Sex and the City

The girls are back, this time in a big screen version of Sex and the City. This is the kind of movies Hollywood does best: entertaining, beautiful to watch yet somehow quite vacuous.

The movie picks up where the TV series ended. You don’t have to be a fan in order to follow the movie. Although I have not seen a single episode of the TV series, I had no trouble understanding all the relationships in the film. The film is quite long, clocking at 148 minutes. In fact, it feels like two different movies put in one with a major event happening right in the middle of the film.

Carrie (played by Sarah Jessica Parker) is finally going to marry Mr. Big (played by Chris Noth) and of course, things go awry. Her three best friends, Samantha (played by Kim Cattrall), Charlotte (played by Kristin Davis) and Miranda (played by Cynthia Nixon) are always by her side whenever she needs a shoulder to lean on. The story is, honestly, quite dopey. The conflicts in the script are those that easily frustrate any half-intelligent audience. The tones in the movie switch from cheery and light-hearted to nostalgia and sentimental at the mid-point. The first half of the film deals with all the chaos associated with a society wedding in Manhattan while the second half is mainly about the usual woes women complain about – lack of good men. We as the audience can see plainly where these good men are, but it takes our heroines quite some time to figure it all out so that, I guess, they can stretch the film into feature length. Considering the running time of 148 minutes, they certainly have succeeded in that regard.

The star of the movie is fashion. Parker and her gang certainly give us an eyeful to look at. Parker has 81 outfit changes in Sex and the City while the movie’s three other stars also have 200 wardrobe changes among them. In my opinion, the big attraction about Sex and the City has always been people’s curiosity about how the elite in Manhattan live their lives. There may be richer people elsewhere in the country, but nobody acts more like American aristocrats than the elites in Manhattan. Their life style is always a fascination for other parts of the country. Face it, we may never live that life style, but it is sure easy to enjoy them on screen.

I have to admit this movie is my first exposure to the Sex and the City enterprise created by the hugely popular TV series. I did read the book by Candace Bushnell based on her newspaper columns and found the book extremely boring. Bridget Jones’s Diary attacks single womanhood far better and more realistically than the four glamorous gals in this movie. However, I do find the four actresses likeable and endearing. Seeing Parker in her teenage roles, it is hard for me to imagine her as a fashion icon, but she has really reinvented herself since her early years. She looks and feels like a chic Manhattanite.

The whole movie has a sense of fantasy to the story and the most serious issue the filmmakers deal with is unfaithfulness. As I said before, it is a fun movie to watch for a little over two hours, but afterwards, it is also very easy to forget. After all, with so many people in this world with no food to eat and no shelter, who cares if some spoiled Manhattan woman cannot find a perfect apartment.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

There’s a reason why Judd Apatow is the reigning It boy of Hollywood comedies: he is funny and knows how to tickle our funny bones. Sure, he misfires sometimes, but does get it right more often than most of other comedians out there. I guess it also helps that he is surrounded by a group of outrageously talented young comic actors.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall is the latest coming out of Apatow factories. Apatow’s role in this movie is simply a producer. The script is written by Jason Segel, a graduate of Apatow School. He got a major start when he was cast in Apatow’s short-lived but critically acclaimed TV show Freaks and Geeks. You will spot many Apatow regulars in the movie such as Paul Rudd, Jonah Hill and Bill Hader.

Segel’s script is suspected loosely based on his own relationships and experiences in Hollywood. Peter (played by Segel) is a composer for TV show Crime Scene and he has also been dating the star of the show, Sarah Marshall (played by Kristen Bell), for five years. He seems to have a pretty good life and then disaster strikes. Marshall breaks up with Peter and Peter is too distraught to do anything, so he decides to go to Hawaii to mend his broken heart. Who else does he run into but his ex-girlfriend and her new rocker boyfriend. Hilarity ensues and by the end of his stay he has learned something new about himself and life.

The movie clearly falls under the general Apatow umbrella – an ordinary looking man/child hooks up with a beautiful woman and eventually grows up. Yes, it is that unbelievable premise again. But ever so slowly, and certainly by his finish, the first-time director Nicholas Stoller wins us over, delivering not another imitation but a very persuasive and entertaining comedy. The movie certainly satirizes our pop culture – all the crime programs on TV, entertainment reporting and rock star’s self-indulgence. Many of the segments on pop culture are over-the-top and caricaturized, however, when it comes down to characters, it portrays them as human beings. Too many Hollywood comedies cannot have two-dimensional characters and be funny at the same time. Sarah Marshall successfully manages both. In this movie, Apatow seems to have taken his final assault on American Puritanism. He has always talked about putting penis in every movie he makes. In Sarah Marshall, penis is not implied or insinuated. The movie is truly Apatow’s frontal assault and intends to make audiences laugh while feeling uncomfortable at the same time. Segel’s full frontal scene has been widely talked about by media. The scene feels quite natural in the flow of the moment and certainly got big laughs among my fellow audience.

The performance in this movie is good even though I can’t really decide if most of the actors are simply being themselves. I am not sure that it is an honor for Bell to be chosen as Marshall, considering that Bell’s claim to fame was her TV show Veronica Mars, a crime solving drama. It is almost like Apatow chooses the insider of his jokes to play his jokes. It is as if life imitates art. More recently Bell has also been featured in tabloids for dating a comedian who has a reputation very much like her on-screen rock star boyfriend. No doubt Apatow has chosen the right actress for his Sarah Marshall. Segel may be a pretty good writer and a likable guy, but his acting skills are pretty much limited to putting on a cute puppy dog face. The only standout performance belongs to Mila Kunis. She has set herself apart nicely from her role on That 70s Show. In the movie, she plays the hotel receptionist Rachel. She is beautiful, warm and smart. There is certainly a bright future, I hope, for her in the show business.

Sarah Marshall is not up on the same level as The 40 Year Old Virgin, but it is certainly much better than Knocked Up and probably even superior to Superbad (depending on your raunchy taste). It is not going to be easily forgotten.

Redbelt

David Mamet’s newest feature Redbelt is a real dud and a bore. It is sad to watch a once top-notch playwright, screenwriter and director all dried up in creativity and simply repeat all his old tricks with farfetched scenarios.

In Redbelt, Mike Terry (played by Chiwetel Ejiofor) is a mixed martial arts instructor. His martial arts center is in financial trouble, but he refuses to participate in prize bouts to make easy money. As in many other Mamet movies, unexpected events (or are they?) leads the protagonist into some kind of moral dilemma.

Starting with The Spanish Prisoner, Mamet seems to be on a downward slide. He tries to make taut, twisty, modern film noir-ish thriller, but the plot always stretches the believability. With Redbelt, it reaches to the level of absurd. There are many little things going on at the first 20 minutes of the movie. Knowing that Mamet likes to set us up early for later twists, I paid attention, maybe too much attention, to all the little details. Nothing I noticed played out in the end. It led me to question why Mamet did close-up shots of so much inconsequential stuff.

Mamet has always been known for his sharp dialogue and fascination with masculinity. In Redbelt, Mike Terry has such impeccable moral standard that he may as well be living on a different planet. I doubt any audience can connect with this character. Chiwetel Ejiofor, in my opinion, is the perfect heir to Denzel Washington if people know how to pronounce his name. (It should be pronounced as Chew-tell Edge-four.) However, even with his prodigious talent, he cannot save this mess of script.

Redbelt does not deserve any belt at all.

The Bank Job

You know the movie industry is in a sad state when a mediocre heist movie The Bank Job is hailed as “the most entertaining heist movie I’ve seen in years!” by Richard Roeper, co-host of At The Movies With Ebert & Roeper.

The 1971 Baker Street bank robbery in London was one of the most remarkable and daring bank jobs that shocked Britain and was never solved. Writers Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais wrote The Bank Job to explain what they think might have happened. It is very well for people to come up with their theory about the robbery, but for some inexplicable reason, Clement and La Frenais leave certain parts of the aftermath unexplained. It is head-scratchingly frustrating when the writers have already implied a conspiracy theory that will make Oliver Stone proud, but they wouldn’t speculate who may be behind the murders of two minor robbery team members.

Director Roger Donaldson creates a right 1970s atmosphere with brick-size walkie-talkies, bell-bottom pants, leather jacket and long hair, but the script is just not that exciting. The filmmakers have a real-life bank robbery mystery on hand, but the script feels flat. At many points of the movie, one may expect certain kind of twist and turns, but it never happens and the film proceeds pretty much as one may have expected at the beginning.

I do like the cast a lot. Jason Statham plays the ring leader Terry, another tough guy role on his acting belt, although this one is much more grounded than his other over-the-top action characters such as the ones in Transporter series and Crank. Terry is a small time crook and a family man. Statham inhabits this guy like it is a tailor-made suit for him. He really is my favorite bald action hero. A couple of my favorite British actors also play important roles here. Stephen Campbell Moore, who proved himself as leading man material in his film debut Bright Young Things, plays Terry’s sidekick. I hope I will see him more often on big screen in American theaters. Sultry Saffron Burrows is the ex-girlfriend to both Terry and his sidekick. Burrows made her sexy splash in 1999 shark movie Deep Blue Sea, but despite her beautiful face and decent acting chops, never managed to crack the American market and make a bigger name for herself. The role in Job can serve as a perfect transition stage for her to play older and more mature roles.

Maybe I am too critical of The Bank Job. With so much trash in the theater, I guess one can do much worse than The Bank Job.

The Year My Parents Went on Vacation

It is always hard to resist a film with a little kid bonding with an old man, no matter how predictable the result may be. The Year My Parents Went on Vacation is such a sweet yet predictable tale.

The story takes place in 1970, a tumultuous and exciting time for Brazil. Brazil was under the rule of an authoritarian military regime and the Brazil soccer team was trying to win their third World Cup. The main character in the movie, a boy named Mauro is caught in the soccer fever overshadowed by his parents’ apparent uneasiness about the political situation. His parents drop him off with his paternal grandfather in a Jewish neighborhood and tell him that they are going on a vacation. They are in such a hurry that they simply drop him off the curb, expecting that he would find his grandfather inside the apartment. Unknown to the parents, the grandfather had just suffered a heart attack and died in the hospital. Mauro is left all alone with a kind old neighbor Shlomo to look after him. Soon the whole Jewish community has taken on the responsibility to take care of Mauro.

Writer-director Cao Hamburger compensates for the cliché scenario with believable dialogue, low-key naturalism and a solid cast. The portrayal of the Jewish neighborhood is so warm that you wish you could be a member. We also get firsthand experience about Brazilian soccer fever. Even though people may have different political beliefs, soccer is a bond that ties them all together. In one memorable scene, a group of leftist students are watching a match between Brazil and Czechoslovakia. One student proclaims that a victory for Czechoslovakia will be a victory for socialism. Yet when Brazil scores, all the students cannot contain their excitement for their country. All the elders in the synagogue also gather in front of their tiny TV and cheer for every shot Brazil makes. In a country so divided and oppressed for political freedom, a game gives them so much hope.

One of the producers for the film is Fernando Meirelles, director of 2002 Brazil hit City of God. Vacation cannot be more different from that movie. City of God dazzles the audience with its style and fast paced editing while Vacation is slow moving and realistic with a traditional story structure. I really wish that Vacation could have soared above the old-fashioned boy/old man bonding storyline, but it doesn’t offer any new or surprising twists to an often-tried formula. Unfortunately, Vacation is just OK, though I still think this film is worth viewing by people eager for a little diversion from Hollywood blockbuster and curious about a different culture and a different era.