Knocked Up: It's like Funny and Awesome had a baby

With Knocked Up Judd Apatow continues his frightening, almost Pixar-like, string of unmitigated successes. I'd really like to go deeper than that but, to be honest, I saw this movie a while ago and now I'm having trouble remembering it well enough to do it justice. Can I just say that it rules?


I am now convinced that Harold Ramis is the biological father of Seth Rogen.

Mr. Woodcock: Since both "wood" AND "cock" mean penis it's doubly funny!

The main problem with studios creating films is that they tend to be made by committee (I know, you're all impressed by my original insight). This results in movies that try to be everything to everybody but end up as generic works with no clear vision. I can handle a film with terribly misguided vision but one that just wanders from scene to scene with no apparent purpose? That's the worst. I just sit there thinking "Why was this made? There is no reason for this movie to exist. It's just taking up space."

As you've probably guessed, Mr. Woodcock is one such film. There's nothing particularly awful about it, it just seems completely unnecessary. Part of that is that is has no focus. This is the kind of movie that introduces a romantic interest for the lead (Got to draw in the females aged 18-49!) only to get distracted and forget about her.

Other than that? Uh, I like Amy Poehler and Ethan Suplee. I mean, in general. Not so much in this.


Watching this film reminded me that Susan Sarandon is still really attractive. Am I developing a thing for cougars?

The Brave One: Jodi's got a gun, everybody is on the run

Here's something that I find really disconcerting when I see a film in a theater: The main character will perform an act of vengeance that is completely indefensible and then the audience cheers. Now, I don't mean a crappy action film or some other comic-book-come-to-life movie where the characters are cardboard and no one's meant to take their actions seriously. I'm talking a serious film where the lead makes a choice to end someone's life in cold blood at the expense of their soul.

It's a scenario that the filmmakers have clearly created to comment on how violence begets more violence and the only way to break the cycle is to abandon your quest for revenge and learn to cope with your grief in a more constructive way. When the protagonist chooses to kill, not only do they perpetuate this chain of suffering, but they themselves are forever changed. Murder is not something you can commit without sacrificing part of your humanity.

This is a bad thing. A very bad thing. It should not be applauded. Yet, it seems that every time I see it happen the crowd gives an enthusiastic response. I find myself filled with outrage that the audience could be so callous and that they could so completely miss the point of the film.

I don't know, maybe I'm taking things too seriously. Perhaps I should get off my high horse and talk about the picture at hand, The Brave One (Warning: Spoiler Alert).

This is an incredibly well-made film that I absolutely hated. I don't have a whole lot to say other than that I spent the whole movie fuming that my fellow moviegoers "just didn't get what this film is about" while they "inappropriately cheered on a demented killer" only to discover at the very end that I was the one who didn't understand. Apparently, Neil Jordan is totally for vigilantism . . . and not a huge fan of the rule of law. So, I guess I'm the asshole.

Oh, and I know that Jodie Foster is almost 45 and probably not that into penises but she is still smoking hot. As is the dangerously-close-to-my-mother's-age Mary Steenburgen, for that matter. Say, let's see what we can do about getting these two ladies together.


"I am dark, and you are light."
"You are blind as a bat, and I have sight!
Side by side, you are my amigo, Negro, let's not fiiiiiiiight!"

Woman in the Dunes: Dunes in the Woman

Sometimes a movie really catches me off guard and Woman in the Dunes did just that. It's another one that I got from Roger Ebert's Great Movies and I actually thought it was an Antonioni film. So, I was surprised to discover that, instead of a dour Italian movie with subtext about Architecture that I'd never understand, I had rented a Japanese film directed by someone I'd never heard of.

The movie begins with a young man who travels from the city to the shore in order to study insects. He then falls asleep on the beach as the lazy day drags on and ends up missing the last bus back to Tokyo. When he wakes up one of the locals offers to show him to a home where he can spend the night. The young man follows him down a rope ladder where he meets the woman who will host him for the night. The woman is attractive but she seems overly shy, as if she were frightened of something.

At this point the film gradually turns into a nightmare scenario for the young man who soon discovers that the ladder has disappeared and that he is trapped in a pit. He tries to climb out but the walls are made of sand that quickly gives way under his feet. And to make matters worse the pit is slowly collapsing on itself. The young man and the woman must work for hours each day to collect the sand that falls on them so that the other villagers can remove it using a device that functions like the barrel in a well.

This fantastic scenario is used to meditate on issues of freedom, responsibility and justice. I'm not sure that I agree with the filmmakers points (or even, that I have properly understood them) but this movie certainly forces you to confront them head-on seems capable of causing great debate. I'd recommend seeing it with someone who has a sharp mind. I wish I did.


Sure, that looks hot but think of all the places that sand is getting into while they're at it.