Magic Grundle

I couldn't say it with a straight face when I exited the theater but god dammit I meant it: I really liked Magic Mike.

No wax on, only wax off

Steven Soderbergh works his storytelling magic (not a pun) yet again. He does a great job of subtly giving character and plot background and context that he is able to avoid cheesy or drawn out dialogue.  It moves at a good pace and every actor was well cast.

Only 1 dick is shown and it's through a pump so you don't see any veins or hairs or dick-like characteristics. Lots of boobies and lots of men's shaking asses. If I remember correctly I believe there is 1 penis to 7 breasts.

I was squirming awkwardly in my seat for many of the scenes but clearly this was an unconscious bodily defense mechanism because I was thoroughly enjoying myself. Channing was funny and did a solid acting job while performing double duty as producer. I had only heard of Alex Pettyfer from I Am Number Four and Beastly and hadn't seen either. Perez Hilton informed me that he's a dick which used to make me think ill of him. I don't give a shit anymore. He is so gorgeous I'm surprised he hasn't murdered people and gotten away with it. Much of these good vibes can be attributed to the first scene he's in, doing an adorable impression of Arnold Schwartzenager (I'm not going to look up how to spell his name and just assume I nailed it on the first try). So cute and funny and then the asslesss chaps were just the icing on the hairless body cake.

Anyway, girls should definitely go see it. God I can't believe you aren't seeing it right now. Guys, I'm not going to lie, you probably don't want to see this. It's definitely a good movie but there are just so many shots of men bent over and Matty McCon splitting that you'll lose the image of Olivia Munn's boobs from your mental sight.

Timur Bekmambetov: Awesome Movie Killer

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is a super, super sweet book and regardless of what you think of the movie, I highly recommend reading it.

I'm going to fuck up the movie riiiiight there. And there and there and there.

I'm sure I was expecting something different from the movie, having read the book. Since the book's author, Seth Grahame-Smith, penned the screenplay, I assumed it would follow a similar, albeit shortened, plot. I also prayed that director Timur Bekmambetov couldn't fuck it up like he did with Wanted, but I was also wrong in that regard.


Because of overall negative reviews, I went in knowing there would be many cheesy, odd parts. Even knowing that, I still feel disappointed. Along with the plot changes, the B-man did what he did with Wanted. I can't fully put it into words but as you're watching the training and fight scenes you just know it's by the same dude. Man, Wanted was so goddamn bad. Still pissed. The screenwriting abilities of Grahame-Smith in adapting his own novel makes me doubt his potential for his work on the Beetlejuice sequel.

For those that aren't familiar with the plot or can't figure it out from the name of the film, this is the hidden history of President Lincoln as a vampire hunter. Basically picture Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, except less religious. It establishes the real reason for the Civil War as a means of eliminating slaves as pray for the vampire elite of the deep south. The book was so enjoyable because of how much history was involved, but they completely take that aspect out of the film. They also change the sweet ending of the book to something lame for the film. Ugh.

With the exception of one of the McPoyle brothers and Steve the Pirate, the cast is mostly unknowns (Mary Todd is played by the actress that was Bruce Willis's daughter in Live Free or Die Hard, for example).

There are many over-the-top fight scenes that left the audience laughing, but one stood out as super stupid. Lincoln is chasing a vampire on horseback. If you're picturing a scene of two men riding on horses you're totally wrong. It's two men JUMPING ON THE BACKS OF HORSES CHASING EACH OTHER! LIKE RUNNING ON MOVING HORSES IN A STAMPEDE!

There's one other annoying thing I wan to rant about...if the vampires can be invisible, why would they become visible right before they attack? It leaves them dead 100% of the time.

The 3D doesn't really add anything so you can save your money there. If you go in knowing it's going to be goofy (and you haven't read the book) you'll probably enjoy it, but you'll probably want to just save your money.

PS- Bekmambetov's next movie is Wanted 2. FUUUUUUUCK

Seeking Anyone Other Than Kiera Knightly

No but seriously, anyone but Kiera might have done for Seeking a Friend for the End of the World. Starring Steve Carell and K dubs, the duo deal with the three remaining weeks left before the world ends.

I had been looking forward to this movie for a while. Steve has been a solid actor choice for me since Dan in Real Life (even though no critic likes it, oh well, dicks) and his last one was awesome (Crazy, Stupid, Love, Gosling). However, this movie just didn't do it for me. Much like my earlier post about expectations effecting the experience, I went in thinking this would be an indie funny, feel good while something bad happens film. Instead, it ends up being pretty heavy for most of the time. That sounds obvious when you're talking about a film revolving around an asteroid obliterating the human race, but the commercials are so damn chipper!

Everyone in the film has their own ways of coping with imminent doom. The pair encounter all these people while on a journey to reunite Dodge (Carell) with a long lost love somewhere in NJ. In return, Penny (Knightley) wants to fly back to England to be with her family. Alright, makes sense. It's a shame they didn't stick with that interplay and bigness theme because the movie slows way down and becomes an odd love story that doesn't really ever seem real.

Knightley is there to help Carell's character be less sad, depressing, and woe-is-me-y, but she just seems like she has minor Asperger's Syndrome. Distractingly so (as was her snaggle tooth and hair). Anyway, here are my suggestions for other free spirited female characters that could have played the role that was given to the woman with the most depressing plot-line in Love, Actually:

Mr. F played by Charlize Theron. She can do an English accent, if for some reason that was the selling point to Kiera. She's gorgeous so you don't get too distracted by an actual Brit's teeth. She's already classified retarded so there's no question in your mind, unlike with Kiera. 

Mila Kunis in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Uptight Dodge needed someone to make him be crazy and forget about past mistakes that are getting him down. Mila did it in a fun way that didn't seem like she has zero social skills.

Kate Winslet in Eternal Sunshine. Again, you have the free-form lady that captivates her leading male. Yet NOT RETARDED. That's basically the only criteria.

As much as it pains me to say it, I just can't recommend Seeking a Friend for the End of the World. But maybe now that you know it's a heavy film (seriously, didn't laugh. Maybe a couple of ha's under my breath), you can go in fully prepared and love it. Or maybe I'll watch it again in a few months and change my mind.

Either way, see you again in Anchorman 2, Stevesie.

Hotel Motel Adam Sandler

The trailer for Adam Sandler's Hotel Transylvania came out and it looks good! Hazzah! Looks like there's lots of big names but not in the normal Happy Madison Productions kind of way. And my wet dream team is back with Adam and Andy at vocal odds with each other!

Totally check it out, you know?

My review of the Avengers

These covers are what the movie felt like for me

Can't believe everyone liked it as much as they did. Oh well.

Taken 2: It's like Taken but with the mom instead of the daughter!! Oh, and also the daughter

Taken was fucking awesome. If Rotten Tomatoes did an aggregate of written words, that would be how the movie is summarized 100% of the time. Which obviously means the studio wants to do a sequel. Which then led to everyone's reaction to be "is his daughter going to get taken again? What a dumb slut."

Well, the trailer has been released and for the first minute I was convinced it was going to be pretty sweet but have the plot be just different enough that it's worth paying to see. Then the mom gets taken and it appears they just did the old copy/paste move from the original screenplay. Maybe, if we're lucky, an intern messed up the keyboard commands and also pasted half of The Hangover 2 right in the middle of it so it's some cool mashup of identical sequels. Or for a throwback comparison, here's Milhouse explaining the plot of both Speed and Speed 2: I couldn't find the video of it.

To be fair, I wrote those two paragraphs when I paused the trailer at the halfway point so just give me a second to watch the rest of it. Yup, no it's the exact same movie. Except I think a producer said "hey, those scenes when Liam threatens people really worked so let's add more phone dialogue!"

Take a look below

Snow White and the Huntsman

After a string of indie films, my boyfriend and I decided on a cross-country movie date involving something a little more summer-y and easy going on the mind: Snow White and the Huntsman.

Not much to say except that it's what you'd expect. Some major plot holes that you just have to say "oh well" to otherwise there wouldn't be a movie. Cute spins on the original story (although in my head I kept getting the different damsel folklore mixed up and thinking I was watching Red Riding Hood).

My main problem was the emphasis on White's "innocence" being the downfall of the evil queen. There were lots of other really sweet, innocent girls in the film that the queen easily overcame and by the end of the movie White was kissing dudes and stabbing people, so they kind of just glossed over what made her special aside from just telling us that she is.

Another change from the indies is the run time! The movie clocks in at 127 minutes and add in all the previews (which were way sweeter than watching the same Kendall Square previews for the third day in a row) and you're in the theater closer to 3 hours than 2.

Bottom line is: Chris Hemsworth is sweet, Kristen Stewart looks confused/scared a lot, Charlize is gorgeous, and the movie's entertaining enough to get you out of the summer heat for a couple hours.

Lola Versus

For a film that's only 86 minutes long, Lola Versus sure felt a lot longer. From the production company of 500 Days of Summer, a movie that was clearly written by someone that survived a brutal break up, Lola seems to be written by a person in real-time break-up mode. You know the scene in The Wedding Singer when Adam Sandler sings to Drew Barrymore a song that was half written while he was in a relationship and half written after the break-up? Lola is the movie version of that song.

It's unfortunate because the film definitely had potential. Lola, played by Greta Gerwig, turns 29 and gets engaged to her long-term boyfriend. Weeks before the wedding he ends it. Lola relies on her best friends (Henry and Alice) and her funky parents. Bill Pullman is an adorable father, by the way. Up till this point the pacing felt fine and everything was on track. 

The movie fluctuates between being predictable, real, frustrating, and unrealistic. Lola battles friend hookups, re-establishing ties with an ex, friends hooking up, old hook ups hooking up. It takes on too much and doesn't get to the meat of any of them.

I think the biggest problem was with the timeframe, or lackthereof. This is what I think the timeframe was: She gets engaged on her 29th birthday, they're engaged for 9 months, then everything falls apart and is resolved by her 30th. WHAT?! If we're honestly dealing with a three month window then that's insane. Hopefully, I'm wrong. But if I am wrong, the movie should have done a better job to let me know what the real time was.

One of the good elements of the film was the gorgeous backdrop of the city and Greta's always perfect hair

This movie hit very close to home for me. I was definitely thinking of the unsuccessful relationships I've had, the successful relationship I'm in, and the complexities that arise from the interplay of friend groups (love you, babe!). But coming to a solution about whether you should be friends with an ex or fixing what happens after hook-ups go awry aren't solved within weeks of each other. And certainly not with everyone able to be in one room together as besties again.

The climatic, finding-herself montage was eerily similar to the Bridesmaids meltdown suffered by Kristen Wiig. However, Wiig's spiral felt more realistic and sincere. Lola's comes after a very bizarre scene leading to only more bizarre scenes. While at a housewarming party hosted by her two ex-lovers, her "friends" confront her about her selfish ways. They then get mad at her for reacting poorly to the news that her best friends had been secretly dating for two weeks. Ugh. I think the girl's allowed to be self-loathing and sad for longer than a couple months when her relationship of 8 years just fell apart. But equally retarded for trying to be friends with him so quickly.

None of the characters seem to grow or learn anything, contrary to what the final scene tries to suggest. And I'm not talking about a needing happy ending with everything neatly resolved. The ending of 500 didn't come with the two stars getting back together and living happily ever after. But it did come with a feeling that life moves on and you need to trust yourself to get through the hard times. Movies need to be relatable but transportable. It needs to make you see yourself in the future.

There's just too much missing from Lola Versus to make it worthwhile, which is sad because I wanted it to be so much more. It tackled a lot of issues, ranging from girl-friend friendships, guy-friend friendships, ex's, moving on, finding yourself, and mending fences. Touch on less and expand on it more with those 86 minutes, and baby, you got yourself a stew going.

The On/Off Romance of Films

(This was originally part of the below post on Adam Sandler but I thought it deserved it's own entry)

I like to call it the "it's not you, it's me" effect. As in a relationship, you go in with doe eyes and high hopes. Too high even, and end up being a little disappointed. What do you do? You go on a break. Take a little you time, try and find yourself, get to know you some more. Then in a couple months try it again and see if it sticks. The first time you see a movie or show, you want the best outcome. But then what happens? You're in a bad mood, you thought it'd be more funny and less serious, people are talking, your friends don't like it. Alright cool, just back off, wait a little while, and give it another go in a couple months. That second viewing is probably where you'll find whether you actually hated it or whether you really love it. As the saying goes, if you love it, set it free, if it comes back, it's meant to be.

Here are some films that I hated the first time I saw them in theaters:

Darjeeling Limited: WHAT?!? I hated this??? Ugh, fuck, Ila, come on. I expect more from you. Well, at least you love it now. And the soundtrack.

Talladega Nights: I think the entire audience hated it. Now I love catching it on TBS.

Waiting for Guffman and A Mighty Wind: Didn't see either in theaters but I thought it was necessary to include because of the disproportionate amount that I hated it when I first saw it and absolutely loved them starting at the second viewing.

Futurama on Comedy Central: I watched it every week when CC brought the show back from the dead and thought it was awful. "They've lost it! The magic's gone," I would think to myself. A year later I watched them all again on Netflix...spectacular.

In addition to the multiple viewings is the frequency you catch something. The more you watch, the more familiar something becomes. Guffman was on HBO for two straight weeks so everyday I managed to turn it on at the exact same spot (why does that always happen??). Gilmore and Madison were both flops originally and Arrested Development was cancelled. Some things just take time to get under your skin.

An example that stands out the most is Funny People and Get Him to the Greek. I went into the theater knowing that People was actually meant to be a very serious film even though it stars Seth Rogan, Sandler, and Lesley Mann, and was directed by Judd Apatow. Knowing this, I thought the movie was phenomenal. Every person I've talked to since then that hasn't liked it had the same thing to say: I thought it was going to be funnier/I didn't know it was so serious. Going in expecting to laugh and dealing with death instead is a disorienting feeling. When I went to see Greek, I was expecting a laugh riot and instead was thrown off by how upsetting a lot of the details were. The whole audience seemed to be this way, too, as there was a palpable awkwardness that prevented anyone from laughing because no one knew whether something was meant to be funny or serious. I hated Greek and admittedly haven't watched it again, so that feeling remains.

Anyway, I think it's important to just be cognizant of the variables that are effecting how you feel about a film. You don't have to give it multiple shots, and if you do, it's not guaranteed you'll like it. But when discussing a film or describing it to others, maybe mention what your expectations were going in so that others can benefit from it.

My thoughts on Adam Sandler

There are certain movies that you know aren't good, but every time they're on tv you're going to watch them. Probably to the point where you really enjoy it. I equate this to radio music versus iPod music. There's music that's good (Zeppelin, Foo Fighters, Beatles, etc), and then there's the music that I want to listen to in the car for the ten minute ride to the supermarket (Flo Rida, Britney Spears, Kelly Clarkson, etc). They satiate different needs at different times. Adam Sandler movies make me happy, so I watch them.


People don't have to get meta and compare his role in Funny People to real life or how Bill Murray's career is a better version of what Adam's could be. I think that he just honestly wants to do movies like this, and that's ok. The jokes he makes are ones that he finds funny with his friends, and sometimes we're in on them and other times we aren't.  This is just one example of an interview he's done recently, and it's the same type of joke you'd see in That's My Boy. He's basically filming himself hanging out with friends, joking around, and getting paid twenty million for it.

The Salon did an article, linked below, comparing the career trajectory of Bill Murray and Adam Sandler. Bill, unlike Adam, embraced and expounded upon an indie film career. Adam had a shot and then blew it. Legit point. But maybe Sandler simply doesn't like to make indie movies. He's done some serious, and I think he was quite good in them (Punch Drunk Love, Spanglish, and Reign Over Me).  Maybe they take too much time, maybe he'd rather hang out with his friends and produce his own films. Why did The Rock star in The Toothfairy? These are things we just don't know.

Now, Andy Samberg is caught up in the shit storm that is Adam Sandler reviews. Fresh off his leave from SNL, everyone's saying that he doesn't have leading man chops and is doomed to fall off the face of the earth. Whoa, guys, calm the eff down. The more honorable thing to do was to stay on SNL for ten more years just so he can stay relevant? Let's applaud him for doing his time and now trying to branch out. Hot Rod was his attempt to emulate Sandler, his comedic hero growing up. The film did just as poorly at the box office, but, like Sandler's, has been gaining a cult following over the years. And rightfully so, it's fucking hysterical.

It's hard to come to grips when a thing you used to like evolves into a new style. Maybe "evolve" isn't even the best word since some would argue that it's getting worse, not better. But regardless, it's their choice to make a product and the audience's choice to view it. Do I love every movie? No, I thought Grown Ups, Just Got With It, Zohan, and That's My Boy were pretty awful. Do I truly enjoy catching Bedtime Stories, Mr. Deeds, and Chuck and Larry on TV every now and then? 100% yes.

I'm also not saying that all the recent Sandler films will one day be as revered as his earlier work. I'm also positive that a good portion of me defending him so vehemently is due to the fact that people attack him just as passionately. But as I mentioned in my earlier blog, there's an element of loyalty that goes into choosing films, and I personally have decided to stand with a man who has more movies I enjoy than hate.

I get how hard it is to watch something you love change into something new. It's basically how I feel about The Simpsons. I was privy to ten years of amazing television and then something entirely new started appearing every Sunday night. As successful as ever, an entirely new generation of kids are watching. I stopped watching The Simpsons. I chose not to stop watching Sandler.


For additional reading:
The Salon article mentioned above: here
A Grantland investigation: here
Check out this very interesting piece by SplitSider: What does the opening weekend failure of That's My Boy mean?
Backhanded ode to Sandler by Uproxx: here

That's My Boy

Oh man, I could not have been more excited when I heard my two Jewish loves were going to be in one movie. It was like The Michael Showalter Showalter had come true:

Originally titled "I Hate You, Dad" the film follows Sandler attempting to reconnect with his son, Samberg. The plot's gold and the two guys are solid. The film was shot in Boston and the opening scene takes place at Somerville High School in MA (site of my MTEL testing!). That connection immediately made me feel good about it. It also helped ease the fact that two different CVS's didn't have any peach Snapple (get your act together, CVS).

I think the film faltered in the supporting cast. The movie was very similar in the character types from Wedding Crashers and could have done better if it tried to be more heartfelt with comedic talent surrounding the two leading men (Rachel McAdams vs Leighton Meester, Grandma in WC (who was the old lady in Wedding Singer, what!) vs Grandma in TMB, weird brother and in-laws vs weird brother and in-laws). The chemistry was great for the duo, especially when you mixed in other SNL alums, Will Forte and Rachel Dratch. 


The film dragged on and could have benefitted from shortened montages. What kept it fresh was the various cameos. First up was Rex Ryan. He did a surprisingly great job acting with good timing and realistic conversational skills. Vanilla Ice on the other hand was awful. Really awkward and honestly just stupid. For a brief moment the movie combined with Dickie Roberts to be about washed up 80's stars and one Dickie Roberts is enough. My fellow Jersey girl, Susan Sarandon, looked fabulous and successfully pulled off the hot MILF vibe they were going for.

As a wrap up, it's another Sandler film. Don't go in with great expectations, but if you like him then you'll enjoy the film. He'll be his endearing self once again in a little while.

Safety Not Guaranteed

I remember seeing the trailer for this not very long ago and mostly being intrigued by how much the star, Mark Duplass, looks like a friend of mine. It got me thinking about how people choose movies. Personally, I find myself to be a very loyal movie goer (which I will go into in another post about my love for Adam Sandler). I was interested in a movie because an actor I've never seen or heard of kind of looks like a friend of mine. There was also the chick from Parks and Rec, which I now know by her real name, Aubrey Plaza. There was also the dude from The New Girl, who again, I now know as Jake Johnson.

The movie was showing at Kendall Square Cinema, a small theater that plays indie films most people never hear of while they're out, or ever. Kendall's a dangerous place to go because, as with the reason I saw Safety Not Guaranteed, you go there and find actors you really enjoy in movies that seem genuinely interesting and new. For example, currently a Catherine Keener movie is playing that I might go check out just because I find her endearing. Two of the previews before the movie were for films I will be seeing this summer: My Sister's Sister (also staring Duplass, Emily Blunt, and one of Paul Rudd's sisters from My Idiot Brother, I think...) and Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (starring Kiera Knightly and Steve Carrell. Carrell being in any film is basically a lock for me to see it).

The theater was surprisingly packed which leads me to believe that word of mouth has travelled since the movie's release a week ago. The crowd is always older at Kendall, but it adds a new element that poppy movies and large theaters never seem to have. There's an intimate vibe and a feeling that you're all there together as a one group, and the laughter can be so loud that you'll miss the next line of dialogue, but in a good way. Equally surprising was the fact that probably 15% of the people stayed throughout the credits.

Duplass with Plaza in Safety Not Guaranteed

Now, as for the film itself. With a run time of 84 minutes, the film is definitely shorter than what most people have come to expect. The new Batman film clocks in at around 3 hours. I've never had a problem with a movie running under or around 90 minutes. I feel it should follow the same guidelines teachers give to students for papers: quality over quantity. However, with such an already short run time, I feel the film could have taken longer to develop some of the characters more-- or  at least make two seemingly completely separate storylines feel more intertwined.

Plaza is a young, miserable intern that takes an assignment to go with her boss and co-intern to look into an ad placed for a time travelling companion. The boss, Johnson, was my biggest problem with the film. Not that the actor did a poor job, far from it. But the character and story line were so detached and scattered that it was unsure why we were following him around at all. He's set up as kind of a douche, then for literally 10 seconds acts kind of sincere and when it's thrown back in his face he seems to be upset but comically so? The question mark is for a rising intonation as you read it to yourself. Johnson should work on channeling that high-pitched funny voice into something that can be more sincere since his facial expression remains constant. From the movie end, why not take some more time to develop his growth as a human, if that's what you were going for at all? People are there to watch Duplass attempt to time travel so if you're going to take our attention away from that, at least have it make sense.

Acting-wise, I thought everyone did a great job. Plaza held her own as the leading lady, although sometimes the whiney character she's dug out for herself gets to be too much. Duplass was wonderful with both sincerity and comedic timing that held the movie together. There were very few extras in the film which makes the acting by the main four stand out even more. Kristen Bell did a nice job with her cameo and made me get to thinking that I'm actually excited to see where her career goes now that she's done more than be "Sarah Marshall" (her part in Ken Marino's new, Burning Love, was fantastic). The music was very good and what you would expect from an indie darling.

The ending was on my mind the entire film. When the basis is around a bleeding heart hero attempting to time travel, the whole while I was wondering whether they were going to make him be a loser that has to face reality, or worse, do an M. Night Shyamalan ending that's so stupid it ruins the cool movie that came before it. Luckily, the movie concludes nicely and without much fanfare. It left many questions remaining, but unlike with Prometheus, whose  MANY questions I found distracting, this left me feeling like I get to decide what really happened to everyone I've come to know.

I've decided against having any sort of rating system because who am I to rate something. I don't believe in some universal scale that should be applied to everything ever. My feelings were only confirmed when Comcast rated Billy Madison one star: clearly the system's fucked. Anyway, overall I enjoyed it and would recommend it to anyone looking for a not-too-heavy, not-too-sappy, not-too-anything kind of movie that is very different from what you'll see in most theaters.

The List

My list of movies (work in progress):
That's My Boy
Your Sister's Sister

6/22
Abe Lincoln: Vampire Hunter
Seeking a Friend for the End of the World
To Rome With Love
Brave

6/29
People Like Us
Take This Waltz
Ted
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Magic Mike

7/3
Spiderman

7/13
Red Lights

7/20
Dark Knight Rises

7/27
The Watch

8/3
Celest and Jesse Forever
Ruby Sparks

8/10
The Campaign
Bourne Legacy

8/17
Sleepwalk with me

8/24
Premium Rush

8/29
Lawless

9/21
Hotel Transylvania

9/28
Looper


Television:

louis 2

archer 2 and movie

eastbound and down 3

californication 5

modern family
freaks and geeks
curb

flotc 2

community

sherlock holmes

veep

up all night

new girl missing eps

comedy bang bang

burning love

wainy days

My start in movies

My whole life I've always been the person that knows the "name of that actor that was in that movie...you know the one...with the hair!" I read gossip blogs, not for the gossip, but for the information. I quote and reference more than I come up with original dialogue (approximately). Today, while on a cross-country movie date, I was sitting in the theater waiting for not only the movie, but anything on the screen to begin, and it gave me time to just sit and think. I've had many friends tell me  I should do something involving writing about movies since I know so much about the actors, their lives, the movies, everyone involved, and so on. So as I sat there, thinking about my lack of a job and yet another funemployed summer heading my way, I thought of all the movies and television I want to see. That's when I realized I should try my hand at writing about what I know. It'll be a way to justify seeing so many films and also give me a chance to see whether I really do enjoy writing about the things I read about so often. Hence, this blog will not only be an attempt to critique the films but to also monitor my thoughts, observations, and opinions about the industry.

As I write this entry I am having a text conversation with my boyfriend*. I had told him I wanted to see the other Mark Dupless film (the first being the one I just saw, Safety Not Guaranteed). This is how the conversation went:
"The Other Sister?"
"No, My Sister's Sister, with Emily Blunt."
"Ha right. I just thought it was called the other sister for some reason"
"Ha that's the one were Juliet Lewis has down syndrome and marries Giovani Ribisi."

That's a pretty typical conversation for us.

But I digress.

I want to accomplish two things with this blog. The first, to keep track of the movies I've seen and want to see in the summer of o'12. The second, see how much I like writing and see if I can't still figure out what I want to do with my life.

*My boyfriend is much smarter than me in everything about movies.