If you want to live you will...read.

Ok maybe not but I thought it was clever. No? Ok.

So I'm just going to throw this out there...I did not originally have any intentions to see this film. But then I became intrigued and really wanted to know the ending and surprised that no one had leaked it before the film came out. Anddd...this weekend consisted of too little sleep and a little too much booze so I figured I needed something that doesn't require too much concentration. Needless to say...that is what I got. (I also want to point out that my bff had been absolutely adamant against -alliteration!- the viewing of this movie but was eventually swayed to the dark side. A decision that I am sure he regrets now.)

So apparently director DJ Caruso (Taking Lives, Disturbia) has this thing for Hitchcock so supposedly Disturbia is to Rear Window as Eagle Eye is to North by Northwest. Um...aside from similar "being chased by planes" sequences, I failed to see the connection between the latter two films. Then again, I am not a film student so someone feel free to educate me please. What I did see was more along the lines of Michael Bay than Hitchcock, especially in entertainment value.

Essentially, the story is about how human dependence on technology is going to destroy the world (sound familiar?). Shia LaBeouf is protagonist Jerry Shaw (the name is repeated throughout the movie so often that I'm pretty sure it has been permanently seared into my brain) and Michelle Monaghan plays Rachel Holloman. They are two strangers thrown together by a mysterious woman contacting, monitoring and controlling them via the phone or any other random everyday technological device we humans are entirely dependant on. Hunted by all sorts of gov't people, they have to figure out what exactly is going on if they want to live.

So as stated above, the main reason I wanted to watch this movie was to know WHO IS THE WOMAN ON THE PHONE?! Needless to say...I did find out and it did not blow my mind. I won't ruin it for everyone else so if you're really desperate to know...watch the movie. Or go read some other blog (themoviespoiler.com is a good one). Or just ask me in person if you happen to know who I am. I can tell you that the mysterious lady is voiced by actress Julianne Moore. Yep...now you're going to listen real closely aren't you?

Anyway, the first hour of the film definitely made my adrenaline sky rocket. Huge scenes of flipping cars, endless explosions, car chases, running, screaming. Stuff that really gets you going...I think I might have been panting from the exertion of following everything that was going on. The bff literally had his hand over his mouth the entire time. But then it just descended into all kinds of madness...albeit predictable chaos (if such a thing exists). The movie was pretty absurd to begin with, but then it just becomes too ridiculous. Too over the top. And altogether too predictable.

I will shamelessly admit that I like Shia LaBeouf in a 'I want him to be my new bff' kind of way because c'mon...he's witty and a pretty decent actor and seems pretty cool to boot as long as we don't let him do any driving (sorry, had to do it). But all that aside, he is entirely unconvincing as an adult action hero. I know this is supposedly his transition from boy to man, but I think it might be a little too early. Watching Even Steven jump and fight and tackle grown men was just not believable...and trust me, I tried. Transformers worked because Shia was essentially a boy playing with toys (really big toys that had the potential to destroy the world but still...toys). And the Transformers did all the heavy lifting (and are just really cool - who can't wait for the second one?!). So...sorry Shia (and all you other boys out there) but sporting facial hair and a blazer does not automatically make you a man. As for Michelle Monaghan? One word: overused. This woman keeps popping up in all kinds of movies and has yet to impress me with a single performance. Plus she seems a bit too old for our little Shia. No real chemistry there.

Overall, I can't complain too much since it was pretty much what I expected - mindless entertainment with no lasting effects or value. Then again, the bff said a cell phone rang while he was in the john after the movie and he had to chuckle to himself. If anything, I might think twice now before answering a call from an unknown number...or not.

Two for the Price of None.

Random note: The real date of this post should be 9.14.08 as that is when I actually saw these movies and wrote about them. Didn't have a blog then though so it's going up now.

So being a broke college student, I pulled the two for the price of one movie deal. And by deal...I mean I paid for one film and snuck into another after. (Yes, I might have a little too much free time on my hands.) Well at least I'm not the only one that reaps the benefits of my deceitful ways...you lucky nonexistent readers now get two reviews for the price of well...none. Thrilled I'm sure.

Fargo, The Big Lebowski and No Country for Old Men are tough acts to follow. The Coen brothers' newest comedic farce doesn't quite make the grade, but is still far from disappointment. Dark. Hilarious. Surprising. Highly entertaining. Burn After Reading is made in typical Coens fashion though lacks the impact of the previous films (nothing beats 'the dude'). The story involves two (witless might be too strong here) rather "slow" gym trainers, Chad and Linda (Brad Pitt and Frances McDormand), who stumble upon "classified" gov't secrets and attempt to blackmail the CIA agent (John Malkovich) who owns it. Needless to say, they get in way over their heads and chaos ensues. Sounds like your basic action/espionage flick right? Wrong. What follows is a convoluted mess of mishandling and misunderstandings that even the CIA can't sort out. What exactly is resolved at the end of the film? Not sure exactly. The Coen brothers seem to be making something out of essentially...nothing. Yet, you can't help but be sucked in. Just when you think the film is getting a little slow...you're hit with something totally unexpected that makes you jump in your seat...in shock? In horror? In disgust? Who knows...who cares...it works.

What can't be denied are the characters in this film. Brad Pitt gives one of his most entertaining lighthearted performances since well...ever (anyone else notice this guy usually does his best work playing something dark and twisty?) playing the lovably clueless Chad. Frances McDormand is brilliant as Linda, Chad's self-absorbed image obsessed partner in crime. Even J.K. Simmons steals a few scenes as the CIA superior who is just as baffled as the audience as to what exactly is going on as events unfold. And of course 'Burn' would not be nearly as successful without John Malkovich's angry outbursts and the oversexed womanizing ways of George Clooney's random federal marshal character Harry Pfarrer.

So what did we learn at the end of this film? Perhaps nothing. Perhaps that Burn After Reading is still worth a trip to the theaters. And if nothing else...to always double-check the "security of your shit."

Moving on. What am I glad to have not paid for? Diane English's (um...yea I'm at a complete loss as to what else she did. Anyone?) The Women. As much as I enjoy doing and discussing womanly things, I couldn't help but be bored throughout 75% of this film.

You have your generic women characters...the single high-powered career woman sacrificing everything including a friendship to get ahead (Annette Bening), the messy unkempt stay-at-home mom who has way too many kids and is pregnant again (Debra Messing), the lesbian...'nuff said (Jada Pinkett Smith), and the angelic wife who is being cheated on and needs all the support of her friends (Meg Ryan). Sooo basically the story goes like this...husband having an affair with some hot young thing (Eva Mendes)...women rally around wronged wife for support. Friend betrays friend. Drama. Tears. Wife comes back stronger/better than before and discovers herself in the process. Everyone makes up in the end. Oops...did I give too much away? Or is that not the exact predictable plot of almost every chick flick? Then again, this is a remake of a 1939 film of the same name. I think we might be running low on original ideas people. Just sayin'.

It is ironic that a theme of the film seems to be the over emphasis society places on women to look and be perfect when all the actresses in the film look like they've gone under the knife more than a few times. Meg Ryan and Annette Bening (who I love and adore but come on...) don't even look real anymore. At least we got a cameo by a very realistic looking Carrie Fisher. Barely recognizable actually. We've definitely come a long way since the gold-bikini wearing Princess Leia days.
VS.

And English was NOT kidding around with the title. Absolutely NO men appear in this film. Even all the extras on set were women. I'm down with the girl power and all but I'm not gonna lie...some male eye candy might have kept me a little more captivated.

Ok so not to be a total Debbie Downer, I have to admit there were a few brief moments when I found myself smiling. Mostly when Debra Messing's character is giving birth...(I know it doesn't sound it, but that part was actually funny) and when Mrs. Will Smith was getting all lesbian (or was that just...awkward chuckling?). And to be fair...'Burn' might have been a tough act to follow.

So yes, if you're looking for some quality bonding time with the girlfriends that doesn't involve talking to each other...or just have some time to kill and happened to already be in the theater having just watched a different movie...then by all means...I say go for it. Otherwise...you might or might not have some better things to do with your life.

Hello.

Reality bites. (And no, I'm not just referring to the 1994 film starring Indie Queen Winona Ryder.) And to remedy this issue with reality, I've chosen to spend a considerable portion of my free time outside of it.

So welcome to the confessions of a film addict.

Mostly because I enjoy any activity that allows me to procrastinate and some pushing from the bff (who will probably be the only one to actually read this thing)...I have decided to essentially take a break from life by blogging about my breaks from life.

Please keep in mind that I actually know NOTHING about movies other than the fact that I love watching them and have watched a considerably large number of them. I am not a film student nor have I ever really studied film so there probably won't be any discussions about how meaning is derived from the subtle nuances created by a certain lighting technique blah blah blah. If you just want a simple breakdown of what a movie is about and if I think you should go see it or not...then this is the place for you. Otherwise...I guess this is really just a place for me.

So feel free to disagree or agree or just leave random comments or...not. Thanks.