her and give her advice - this is a very British thing, apparently, but it's all very weird. 

Also starring Beanie Feldstein (last seen in "The Female Brain"), Alfie Allen (last seen in "Jojo Rabbit"), Paddy Considine (last seen in "In America"), Sarah Solemani (last seen in "Greed"), Laurie Kynaston, Joanna Scanlan (last seen in "Tulip Fever"), Patsy Ferran (ditto), Arinzé Kene (last seen in "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them"), Frank Dillane (last seen in "In the Heart of the Sea"), Tadhg Murphy, Ziggy Heath, Emma Thompson (last seen in "An Education"), Chris O'Dowd (last seen in "The Cloverfield Paradox"), Donal Finn, Edward Bluemel, Stellan Powell, Ralph Prosser, Bobby Schofield (last seen in "Locked Down"), Bob Mortimer, with cameos from Michael Sheen (last seen in "Dolittle"), Sharon Horgan (last seen in "The Borrowers" (2011)), Gemma Arterton (last seen in "Their Finest"), Lily Allen (last seen in "Elizabeth"), Alexei Sayle, Andi Oliver, Mel Giedroyc, Sue Perkins, Jameela Jamil,  

RATING: 5 out of 10 off-the-record comments

Take Me Home Tonight

Year 14, Day 70 - 3/11/22 - Movie #4,072

BEFORE: This time it's Dan Fogler who carries over from "Good Luck Chuck" - thank God it wasn't Dane Cook, that's what I'm thinking.  I've got just about a week left in my examination of love and relationships for this year - the topic never really goes away, it's always kind of there in the background in most movies, but the FOCUS on the topic will be going away.  I feel like I'm kind of phasing it out gradually as I slip back into the comedy genre. 

Here's the line-up for TCM's "31 Days of Oscar" programming for tomorrow, Saturday, March 12. I'll be working at the NY Children's Film Festival, so I'll be out all day, and I won't be able to catch any of these:

6:00 am "Come and Get It" (1936)

8:00 am "Johnny Eager" (1942)

10:00 am "The Subject Was Roses" (1968)

12:00 pm "Cool Hand Luke" (1967)

2:15 pm "Topkapi" (1964)

4:30 pm "Spartacus" (1960)

8:00 pm "Chariots of Fire" (1981)

10:15 pm "Arthur" (1981)

12:15 am "Victor/Victoria" (1982)

2:45 am "Fame" (1980)

OK, now I'm really puzzled, these films aren't all from the same decade, and I can't think of anything on anyone they have in common.  It looks like maybe they're separating films by decades on weekdays, and then Saturdays and Sundays are a mixed bag?  Or they put the bigger hits, the more popular films on weekends because more people are watching?  I just don't get it.  A prison movie, a gladiator movie, an Olympics movie, a transgender drag comedy and a high-school for performing arts movie?  Or are these all movies with gay subtext or something, what am I missing here?  Either way, I've seen SIX out of these 10, that's a lot for me - "Cool Hand Luke", "Spartacus" and then everything after that. The new running total, 52 seen out of 130, brings me up to 40% even. 

OH, I get it now - I checked the TCM web-site and downloaded the PDF schedule for the month, that explains things a little better than the daily schedule on their site.  Yes, the weekday films are arranged by decade, the first six films on Saturday, March 12 all won Oscars for Best Supporting Actor, then the last four films won Oscars during the 1980's - various Oscars, though, not all in the same category.  It all makes sense now, except that it's still a very wacky way to organize everything. 

THE PLOT: Four years after graduation, an awkward genius uses his sister's boyfriend's Labor Day party as the perfect opportunity to make his move on his high school crush.

AFTER: OK, I avoided this film for a good long time, and I stand by that decision.  It's only being included here because I'm in a transitional phase, where rom-coms meet comedy, and in about 7 or 8 days time my film choice will be all com and no rom, and the transition will be complete.  Then will come Ryan Reynolds films, then Nicolas Cage movies, and this month will be over before you know it. But damn, first I have to talk about "Take Me Home Tonight".  I think maybe I avoided it because I don't care for that Eddie Money song, not a big Ronnie Spector fan either, II did see Eddie Money in concert one time, he opened for Styx and REO Speedwagon on a double-bill.  Seems about right - Eddie Money's gone now, and so is Ronnie Spector.  But guess what, that song is NOT heard in this movie!  That seems like an odd choice, to use the title but not the song - the rights must have been too expensive. I guess maybe they used that title, then they tried to buy the song, but then the songwriter(s) probably assumed they had the filmmakers over the proverbial barrel, and jacked up the price.  What are you going to do, make a movie based on that song and then NOT use the song?  Apparently so - point to the filmmakers. 

There's plenty of 80's music in the film, though, makes sense since it's set back then, umm, I think. Cocaine?  Skinny ties?  Members Only jackets?  Video-rental stores?  Yep, that's the 1980's.  It was confusing for a bit because the credits feature a bunch of 80's stuff in a yearbook-style montage, but then everybody is talking about their college experiences, and high-school was, like, SO four years ago, so is it the 80's or not the 80's?  I guess it's still the 80's, because there's a 10-year swing there, so everybody could have graduated Shermer High in 1984 and this could be set in 1988, but, like, whatevs. Totally. There's "Video Killed the Radio Star", "Hungry Like the Wolf", "Der Kommisar", "Safety Dance", "Bette Davis Eyes", "Come On Eileen", Greg Kihn's "Jeopardy" and Wang Chung's "Everybody Have Fun Tonight".  Yep, that's the Golden Age of MTV, the big hits of 1983-1984, I think.  God, that does kind of take me back.  Then there are re-worked or re-mixed versions of "Don't You Want Me" and "Let My Love Open the Door", and that's the kind of stuff I can get behind.  

I only wish the movie was half as entertaining as the music - the lead character works in a Suncoast video-store, they tried to survive into the 1990's by SELLING VHS tapes instead of just renting them like Blockbuster, but I think the writing was probably very prominently on the wall at that point - reportedly there were only 5 stores left in the chain by 2021.  Anyway, Matt Franklin is an MIT graduate who can't seem to get his career on track - geez, it's not like the late 1980's were boom years for software engineers or anything - but when he sees his old crush walk into the store, he ditches the orange vest and claims to be working in finance.  Bad move, she works in that career, too, and didn't think Goldman Sachs had an L.A. office (it doesn't, apparently).  

Oddly, both this film and "Good Luck Chuck" have more in common than just Dan Fogler, they both use a middle school game of "Seven Minutes in Heaven" as a traumatic memory, and a starting point for the romance plot. "Good Luck Chuck" showed kids playing the game in flashback, but "Take Me Home Tonight" merely talks about the game, Tori apparently was very kind to Matt and told everyone he was a good kisser, even though they didn't kiss.  Matt never was able to turn that into a date with her, and he's determined not to let the chance slip by a second time.  So, he lies - and this leads to a wild night of getting to know Tori again, but then there's also two parties, a lot of drinking, a stolen car, some found cocaine, and lots of other college age pranks and tomfoolery.  

Fogler's character gets stoned and hits on a lot of women, but basically plays the same dorky, rude, offensive and childish character he played in "Good Luck Chuck" - like it's great if you're an actor and you hit some kind of sweet spot, if casting directors stereotype you that does mean you can get steady work, but still, what are you DOING, man?  Playing the horrid horndog second banana in teen comedies is a bit like getting typecast as a serial killer on crime dramas, I mean you'll get WORK, but is it really acting work that you can be proud of?  Then his character drinks more and makes out with a woman whose partner likes to watch, only that's not his thing.  Stick to the Chris Farley career track and just dance your fat-guy dance - only, you know, at some point, get off that Chris Farley career track. 

The much more interesting storyline here, though, is the "C" story - this is the one about Matt's twin sister, who at the start of the movie is close to moving in with her steady boyfriend, or maybe even getting engaged.  BUT she's also applied to grad school in the U.K. and she hasn't had the nerve to tell him about this, or even to open up the letter from the university.  Throughout the film, though, you can tell her character is growing more tired and bored with this party hound-slash-douchebag, and after he tells the SAME story about the pool and his grandma again and again and again, you can tell she's reaching some kind of breaking point.  What's interesting here is that the lovers are played by Anna Faris and Chris Pratt, who I think were married when this film was released (the film was shelved for four years, so perhaps they met during filming?), and then SHE had to fake-break up with HIM, and if you pause it at just the right time, you can see when his character's heart just shatters. Because acting. This was ironic because they were a couple when their characters split, then a few years later HE broke up with HER in real life, so then I guess this scene became doubly ironic?  

But no, it didn't happen like I thought it might - putting this film after "Good Luck Chuck" did not help this film resemble the "Citizen Kane" of teen comedies, by comparison.  That would be a bit too much of a stretch. There are just way too many random elements here, plot points that go nowhere, and even characters that are just given nothing of value to do.  Why?

Also starring Topher Grace (last seen in "Too Big to Fail"), Anna Faris (last seen in "Waiting..."), Teresa Palmer (last seen in "Hacksaw Ridge"), Chris Pratt (last seen in "The Kid" (2019)), Michael Biehn (last seen in "Planet Terror"), Lucy Punch (last seen in "A Good Old Fashioned Orgy"), Jeanie Hackett, Michelle Trachtenberg (last seen in "Cop Out"), Demetri Martin (last seen in "Paper Heart"), Michael Ian Black (last seen in "They Came Together"), Bob Odenkirk (last seen in "Let's Go to Prison"), Angie Everhart, Edwin Hodge (last seen in "The Alamo" (2004)), Jay Jablonski (last seen in "The Big Short"), Candace Kroslak, Nathalie Kelley, Wade Allain-Marcus, Robert Hoffman (last seen in "The Onion Movie"), Ryan Bittle, Bruce Nelson, Seth Gabel, James Sharpe, Kimberly Dearing, Clement von Franckenstein (last seen in "Hail, Caesar!"), Jennifer Sommerfeld, Kyle Gonnell (last seen in "Middle Men"), Dustin Leighton, Richard Meek, Ginnifer Goodwin (last seen in "A Single Man"), Annie Karstens, with archive footage of Ronald Reagan (last seen in "Berlin, I Love You") in the opening credits.

RATING: 4 out of 10 rounds of Truth or Dare

Good Luck Chuck

Year 14, Day 69 - 3/10/22 - Movie #4,071

BEFORE: Jessica Alba carries over from "Some Kind of "Beautiful", and you guessed it, that's three in a row for her.  Including this film, as terrible as it sounds, was key to completing this year's romance chain, however this also strands a film called "My Best Friend's Girl", which I couldn't find a place for, in order to make the connections that I'm making.  Well, there's always next year, and I think I see a way I can work that in next time around, if there IS a next time around.  Who knows, maybe it's all for the best, maybe two films with Dane Cook in it would have been two too many - anyway, this chain is all designed to help clear the DVR, and tomorrow's film is taking up space there, so some linking sacrifices always need to be made. I can't link everything to everything else, it's enough that there's always one link to the next day, that's all I need. 

Here's the TCM "31 Days of Oscar" line-up for tomorrow, March 11:

8:45 am "Nicholas and Alexandra" (1971)

12:00 pm "Summer of '42" (1971)

2:00 pm "You Light Up My Life" (1977)

4:00 pm "The Way We Were" (1973)

6:00 pm "Julia" (1977)

8:00 pm "Kramer vs. Kramer" (1979)

10:00 pm "The Paper Chase" (1973)

12:00 am "Klute" (1971)

2:15 am "Ryan's Daughter" (1970)

Finally, some relationship films, even if one of them is about divorce, one's about a romance with a prostitute, and one's about a rocky relationship that's over - I feel you, TCM, and maybe we're sort of on the same page for once. If the Oscars were still in February then maybe this is the 1970's line-up they would have run on Valentine's Day?  Anyway, I've seen 4 of these 9, which is almost half - "The Way We Were", "Julia", "Kramer vs. Kramer" and "Klute".  That takes me to 46 seen out of 120, raising my percentage slightly to 38%.

THE PLOT: In order to keep the woman of his dreams from falling for another guy, Charlie Logan has to break the curse that has made him wildly popular with single women: Sleep with Charlie once and the next man you meet will be your true love. 

AFTER: All movies start out as stories, and all stories start out from ideas, and most ideas come from fantasies or dreams, I get that.  But every once in a while, you run into a movie that is SO easily traced back to a sex fantasy that it's impossible to imagine it coming from anywhere else.  The one this reminds me of is "The Bachelor", that film with Chris O'Donnell where his character just HAD to get married in a certain time-frame in order for him to inherit a large amount of money, and it featured all these women showing up in wedding dresses, ready to get hitched, and it's really just a turned-sideways straight male fantasy where every woman on the street is throwing themselves at that man, it's only one step away from a film like "Cashback", where a teen boy gains the power to stop time and undress any woman he wants.  Right?  

You might have noticed a large number of crime procedural shows that film in Hawaii - like "Hawaii Five-O" and the "Magnum: PI" reboot, and now there's "NCIS: Hawaii" also. That's because if you get the chance to film a show in Hawaii, you take it, because Hawaii. It's beautiful there, the food's interesting and you don't ever have to shovel snow, so is that even working if you're making a TV show, or movie there?  And if you're a headlining actor, and you're offered a chance to make a film where you pretend to have sex with a lot of women, you take that job, especially if you're Dane Cook. No, I don't know the man personally, he might be a great guy with a sparkling personality and no legal problems, but come on - most likely cancel culture or the #MeToo movement hasn't gotten around to him yet because he's JUST under the radar, he doesn't have the high profile of a Kevin Spacey or a Johnny Depp or a James Franco.  

What year did this movie get released? 2007? Yeah, that seems about right - that was probaby the last year you could get away with making a movie that was just interested in getting as many women naked on-screen as it possibly could, by working so many unlikely situations into the plot. The female lead character is "clumsy" to the nth degree, which is a long way of walking around to "Hey, what if she got her skirt caught in the car door, and it ripped off, and we saw her in her underwear?" Who wrote this scenario, a 13-year old boy?  

The premise here is that a man's ex-girlfriend gets married soon after they stop dating, and then he gets labeled as the "rebound" boyfriend, and then another ex gets married, and an urban legend starts to follow him, which states that everyone he's ever dated seems to find true love right after they break up with Charlie. Each woman who believes it tells her friends, and some of them date him, then marry the next guy, and then THEY tell two friends, and before you know it, Charlie's phone is ringing off the hook. Male fantasy, right? Like, if this happens to you, you'd be a FOOL not to take advantage of it, right?  You'd be a terrible person, just like the lowest of the low, but at least you'd be getting sex on a regular basis. What's the harm in that?  

Well, actually plenty, because it means that the women have NO CHOICE, when you parse out this scenario, they HAVE to have sex with this man if there's a chance that their life is going to get better. They try very hard to cover this up here, they show a number of women saying, "No, really, this is what I want, even if there's a 0.0001 percent chance that I'll find true love later on down the road, I will sleep with this person who is rude, crude, and who I'm not attracted to at all, just because it could benefit me later." That's very disgusting, no matter how you slice it - but all the women are portrayed as willing participants, which just reminds me of those men who videotape women reading a disclaimer or signing some kind of legal document before they have sex. 

What might even be worse is the portrayal of all women as desperate - REALLY desperate, to the point where they will, every single one of them, go against their better judgement, all form of reason and their very natures in order to MAYBE find their soulmate. It's as if this is the single driving force in every woman's life - what about career, what about hobbies, what about finding personal fulfillment within and learning to be happy with the hand that life has dealt them, what about all that? Nope, it's true love, marriage, kids, the whole package, and somehow they're all incomplete failures without that - that really sells the whole gender quite short, doesn't it?  Even the traffic cop, the lesbian traffic cop, is willing to have sex with our hero here - that shouldn't even be an option for her, she doesn't even like men as sex partners, but she's going to take one for the team, assuming that this leads to her finding true happiness with a woman in the future.  That's not how ANY of this crazy relationship stuff works.

Pitching this scenario as "helping" women is insane, it's like if you found out that some slacker teen that you know took a job as a lifeguard, but knowing everything you know about him, it doesn't take long for you to figure out that he's only doing it so that he can watch girls in bikinis all summer long, he doesn't have any interest in saving lives EXCEPT for the fact that he might get to rescue a girl, hold her in his arms and maybe give her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, which is kind of close to kissing her, only it's not. Plus from his high vantage point on his guard station he can probably look right into the changing rooms - and then suddenly it all makes sense. 

You can practically see the gears turning in some screenwriter's head - "Hey, umm, we'll have to make the lead character's best friend twice as disgusting as him, so it will make him seem better by comparison, and then maybe the audience won't notice how disgusting he is for sleeping with all these women by dangling the promise of true, pure love with the next guy, just to get his rocks off."  So the best friend here, the foil character, is a plastic surgeon who only does boob jobs, he jerks off to mammograms and has sex with large citrus fruits (which, umm, according to the movie "Girls Trip", and all rational thought, is a big no-no, because of a little thing called citric acid).  If you just think about this plot for ONE SECOND it becomes irrational nonsense, as well as morally disgusting, so why didn't anybody see it that way during the production process? 

I know, I know, it's a comedy, but that's a poor excuse.  Comedies can still make sense, and comedies should find a way to be funny without doing that at the expense of an entire gender, or fat people, or clumsy people, or people who have maybe too many penguin decorations in their bedrooms. Because those people are all people with feelings and they deserve respect - and they're just NOT going to find that within "Good Luck Chuck".  Again, this was made during a different time, kind of like the movie "Kingpin", which wasn't kind to the Amish, old people, people with disabilities, or that other Farrelly brothers comedy that made fun of fat people and people with disabilities (do I mean "Shallow Hal" or "There's Something About Mary"?  Take your pick...) 

It might have been easier, and for sure classier, to just examine "luck" as a concept - like, there's not ONE thing here about how much "bad luck" Cam has, if you extrapolate her clumsiness a bit and call it "bad luck".  From there, it's easy - her bad luck cancels out his good luck charm thing, or something along those lines.  But honestly, there's a much easier explanation for the situation that Chuck finds himself in, and I don't know why anybody else didn't point this out.  Maybe it's all because he's such a super horndog a-hole that he makes every other man on the planet better by comparison.  So, naturally, all of his ex-girlfriends would find the NEXT guy to be so much better than him in every way, and therefore they would perceive that next guy as their soulmate, and they would marry him, thinking that they dodged a big bullet.  Married life with the next guy would leave them thinking, "Geez, it could have been a lot worse, I could have married that loser Charlie!"  See, it's simple, and it doesn't have to be so complicated, after all. 

It's kind of like how the next film I watch, whatever it is, is likely to look like the "Citizen Kane" of rom-coms after watching this one. 

Also starring Dane Cook (last seen in "Employee of the Month"), Dan Fogler (last seen in "Jay and Silent Bob Reboot"), Chelan Simmons (last seen in "Tucker and Dale vs Evil"), Lonny Ross (last seen in "A Futile and Stupid Gesture"), Ellia English (last seen in "Semi-Pro"), Annie Wood, Jodie Stewart, Michelle Harrison (last seen in "Love Happens"), Jodelle Micah Ferland (last seen in "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2"), Lindsay Maxwell, Crystal Lowe (last seen in "Wonder"), Steve Bacic (last seen in "Killing Gunther"), Connor Price, Troy Gentile (last seen in "Tenacious D in the Pick of Destiny"), Sasha Pieterse, Natalie Morris, Carrie Anne Fleming (last seen in "Rememory"), Kari-Ann Wood, Victoria Bidewell, Camille Atebe (last seen in "Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters"), Simone Bailly, Ian Farthing, Aaron Dudley, Georgia Craig (last seen in "Catch and Release"), Robert Kelly, Uldouz Wallace, Michael Teigen, Steve Glenn, Yasmine Vox.

RATING: 3 out of 10 rounds of spin-the-bottle

Some Kind of Beautiful

Year 14, Day 68 - 3/9/22 - Movie #4,070

BEFORE: Jessica Alba carries over from "A.C.O.D.", and I think I'm back to typical Hollywood rom-coms, again.  Just a few more days of unbearable slapstick and unlikely coincidences, and I can move on to something else - you can probably tell I'm desperate for that.  Perhaps I should have just linked from that other Jessica, Jessica Biel, from "Elizabethtown" to "Cellular" and moved on from there.  But then I would have had a larger gap to fill between Nicolas Cage films and Easter, also I would have been pushing off about 11 romance films until next year - and really, I'm all for crossing off a few more of these, because it means I'll never have to pass this way again, not with these clunker films anyway.  

Eyes on the prize, remember that we've got the Oscars coming up, and my Easter film.  Here's the TCM "31 Days of Oscar" line-up of films for tomorrow, March 10:

6:15 am "The Dot and the Line" (1965)

6:30 am "7 Faces of Dr. Lao" (1964)

8:30 am "The Wonderful World of The Brothers Grimm" (1962)

11:00 am "The Great Race" (1965)

2:00 pm "Grand Prix" (1966)

5:15 pm "The Dirty Dozen" (1967)

8:00 pm "The Longest Day" (1962)

11:15 pm "A Man for All Seasons" (1966)

1:30 am "Cleopatra" (1963)

5:45 am "America America" (1963)

I can only claim 4 out of these 10: "The Great Race", "The Dirty Dozen", "A Man for All Seasons" and "Cleopatra" - we all agree, those are the best four, right?  Now I'm at 42 out of 111, which is still 37%, where I seem to be stuck.

THE PLOT: A drama about a Cambridge poetry professor who begins to re-evaluate his life of Byronic excess.

AFTER: Eh, this one had a little bit of promise, because it's about a free-wheeling, non-committal English lit professor who (eventually) learns to settle down and have a family.  But it's a LONG twisty way to get there, and it doesn't quite happen how he expected it to - that's just life, though, right?  Nobody has a road map, and it's almost like everybody's making it up as they go along.  So maybe this rings true, a bit, except for the parts that are totally out of bounds and completely unbelievable.  

Teachers sleeping with their students, which I thought was a big society no-no, keeps coming back in this year's romance chain, for some reason.  This was last seen as a plot point in "Carrie Pilby" (just in flashbacks, though)  I could have SWORN this appeared in another film this year, too, and I don't mean that woman in "Happy-Go-Lucky" flirting with her driving instructor. Was it "Iris" I was thinking of? Iris Murdoch slept with so many people, there must have been a few students mixed in there somewhere. Or was it "A Rainy Day in New York"?  Anyway, it's been quite a year for large age differences between partners, too - like in "The French Dispatch", "An Education", "How Stella Got Her Groove Back", "The Diary of a Teenage Girl", "Effie Gray", "Carrington", and "Ammonite". I simply MUST remember to point this out again in the year-end round-up.   

(Also, two films this week featuring people scattering the ashes of a relative, "Elizabethtown" and this one. Pure coincidence.)

Anyway, Richard's an older professor who likes the younger students - hey, who doesn't?  And maybe it's not as illegal or unethical in the U.K. as it is here, because here in the U.S. that sort of thing always seems to end with somebody shooting somebody else. He gets into a six-month relationship with Kate, an American student who suddenly drops the bomb one day that she's got a great job waiting for her back in the States - oh, yeah, and she's pregnant, too.  Note that she tells him this shortly after he accidentally hits on her sister, Olivia.  To be fair, he met her in a bar and didn't know she was Kate's sister.  Still, he did hit on a stranger, then, which is almost just as bad.  And for some reason we're not supposed to hold Richard accountable for this, because he learned about love and romance from his father, who also taught English poetry, and apparently Lord Byron and those other guys couldn't keep it in their pants either, and encouraged everybody to just go out and spread the love around. 

So, Richard begrudgingly heads for California, which would be a paradise if he didn't have to work at some crappy state college where the students don't even pay attention to him.  He's trying to apply for a job at the University of Los Angeles (which I don't even think is a real school) but to do that, he needs his green card, and to get the green card, he's got to stay married to Kate, which is fine right up until the point where Kate says she's met somebody else.  Whoops, time for a new plan.  In these cases one might naturally fall back on the advice of the great love songs of the 1960's, like when Crosby, Stills & Nash suggested "If you can't be with the one you love, then wait and see if maybe her sister's available."  I think that's how the song went, anyway. 

Actually, what he does first is what anybody might do if their marriage falls apart - move out.  Only he gets to move into the two-story fully decorated pool house in back of the main house, so he can still be near his son, and also shag any female students who are looking to get better grades. Gee, why don't most people think of doing this when their marriage falls apart?  It sounds pretty sweet. Oh, right.  Kate's got a new live-in boyfriend, and it's not that long before Olivia catches HER husband in bed with someone else, perfectly setting up a reason for her to move to L.A. and look for a way to get over her divorce.  Geez, it sure seems like a natural fit.

Except of course, that everything goes wrong instead.  There's still that pesky green card to get, Richard's got to qualify for that better teaching position, so it would be a terrible time to accidentally mix post-dental surgery painkillers with alcohol and then operate a motor vehicle.  Completing a 10-week series of A.A. meetings, while preparing for his fake green card interview, all while trying to complete the switchover from dating one sister to another AND his father's in town for a visit to boot!  What a wacky set of circumstances that some screenwriter threw into the mix!  

It's quite a lot to handle, naturally, and it pushes Richard to the breaking point - but, also, it made me not like him, and that was a problem.  Sure, I get that he loves his son and wants to stay close to him, but defrauding immigration officials is a serious offense, so is driving while under the influence.  Maybe, DON'T have him do those things if you want him to remain a sympathetic character?  Also, he hides his relationship with Olivia from his (technically) still-current wife Kate, and that's bad for several reasons.  Sleeping with his sister-in-law is bad, but not disclosing it is even worse.  And then the way he chooses to "FIX" everything when it all falls apart is also, of course, quite illegal. No spoilers here for the solution, but the U.S. has immigration laws in place for good reasons, at the end of the day. 

Narratively speaking, this film is a big mess, it's one complicated situation after another, and it's bound to get worse before it gets better.  Even if Richard can get back to the U.S. and what, marry his sister-in-law, re-start the Green Card application (or just cross out "Kate" on the application and pencil in "Olivia"?) what then?  He'll be married to his son's aunt, so he'll be an uncle and father to the same boy, and Olivia will be both his aunt and his step-mom?  That's bound to be quite confusing.

Also starring Pierce Brosnan (last seen in "Seraphim Falls"), Salma Hayek (last seen in "House of Gucci"), Malcolm McDowell (last seen in "Bad Reputation"), Ben McKenzie (last seen in "The Report"), Duncan Joiner, Merrin Dungey (last seen in "CHIPS"), Fred Melamed (last seen in "A Serious Man"), Ivan Sergei, Marlee Matlin (last seen in "What the #$*! Do We (K)now!?",  Lombardo Boyar (last seen in "Bad Santa 2"), Lee Garlington (last seen in "Some Kind of Wonderful" - NICE!), Paul Rae (last seen in "The Ballad of Buster Scruggs"), Eric Passoja, Robert Mailhouse, Lindsey Sporrer, Seth Morris, Taylor John Smith (last seen in "Almost Friends"), Alex Sgambati (last seen in "Love, Simon"), David Saucedo, Elizabeth Anweis, Marianne Muellerleile (last seen in "Smokin' Aces"), Bonnie Hellman (last seen in "For Keeps?"), Juliet Mills, Vaughn Wilkinson (last seen in "Straight Outta Compton"), Sandy Martin (last seen in "Dumbo" (2019)), Brandi Burkhardt, Paul Fox (last seen in "Ford v Ferrari"), Oliver Bell, Makena Taylor.  

RATING: 4 out of 10 curse words, arranged alphabetically

A.C.O.D.

Year 14, Day 67 - 3/8/22 - Movie #4,069

BEFORE: Richard Jenkins carries over from "Shall We Dance?" and of course, there's a temptation here to put THREE Richard Jenkins movies in a row - but then the question becomes, is that the right call?  The other romance film that I have with him in it is "Dear John", which is on Netflix, but that links to another film that didn't make the cut, and if I can hold off on "Dear John" I think that increases the chances of working in that other film next year - and I'm assuming I'll be doing this again next year, too, it's a safe bet.  So maybe I cut R.J. down to two films, and some time in the late fall I'll examine whatever romance films are on my radar and assess my chances of putting something together, even a smaller February chain will suffice (45 films on relationship issues might be just a bit too much).  But working in blocks of two tends to increase my chances of stitching something together, I think. 

And it's my day off, I've got nothing to do on a Tuesday but have lunch, maybe get a load of laundry in, run the dishwasher and watch the rare DAYTIME movie, which gets me back on track and ahead of the count again.  My wife's back at her office today, which she does about once a week, and this gives me time to think of odd jobs around the house, like maybe calling somebody to get the windows fixed or thinking about how long it's been since I've had any kind of medical check-up.  These things are sort of moderately important, I suppose. What I really should NOT do is start working out a movie path from Easter to Mother's Day, at least, not until the other things are all done. 

Here's the TCM line-up for tomorrow's "31 Days of Oscar" programming - just three weeks until this year's presentation, after all.  For March 9:

6:15 am "Gate of Hell" (1954)

8:00 am "Nights of Cabiria" (1957)

10:00 am "Black Orpheus" (1959)

12:00 pm "The Defiant Ones" (1958)

1:45 pm "Mister Roberts" (1955)

4:00 pm "Ben-Hur" (1959)

8:00 pm "Love is a Many-Splendored Thing" (1955)

10:00 pm "Sayonara" (1957)

12:45 am "From Here to Eternity" (1953)

3:00 am "Titanic" (1953)

5:00 am "The Sea Around Us" (1952)

Another day spent in the 1950's, which means I've only seen four: "The Defiant Ones", "Mister Roberts", "Ben-Hur" and "From Here to Eternity".  I won't watch "Sayonara" because it's racist, with Ricardo Montalban playing a Japanese man - and I won't watch "Titanic" because it's not the James Cameron one. But another 4 out of 11 keeps me in the game, 38 out of 101 keeps me at 37%.

THE PLOT: A grown man caught in the crossfire of his parents' 15-year divorce discovers he was unknowingly part of a study on the effects of divorce on children and is enlisted in a follow-up years later, which wreaks new havoc on his family. 

AFTER: When was the last time you saw a comedy that was actually ABOUT something?  You know, like one that had a point to make, a point of view to express? That seems like a pretty rare bird, if you know what I mean. What was that one with Melissa McCarthy and Jason Bateman, "Identity Thief"?  Like, imagine that movie but if it genuinely told you how to protect yourself from identity theft. Or if "The Hangover" had some real practical advice about what to do if you drank too much in Las Vegas and couldn't find your missing friend. See what I mean? Most comedies just having people trying to solve absurd problems, and/or they have a lot of slapstick, where people fall down a lot, break stuff or get covered in mud or something.  I don't know, maybe "Drillbit Taylor" had some unique ways of dealing with high-school bullies, that's the only thing along these lines that comes to mind. 

"A.C.O.D." (not to be confused with "CODA", which is a current Oscar-nominated film about the Children of Deaf Adults, same letters but a different acronym) now comes along and says, "Hey, there's a whole generation of adults now who watched their parents split up when they were kids, and what are those people like as adults, what are their views on relationships?"  It stands to reason that they might have a different outlook on life than people raised by happy parents in stable relationships, but honestly, those people are probably in the minority these days, right?  Ever since the 1960's era of "free love" came along, we've had blended familys, single-parent families, twice- or thrice-divorced parents, then we had the "Me Generation" in the 1980's, gay marriages came along in the 2000's, not to mention the slackers of Generation X and then the millennials.  The days of people getting married and staying married seem long gone, for a whole host of reasons.  

You might imagine that a child of divorce might be down on relationships in general - or like Carter here, those people might find it difficult to commit to marriage, because the whole concept just reminds them of their parents fighting, being used as a bargaining chip, having to decide which parent to live with, and so on.  Then there are stepmoms and stepdads, half-brothers and half-sisters, and worst of all, having to constantly negotiate peace within the family, and also being protective of his younger brother, who has been shielded all along from the dark side of relationships.  So when younger brother Trey wants to get married, it's clear he doesn't have the same perspective on marriage as Carter does, he only sees the upside and Carter thinks he's got his head in the clouds.  Carter, meanwhile, has been with his girlfriend for four years and hasn't proposed or even suggested they move in together. So far his girlfriend's OK with this, and they even joke about it, but this may not always be the case. 

Carter thinks his brother should elope, because just getting their parents together in the same room for a ceremony or reception seems harder than brokering peace between North and South Korea - the conflict has gone on for so long that you can't get both sides to agree on a meeting time, place, or even what size the negotiations table should be. But Carter tries, he meets with both Mom and Dad and tricks them both into agreeing to behave during the wedding, but it's a fragile peace at best.  

He then tracks down his old therapist, only to find out she's not a therapist at all, she was just someone writing a book about the children of divorce, and he was one of her test subjects. The book was successful, though the author changed all the subject's names, he still reads the book to remember what he went through, and he even meets a couple of the book's other cases, now also grown adults, similarly wary of relationships or divorced adults themselves.  I have to say, this is a really weird place to look for comedic inspiration, but I guess you can't find any diamonds or precious metals unless you start digging somewhere.  

Getting his parents back together has unexpected consequences, though - they're both with other partners now, and haven't met face-to-face in over a decade, but after he invites them both to dinner, they share a couple bottles of wine, they get talking, and before long they're involved again - with each other. Two former spouses, now cheating on their partners with each other - I don't think I've seen that before in a movie, either.  But you can kind of understand it happening, there must have still been some attraction there, deep below the surface fighting, or maybe it's just the memories of the past coming back, like going back to your old high school and then thinking you can still play football or remember how to play that trumpet solo in band practice. 

Everything kind of falls apart from there - the parents' tryst ruin the meeting with Trey's future in-laws, the whole wedding is in jeopardy, the relationships the parents were in with others kind of fall apart, which is a big problem for Carter's restaurant because his dad's girlfriend is also his landlord, and she was giving him a break on the rent.  Carter's own relationship is also in trouble, because he was keeping secret the fact that as a kid he was profiled in that book, and so on.  Even when he proposes to his girlfriend, she's suspicious about whether he's doing it for the right reasons - is he just trying to "fix" everything, as efficiently as possible?  He also comes dangerously close to having sex with another of the A.C.O.D.'s from the book.  

I have to question whether the book's sequel would be as revolutionary as its author claims - I'm guessing that if I sign on to Amazon now and look for books about the effect of divorce on children, after they become adults themselves, probably there are a few dozen books at least written on this subject.  But again, I've never seen this explored in a movie, let alone something that has the stones to try to be a romantic comedy at the same time.  

And yet somehow this is all quite believable, and relevant and funny, all at once.  I've probably seen about a half-dozen comedies about big blended families getting together for a wedding, and having that event be a disaster. "The Wilde Wedding" was one, "The Big Wedding" was another, but "A.C.O.D." is nothing like those, it kind of lives in its own little pocket dimension because it really wants to take the time to show us that every once in a while, your life and everything you've become accustomed to could just go away, and it could be like what happens if you pull out one thread of a sweater, the whole thing's going to unravel.  You might think you've got some control over your family members, they may come to you for advice, or see you as the voice of reason, but in the end, they're all going to think for themselves and do what they want to do, and you're just going to have to learn to live with whatever. 

And there may be times in your own life where you need to end things, I know I felt that way when I got divorced. At the time I could only think about an animal caught in a trap, that it was going to at least FEEL like I was chewing off my own arm just to get away and have a chance of surviving. And it was that painful, but over time it felt more like an arsonist burning down a building for whatever insurance money he could get, and then running away before the fire department could finish their investigation.  After any traumatic event, even those that are self-imposed, the best you can do is move on, move forward, move away and then try to rebuild your life again from scratch. Maybe if you're lucky you only have to do that a couple of times in your whole lifespan, but it does seem like there are people who do that again and again - what impact is that likely to have on them, or their children?  You see, it's a question worth asking, I think. 

You might see some connections to other films here, like the fact that Richard Jenkins also played Adam Scott's characters father in "Step Brothers" - or that Adam Scott and Amy Poehler were on "Parks & Recreation" together, playing a couple.  Here Amy Poehler plays his step-mom, and they make a reference to how "in another world, we might have been friends".  But that's all beside the point, what really hits home are the interviews during the credits with (I assume) crew members, many of whom are A.C.O.D.'s themselves.  Sure, everybody's story is different, each one is unique but then of course when you hear enough stories then there are patterns of human behavior that can be identified. 

Nobody seems to know about this film, though, for some reason - sorry, was there not enough slapstick for audiences to figure out this was a comedy?  Most Hollywood comedies are like cheap fast food, this one seems like a satisfying meal in a fancy restaurant, by comparison.  Yes, it tastes good but you'll also get some nutrition and maybe even learn something about another country's cuisine at the same time. This movie only grossed about $200,000 at the box office, it's only streaming on a few services, and even when I searched for it on the IMDB, even that web-site thought I was looking for "CODA".  What a damn shame. 

Also starring Adam Scott (last seen in "Between Two Ferns: The Movie"), Catherine O'Hara (last seen in "Everything Is Copy"), Jane Lynch (ditto), Mary Elizabeth Winstead (last seen in "Birds of Prey"), Clark Duke (last seen in "A Merry Friggin' Christmas"), Amy Poehler (last seen in "Tenacious D in the Pick of Destiny"), Ken Howard (last seen in "In Her Shoes"), Valerie Tian (last seen in "Drillbit Taylor"), Jessica Alba (last seen in "The Killer Inside Me"), Adam Pally (last seen in "The Little Hours"), Sarah Burns (last seen in "Going the Distance"), Jamie Renell, Valerie Payton (last seen in "The Spectacular Now"), Vickie Eng (last seen in "Venom"), Vince Canlas, Mark Oliver, Brian Kurlander, Sarah Vowell (last heard in "Incredibles 2"), Steve Coulter (last seen in "Extraction"), Claire Bronson (last seen in "Harriet"), Michael H. Cole. 

RATING: 7 out of 10 tables on the seating chart

Shall We Dance?

Year 14, Day 66 - 3/7/22 - Movie #4,068

BEFORE: Susan Sarandon carries over from "Elizabethtown" - note that this film COULD have come right after my Valentine's Day film this year, in fact for a long while that was the plan, but then I realized that several films with Andie MacDowell were no longer streaming, and I had to re-work the plan.  To maximize the romance chain, and also to put a focus on the films currently taking up space on the DVR, like today's film, that necessitated splitting up the Susan Sarandon films - but she'll still get credit for a February hat trick. I can't really explain my scheduling methods sometimes, you'd need to see the full color-coded list of about 500 films to fully understand why I end up watching some films and not others, in any given year.  And there's always next year for those films that I skip, provided I can link to them.  

We're one week into March now, after tonight I've got just about 10 films left on love and romance before I change topics.  And really, re-working that chain seemed to be the right idea, because I've got at least one clear path to Easter now, and I can start thinking about another path to Mother's Day.  In the meantime, TCM has 24 days left in their "31 Days of Oscar" month, so here's their line-up for Tuesday, March 8:

6:00 am "In Which We Serve" (1942)

8:00 am "Great Expectations" (1946)

10:00 am "The Devil and Daniel Webster" (1941)

12:00 pm "Adventures of Don Juan" (1948)

2:00 pm "Black Narcissus" (1947)

3:45 pm "The Red Shoes" (1948)

6:00 pm "Cover Girl" (1944)

8:00 pm "Going My Way" (1944)
10:15 pm "The Philadelphia Story" (1940)

12:15 am "The More the Merrier" (1943)

2:15 am "Yankee Doodle Dandy" (1942)

4:30 am "On the Town" (1949)

Yeah, it's all films from the 1940's, I get that - but it's about half musicals, and so was yesterday's line-up.  Why not just put the musicals together and make a day out of that?  I'm still not really picking up what TCM is laying down this time around.  Anyway, I can only really claim "Cover Girl", "The Philadelphia Story" and "On the Town" tomorrow, so another 3 seen out of 12 takes me to 34 out of 90, taking me down to 37%. 

THE PLOT: A romantic comedy where a bored, overworked lawyer, upon first sight of a beautiful instructor, signs up for ballroom dancing lessons. 

AFTER: Well, perhaps this one SHOULD have been my Valentine's Day film, it certainly had more romance in it than "Romance & Cigarettes" did. I've got to stop taking the easiest route, and programming by title.  The title doesn't matter as much as the subject of the film, and the themes involved.  Of course, I never want to learn TOO much about a movie before watching it, and on top of that, I can't go back and change it, so too late, it is what it is. 

At first this is just about an aging married lawyer who's just had a birthday, and decides to take dancing lessons, because he thinks it might make him happy.  Plus he's intrigued by the sad, beautiful dance instructor who gazes out the window of the dance studio every night as he passes by on the elevated train. Yeah, he MIGHT have showed up with the intention of dancing with a pretty woman, and maybe even cheating, but the good news is, he doesn't act on these feelings and have an affair, he just keeps his dance lessons secret from his wife.  

It's not exactly clear, not at first anyway, why he's embarrassed about taking dancing lessons - he could, for example, have invited his wife along and they could have taken lessons together.  But then he would be admitting to another person that one some level, he wasn't happy, and he wasn't prepared to do that.  But as a result, his wife then suspects he's having an affair when he comes home late every Wednesday night.  Hmmm....  She even hires a detective to follow him on that night of the week and find out what he's up to - probably influenced by the tale of a co-worker who just found out her boyfriend was cheating on her, and she didn't know. 

For a long while, this film gets really bogged down in the minute details of dance class, like the fact that dancers sweat, especially the ones who are out of shape.  Did we really need to learn this, couldn't we have just assumed this was the case?  And yes, those early lessons are very tedious as these awkward men learn to move around awkwardly, but eventually they all seem to get the hang of it, and they all want to participate in some big Chicago amateur dancing competition.  The men become friends with each other, they all become friends with their dance instructors, the wife even becomes friends with the detective - so, really, there's not much conflict here, just a manufactured one when John's wife THINKS he's cheating, and then another small blow-up when she confronts him after the big dance-off.  They reconcile, of course, the relationship was never in any real jeopardy, they just needed to add dancing.  Ho-hum, not my thing.

The story arc of John's co-worker, Link, played by Stanley Tucci, was much more interesting.  He acted like the big, macho football fan in the office, but it was all an act, he just wanted to put on sequined suits, self-tanner and a wig and go dance Latin-style.  Hey, it's OK, macho guys can dance, too, it's completely separate from sexual preference, except for when it isn't.  Straight guys can dance, gay guys can dance, it's the great equalizer - they just can't really dance with each other, I guess. Link's dream, however, is just to rip the wig off, be bald, bold and comfortable when he dances - and that does happen, just not really the way that he thought it would.  And Link finds a romantic partner through dancing - so does Chic, but his story is kind of the reverse of Link's, in the end. Hey, whatever, no judgments here. 

Maybe it's a bit of serendipity that this film ended up here, and not closer to Valentine's Day - because here in NYC they've just ended the mask mandates, and people can go out freely again to restaurants, play bingo, exercise in gyms, and yeah, maybe dancing can be a thing again.  It just feels like after two years of lockdowns and distancing, this city is ready to party, people are going to be getting their freak on this spring and summer.  Partying, partying, it's coming soon. Me, I just want to be able to hit a buffet or two in Atlantic City within the next month or so, that's all I ask. Speaking of pandemics, "Shall We Dance" filmed many scenes in Winnipeg, Canada instead of Toronto, because of the SARS scare in 2003 - does anybody even remember that one at this point?  

Ultimately this is a film about dancing - but also a case study in long-term relationships, where honesty is of course proven to be the best policy.  Also, the two members of the couple need to find that balance between doing things together, while also each having their own interests and hobbies.  A married couple should spend some time together, but maybe not ALL their time together - they should spend some time apart, but maybe not too much.  It can be tough sometimes to know where to draw those lines, but communication and understanding are probably key.  Would it really have been THAT bad if he had told his wife early on that he might want to try dancing for a bit, to see if he was any good at it? 

Also starring Richard Gere (last seen in "Arbitrage"), Jennifer Lopez (last seen in "Hustlers"), Lisa Ann Walter (last seen in "Drillbit Taylor"), Stanley Tucci (last seen in "Lucky Number Slevin"), Anita Gillette (last seen in "Bob Roberts"), Bobby Cannavale (last seen in "Romance & Cigarettes"), Omar Benson Miller (last seen in "Lucky You"), Tamara Hope, Stark Sands (last seen in "The Post"), Richard Jenkins (last seen in "Trapped in Paradise"), Nick Cannon (last seen in "Bobby"), Sarah Lafleur, Onalee Ames, Diana Salvatore, Daphne Korol, Tony Dovolani, David Sparrow (last seen in "16 Blocks"), Matt Gordon (last seen in "Room"), Candace Smith, Sandra Caldwell, Mairi Babb, Karina Smirnoff, Diana Marquis, Beatriz Pizano (last seen in "Steal This Movie"), Mya, Ja Rule (last seen in "Fyre"), James Sermons, Geri Hall (last seen in "Little Italy"), Slavik Kryklyvyy.

RATING: 5 out of 10 couples competing in the Pasa Doble

Elizabethtown

Year 14, Day 65 - 3/6/22 - Movie #4,067

BEFORE: Desperately trying to catch up here, since I lost almost all of Saturday to working that film festival, and then Saturday night I had to finish my Saturday film, then most of Sunday I was watching shows to try to clear my TV DVR, which has been filling up again now that TV shows are back.  So I had to start my Sunday film on LATE Sunday - shocker, I know, I've been lucky enough to almost always START my film the day before and finish it in the early morning of the day of posting. I don't see how I'm going to catch up, so I may have to skip a couple days in March, those are the breaks.  Kirsten Dunst carries over from "The Power of the Dog". 

I'm so behind that it's already March 7 as I'm posting, and the new TCM broadcast day starts in just a couple hours - as does the Monday work day, but who cares about that when there are MOVIES to be watched?  Anyway, here's the TCM "31 Days of Oscar" line-up for Monday, March 7, and remember, these are all Oscar WINNERS:

6:30 am "Broadway Melody of 1936" (1936)

8:30 am "Gold Diggers of 1935".  (1935)

10:30 am "A Midsummer Night's Dream" (1935) - you know, that play from "Get Over It"

1:00 pm "Swing Time" (1936)

3:00 pm "The Great Ziegfeld" (1936)

6:00 pm "A Star Is Born" (1937)

8:00 pm "Wings" (1927)

10:30 pm "The Adventures of Robin Hood" (1938)

12:30 am "The Champ" (1931)

2:15 am "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" (1932)

4:00 am "Viva Villa!" (1934)

Wow, I'm not sure why TCM put these films together on the same day, other than the fact that they were all released in the 1930's.  It could also be that many belong to the theme of films that I've see other versions of - I've seen the 1954, 1976 AND 2018 versions of "A Star Is Born", but not the one from 1937.  I saw the 1979 version of "The Champ", but not the 1931 film, and I have the 1941 version of "Dr. Jekyll and. Mr. Hyde on DVD, but not th 1932 version.  So I've only seen TWO of Day 7's films, "Swing Time" (because I did a Fred Astaire thing a few years back) and "The Adventures of Robin Hood" with Errol Flynn. I really SHOULD watch "Wings" because it was the first film to win Best Picture, but I haven't got time - plus, how would I link to it?  With only 10 Best Picture winners I haven't seen, I could just knock them all out one day, that would be something to do.

But another 2 seen out of 11 brings me to 31 seen out of 78, which drops me down to 39.7%. If I could finish around 40%, that would be fine. 

THE PLOT: During a hometown memorial for his Kentucky-born father, a young man begins an unexpected romance with a too-good-to-be-true stewardess.

AFTER: This is a strange film - and I know I probably say that a lot - but it's a different kind of strange then a film where, say, Bruce Willis fights aliens from another galaxy, or Shang-Chi saves China from a giant dragon attack.  This is supposedly just a quaint little film about a guy visiting his late father's hometown, and falling for a flight attendant he meets on the way there. But it's just so full of elements that come out of left field that it's hard to get a handle on it - there's no clear direction for the characters most of the time, the lead is confused about what to do with his life, and the two people falling in love keep saying that they're not doing that, except isn't that what they're doing?  

Really, there are three things going on here, there's the story of the man dealing with his father's death (and his mother and sister, they're affected by this too, only they stay in Oregon for most of the film) then there's the story of a man who's just suffered an incredible business failure in the sneaker market (though it's never quite explained what exactly happened, and how) and then mixed in with that is the romance, between two people who should be, what's the term she uses, "substitute people".  This means, I guess, that they're both used to being other people's rebound romantic partner, or they've both had partners that didn't want to be in committed relationships, so they've both developed skills to survive during the alone times, while waiting to serve as a substitute romantic partner for the next person, at least until that person finds what they're looking for, with someone else.  It's a rather cynical way of looking at relationships, I think, and that's saying something, coming from a divorced guy.  (That feeling that relationships are fragile and could disappear tomorrow just never completely goes away.)

So maybe that's why it's tough to see a through-line here, tough to figure out exactly what the film is trying to tell us, because it's trying to do too much all at once, juggling Drew's business troubles, family troubles and then the new relationship.  One scene in particular stands out, where he's bouncing between three phone calls, to his ex-girlfriend & co-worker, to his sister and mother, and to the new prospective girlfriend, Claire.  He keeps talking to each party for five seconds before saying, "Wait, I have to call you back." or "Let me put you on hold for a second." and this goes on for what feels like fifteen minutes, where the only thing he tells each person is that he can't talk to them right now.  And honestly, there's nothing all that interesting about watching him talk on the phone, three calls at once, and not saying anything of any importance. Why does this take up so much screen time?

The details of the story are weird, too, like why are they so darn specific, like the name of the Kentucky town, the number of the highway exit, and the locations where Claire is scheduled to fly next - none of this really matters. This could be set in Anytown USA, why Elizabethtown, Kentucky?  Is this based on real-life things that happened to the writer/director, Cameron Crowe?  He did write "Almost Famous", based on his teen years spent touring with that band and writing about them for Rolling Stone, right?  Why do I need to know the name of the Brown Hotel in Elizabethtown, what purpose does that serve?  Why does Drew choose that particular method of suicide, it's pretty unusual - and I don't think anyone has ever tried suicide by exercise equipment before (people may have died while using exercise bikes before, but not intentionally).  Why choose to focus on the choice between burying Drew's father and getting him cremated?  Why make such a big deal about Drew missing that highway exit, doesn't that happen to drivers all the time?  These things, among others, feel like they came from some personal experiences. 

Yes, I believe I'm correct - the IMDB trivia page says this was all inspired by Cameron Crowe's visit to his own father's grave in Kentucky - but it was 16 years after his father's death when he first visited. So some details were changed, obviously, but I was right, I could just tell this came from a very personal place.  However, I've still got some problems with the events as depicted, like would an airline really run a whole flight for just ONE passenger?  Seems to me that this would never happen, like if only one ticket was sold for a flight, any airline would probably cancel that flight, or merge it with another one, weeks before take-off.  It would never come down to a situation where the crew outnumbers the passengers on a flight, that's inefficient and would never generate a profit for that airline, therefore this situation would never come to be. 

Oh, yeah, after all those other storylines get semi-resolved, this film sort of turns into a travelogue, as Drew drives back alone from Kentucky to Oregon. But I also found it quite unbelievable that anyone would "curate" a road trip for somebody else, even if they were best friends or potential lovers - Claire really seemed like a piece of work, someone who would be very controlling or micro-managing in a relationship, to the point of that being very annoying.  Sure, as a flight attendant she might know places to visit in a lot of cities, but that scrapbook she made for Drew, complete with CDs timed to the road trip, specific instructions about where to eat, where to shop, what to see in each town, it's quite a lot.  And it would probably take WEEKS to put that together, where did she find the time, especially with a flight attendant's busy travel schedule?  It doesn't make much sense AND it's a huge red flag, right from the start.  This is not a person who knows how to have fun, this is a control freak.  

(I say this, of course, as the man who worked out detailed itineraries for our last THREE pre-pandemic October vacations.  We did two BBQ crawls in 2017 and 2018 across the South, plus a Buffet Crawl in Las Vegas in 2019. Yes, of course I did research, of course I had copious lists and notes about where to eat and what to do in each city BUT in my defense, all of my plans were made at the request of my wife AND there was a fair amount of flexibility in all of my plans.  Also, I'd asked her before each trip about places she might like to go, and I was respectful of her wishes at all times, including when she asked for a change of plans on the fly. This is the difference between being properly prepared, and being a control freak - I gave her choices, plus we were free to add to the itinerary if we stumbled on something fun to do that wasn't part of the original plan. I'm not a monster.)

That all being said, I approve of SOME of Claire's recommendations - the Sun Records Studio was a must-visit for me, too, when we went to Memphis.  We also visited Graceland, saw the ducks at the Peabody Hotel, ate at The BBQ Shop, and visited the world's largest Bass Pro Shops, located inside a giant pyramid - there's a restaurant on top with a restaurant that serves wild game and has a great view of the Mississippi River at sunset.  Would I want to visit the hotel where MLK was assassinated?  No, I would not. The second time we were in Dallas we visited Dealey Plaza and JFK Assassination Museum in the old Book Depository building, and it was fascinating at first, then just felt really creepy after a while.

I thought it was a bit weird that the film suggested a man could drive all that distance across the country in 48 hours, by himself.  That would be impossible, because a man driving solo would have to stop and sleep, he can only drive so many hours in a day, plus Claire recommended all those great places to eat and things to see. I suppose perhaps she was talking about 48 hours of "driving time", but realistically, that trip with a solo driver, assuming 8 to 10 hours of driving each day, would take about four to six days to complete.  Sure, it's possible, but that's with minimum stops - realistically, a solo drive that long could take a week or even two, depending on the driver.  Any way you slice it, this is a big NITPICK POINT. 

Kirsten Dunst's character in this film caused one reviewer to create a name for a whole category of movie characters, called "The Manic Pixie Dream Girl", essentially she represents a fantasy that writer/directors have, where a very chipper, positive woman comes along quite accidentally and teaches brooding, depressed men how to embrace life and all of its mysteries and adventures.  The men, of course, are the stand-ins for said directors, and the women, in real life, don't really exist, sorry.  Natalie Portman in "Garden State" and Sandra Bullock in, well, just about anything are other examples. Roger Ebert had a different take on the story, he felt that since Drew met Claire on a plane (in the heavens) that she represented some kind of angel, and her influence guided him through his depression, potential suicide and allowed him to find redemption after his corporate failure.  Hmm, I'm not really sold on that idea, perhaps working for a sneaker company is a form of hell, but isn't it better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven?  And isn't that way too much pressure to put on a relationship?  Redemption, like happiness, should come from within, not from proximity to another person.  

Also starring Orlando Bloom (last seen in "Unlocked"), Susan Sarandon (last seen in "Romance & Cigarettes"), Alec Baldwin (last seen in "Drunk Parents"), Bruce McGill (last seen in "Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde"), Judy Greer (last seen in "13 Going on 30"), Jessica Biel (last seen in "The Rules of Attraction"), Paul Schneider (last seen in "Bright Star"), Loudon Wainwright III (last seen in "28 Days"), Gailard Sartain (last seen in "The Grifters"), Jed Rees (last seen in "The Onion Movie"), Paula Deen (yes, THAT one), Dan Biggers (last seen in "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil"), Alice Marie Crowe (last seen in "We Bought a Zoo"), Tim Devitt, Ted Manson (last seen in "Nights in Rodanthe"), Shane Lyons, Emily Rutherfurd, MIchael Naughton, Griffin Grabow, Nina Jefferies, Kristin Lindquist, Allison Munn, Patty Griffin, Rod Burke, Nate Mooney (last seen in "Seraphim Falls"), Jim Fitzpatrick, Kelly Pendygraft, with archive footage of Mike Connors, Ron Popeil. 

RATING: 4 out of 10 organic cooking classes