Xavier Samuel Has Given Us a Reason to Care About Eclipse

In case you haven't heard yet, Australian actor Xavier Samuel has been cast as Riley in Eclipse, the third installment of the Twilight Saga. When it was rumored awhile ago that Channing Tatum was wanted for the part, I asked my Twilight-loving (I wouldn't call them obsessed--they realize that Robert Pattinson and Edward Cullen are two distinct people) friends who Riley was in the novel (they mercifully let me stop after New Moon) and they were a bit surprised that they wanted Channing for a role that was so tiny and insignificant. Apparently, he's some kind of minion of Victoria (played by Rachel Lefevre in the first two and now taken over by Bryce Dallas Howard in a controversial firing last week) who loves her so much he'll do anything for her. I'm guessing the role has been expanded somewhat since the unknown-in-America Samuel has been getting quite a bit of publicity and the whole Lefevre/Howard replacement was deemed necessary since the shoot couldn't work around ten days that Lefevre was missing. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't just the gossip sites catering to the Twitards's need to know everything about every small day detail of the film adaptations.

It's not like I can really blame them, though. I find it fascinating that so many people can be that caught up in a series which is complete and utter rubbish. The only reason I particularly care to see New Moon at this point is for my girl Kristen Stewart (Team Bella all the way) + Anna Kendrick + Kellan Lutz + Taylor "Jailbait" Lautner's abs + the chance to make fun of the movie after it is done. I'm sure by the time Eclipse comes in 2010, all of that will be old hat so I'm glad that Xavier Samuel has come to give me something to look forward. Both Stale Popcorn and The Rural Juror have praised his acting talents in Australian films like September and Newcastle, but since I haven't had the opportunity to see any of his work, I'll just have to settle with looking at him. And if you can call this "settling," well, this world might not be so bad after all.

(Pics courtesy of Just Jared)

Short Rants on The Ugly Truth

Robert Luketic is not a household name, but he'll always have a special place in my heart for crafting what I think are two of the best light comedies of the decade: Legally Blonde and Monster in Law. So when I heard he was returning to the genre with The Ugly Truth after the dismally inept blackjack drama 21, I would be lying if I said I wasn't a little bit excited. Add in Katherine Heigl, who has been growing on me since 27 Dresses I'm not, the walking sex that is Gerard Butler and the fact that the film is dirty enough to warrant an R-rating and you have me even more interested. So what in the hell happened? saying it was as big of a disaster as Bride Wars (very few rom-coms can match the atrociousness of that one), but it failed to even meet 27 Dresses's mediocre heights. I enjoyed the rauchiness and felt that it was a nice change of pace to the usual overly cutesy nature of the genre, but underneath the dick jokes (which everyone loves and don't you deny it), nothing about The Ugly Truth was funny. Long stretches would go by and I would just sit there waiting for something amusing to happen. I think I laughed more during the last ten minutes of Obsessed than I did throughout this one. I think one it's major problems was that there weren't any interesting supporting characters, no Ruby's or Paulette's on the sidelines waiting to get laughs from any line thrown their way. It certainly would have distracted from the fact that Katherine Heigl is basically repeating the same control freak bitch act she's done in her past two films and it is starting to wear thin or the whole "men are from Mars, women are from Venus but they really are similar and, golly gee, can get along with each other" plot is just the same tired rom-com formula in jazzy new dressings. I certainly don't expect to be truly wowed by a movie like this, but is it really too much to ask for something more? Or, you know, actually comedy? C-

EDIT: I forgot to mention something else that irked me with not only The Ugly Truth, but with a lot of movies of late: terrible soundtrack choices. This film opens up with Katy Perry's "Hot 'N Cold" which would be fine if it, I don't know, related to the film somehow other than the fact that it's something people will recognize and start grooving to. I just wish that whoever was picking the music in these films would be a little more creative and search for stuff that made sense for that particular film, not something that can be interchangeable with ten other movies (like Flo Rida's "Right Round" which plays in the end credits of bothThe Ugly Truth and The Hangover).

15 Beautiful Frames from George Michael's 'Freedom'

Christophe Honoré and His Destructive Direction

I've tried to like Christophe Honoré's films--really, I have. His New Wave sensibilities seem to be right up this Truffaut and Godard fanboy's alley, but nothing I've seen of his has convinced me that he is in the same league with those heavy hitters. First was Ma Mère, that horribly pretentious, "sexually liberating" Bertolucci rip-off which is so mind-numbingly stupid and confusing it's still probably one of the ten worst films I've ever seen. Love Songs was considerably better (then again, anything short of a remake of The Bucket List would have been in comparison) but I wasn't as enamored with it as many other bloggers I read were. The musical scenes were nicely done and stuck with the low key nature of the film, but the way Honoré reduces the actors performance to a mere showcasing of random emotions, selected on whim to suit the needs of the scene rather than the development of the character drove me up a wall.


And now we come to Dans Paris. I saw a trailer for it awhile ago and thought it looked like fun, so I decided to give it a whirl, hoping in vein that this would be the movie where I finally "got" what people see in him. And...well, I'm still waiting for that movie. It's not that Dans Paris is an atrocity on the level of Ma Mè, it's rather that it failed to reach even the mediocre heights of Love Songs that most disappointed me. And, once again, it's in Honoré's direction where the film became a massive disappointment. He uses many of the techniques pioneered by the New Wave greats, but he fails to understand and utilize them appropriately. The beginning, for example, serves as the catalyst for the rest of the story and one of the major missteps in the film. Paul (Romain Duris) has moved away from his family in the city to live in the country with his girlfriend Alice (Alice Butaud), a relationship which has begun to dissolve rapidly. But instead of selecting a logical way to represent this, Honoré goes off the deep end and keeps cutting from the couple getting along, to them getting in an argument, to them having sex in the most random way possible. I honestly couldn't keep track of what was going on and, during the happy parts, Paul had gotten a new girlfriend. There's one scene in particular that is clearly an homage to the bedroom scene in Breathless where Belmondo and Seberg just kinda sit around and talk about random things for 20 minutes that simply doesn't work because of how erratic it all is. Paul and Anna go through all the highs and lows I mentioned earlier, with all the "boring" in-between parts edited out so that all we see are these highs and lows (angry, sad, happy, etc.). Why it works for Godard and not Honoré is that Godard was careful never to cut too much away. Belmondo and Seberg may have gone through the highs and lows, but he was careful to build up to them, not simply going for broke just to get it out of the way.

Can I just talk about how ridiculously stupid that ending is for a minute? I understand the point of Anna's character and how she's the only one Paul opens up to about his sister, but why on earth does she stay in the apartment all night? You would think that after being completely ditched by a guy you would be so humiliated that you would just leave right away and not stay the whole night, even after the guy comes home and would rather talk with this brother when he knows you're there. It may make sense in Honoré World, but, in reality, it's completely aggravating and plain dumb.

The fact that Honoré manages to get top-name French talent to appear in his films, including his muse Louis Garrel who has appeared in Honoré's last four films, continues to astound me. In the case of Dans Paris, the characters are strongly written and the actors are more than up to the challenge, but Honoré undermines them every step of the way. It's like someone offering a chocolate-lover an enormous piece of triple layer, triple chocolate cake and then informing you immediately afterwards that you are going to go on a three-mile run. It's simply not fair to offer something so tantalizing to any actor and then pull the rug out on them like that. I still have another Honoré film to see--La Belle Personne, simply waiting for English subtitles to appear online--so I'm sincerely hoping that that one doesn't descend to the idiocy that is Dans Paris (and Honoré learns to loosen up a bit). C

Twatters

I didn't think so at first, but I'm really starting to enjoy Twitter. Where else can I post a minute by minute bitchy recap to the American Idol finale? But, as with any other social networking site, there are bound to be some idiots around to bug the crap out of me with their stupidity.

Case in point, last night. I had just finished watching In This Our Life, a 1942 John Huston film in which Bette Davis plays a sociopathic southern woman who runs off with her sister's husband and ends up causing grief for everyone around her. It's a typically fantastic performance from Ms. Davis and I was so dumbstruck by her audacity and sheer ballsiness to portray a character so relentlessly evil, I tweeted about it:

Now, honestly, I trust that you are smart enough to realize what I mean by that, right? Well, apparently there was someone out there who really didn't get it and decided to reply back to me:

I have no idea who this person is or why on earth she is following me, but how can you be that dense? No, LALadyfinger, I'm so fucking retarded that I thought In This Our Life was a documentary and that Bette Davis really was a sociopath who treats Olivia de Havilland (among others) like shit.

Meet the New Divas

One of the most lingering memories from my childhood is listening to my copy of the Divas Live '98 CD over and over again in my room, just soaking up all that diva goodness. What is Divas Live '98, you ask? Well, it was a concert special on VH1 that brought together on one single stage--wait for it--Gloria Estefan, Shania Twain, Celine Dion, Mariah Carey and The Queen of Soul, Bitch, Aretha Franklin. You can't get any more amazing then that, can you? The greatest thing about it, besides the amazing music, was that the show was done live so there are these great impromptu bits of banter in between each song where the diva would talk to the audience. I listened to that CD so many times (is it any wonder I grew up to become the diva I am today?) that I can still recall great bits and pieces of these moments For instance, there's Gloria being humble and claiming that she's more of a "divette" than a full diva. Or Shania letting us know, in this really off-hand way, "If it wasn't for music class, I probably would have been a high school dropout." Or after the Aretha and Mariah duet when Mariah loudly exclaims in jubilant praise, "ALL HAIL the Queen of Soul!" to which Aretha replies, like she doesn't give a shit in the slightest, "Ms. Carey...Mariah." Oh, and did I mention the fabulous music? Mariah with gospel choir in tow for "Make It Happen." Gloria running through an amazing 5 minute megamix of all her hits. Shania making me fall in love with "Man! I Feel Like a Woman" for the first time. The aforementioned Mariah and Aretha duet. Celine with special guest Carole King ripping into "The Reason." All five going over-the-top with falsettos and theatricality in the finale of "(You Make Me Feel Like a) Natural Woman." VH1 tried to imitate its success a couple of times afterwards, even getting TINA and Cher for Divas Live '99, but something was always sorely lacking in comparison with the '98 version and they finally gave up.

Until now, that is. About a week ago, VH1 announced that they were bringing back Divas Live this year for the first time since the odd 2005 incarnation. So, without further ado, here's your 2009 lineup:


Er, okay. Listen, I love me some Leona and Adele's got a great set of pipes on her (I'm not even going to start on the inclusion of Miley Cyrus as one of the Divas because I could probably go on for five lengthy paragraphs about the ridiculousness of that), but I don't think any of them (besides Kelly) have been around long enough to earn a spot in this lineup. I can understand that VH1 is trying to make it hip with names that the youngsters will recognize and (hopefully) tune in to watch, but I think they're completely missing the point of why the '98 lineup was so special. Seeing Mariah, Gloria, Shania, Celine & Aretha on stage together was a celebration of everything that was good with the 90's with some of the biggest voices who made it so great. It's simply to early to be proclaiming Leona and Adele to be equal with Shania and Mariah. Give them five or seven years and if they're still around, making hit after hit, then we can talk about including them. Besides, any show that gives Miley the chance to belt "It's the climbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb" at the top of her (limited) vocal range to prove that she can "sing" is bound to be a nightmare waiting to happen.

If you were running Divas Live '09 and had to assemble a bunch of divas for one night only, who would you choose?

I would stick with Kelly Clarkson since she's practically defined the 2000's. Add in Beyoncé because she is the epitome of a Diva (in a good way, obviously) and everything this show was meant to celebrate. Pink would be a good pick to give the music a little variety (something which the '09 lineup is clearly lacking). Bette Midler would be awesome as well, although I'm not sure her voice is still good enough to compete with these younger gals. Still, her attitude alone would make up for any vocal deficiencies.

Blake Lively is the Whore of Babylon

Just look at the evidence below!

Okay, so I realize that she's filming an episode of Gossip Girl and it's really Serena who is a big fat whore, but isn't it fun to call her that? Working or not, I'm completely jealous that she's making out with the two hottest guys on the show (off-screen boyfriend Penn Badgley and Leighton Meester's man Sebastian Stan). NOT FAIR.

Yeah, I said it, Sebastien.

(Pictures via Just Jared)

Jonas With a Chance

Thanks to Netflix on Demand, I decided to continue my never ending investigation of today's tween subculture by watching a couple of shows from the Disney Channel. I decided on the Brothers Jonas's latest attempt to dominate every single artistic medium out there simply titled Jonas and Demi Lovato's show Sonny With a Chance. Remembering the poor excuses for acting I witnessed in Camp Rock, I didn't have high hopes for either of them but both of them actually turned out better than I ever imagined.

I'll get Jonas out of the way first since it's obviously the weakest of the two. The show is about three brothers (Kevin, Joe and Nick) who--shockingly--are in a mega successful rock band but somehow find the time to go to a normal high school with students who have known them so long don't really care that they are famous and pretty much leave them alone. Joe's BFF Stella (the fabulous Chelsea Staub) is their wardrobe mistress and shoulder for the brothers to come cry on with their various (usually uninteresting and Disney show-specific) problems. If this sounds a bit formulaic and obvious, it is. Jonas is nothing more than Disney's most recent attempt to cash in on a hot commodity without regards to originality or more than six minutes of brainstorming. I know that this show is just another way for them to make money, but it's entirely obvious they don't want to be actors nor care about really learning the craft. They are musicians first and foremost so Jonas is, pretty much, a complete waste of time in that regards.


One of the biggest problems that Jonas faces is that many of the deliberate "jokes" that they write for the Jonases don't work and are simply frustratingly, jaw-droppingly bad. Take for example the moment when Nick comes rushing in to tell the guys that their favorite backup singer can't work on their new demo because she has a frog in her throat. No, literally, Nick explains, a frog in her throat; she has to get a "frogectomy." I mean, seriously? Who on earth writes rubbish like that and then expects any actor to try and make it work? The Jonases fair much better with jokes that play into the "it's a TV show" aspect of the show, such as when they repeatedly break the fourth wall and address the audience or when Kevin decides to spontaneously break into song and an extra walks across the screen to hand him a guitar while a spotlight comes on. For every two or three lame jokes that practically thud, there is one legitimate laugh that comes from its self-reflective nature.

Not surprisingly, the Jonases are the least interesting actors on the show. Kevin is definitely the most fun of the three with his dumb schtick (he has a comedic element that's actually reminiscent of Justin Timberlake at times). Joe occasionally gets some good lines and he's definitely better than he was in Camp Rock but it's hardly great. Nick, with his serious nature, is "The Kelly" in the show (named after the girl in my high school who every year had the lead role in the play but it was always as the dull straight person in a farce full of supporting nutjobs) but, with the right push, he could either develop that into a Buster Keaton-style stone face or a Victoria Beckham way of deadpanning everything (There was this great Beckham-esque exchange in the first episode where the girl Nick is crushing on tells him he has a great smile to which he replies, "Shh, it will ruin my image.").

Obligatory pause for a pretty picture of Nick.

The real star of the show, however, is Chelsea Staub as the perpetually crazed Stella. She has the sweetness around here that reminds me of La Tisdale on the few episodes of The Suite Life I've seen but she also really lays into the physical comedy bits she is given. When she bets her Jonas-obsessed friend Macey (a lovely Nicole Anderson) that she can go longer without texting than Macey can go without talking about the Jonases, she runs the gamut of usual withdrawal symptoms but she really goes for them and the moment when she finally gives in rings with genuine hilarity. When the Jonas Brothers finally grow out of this Disney crap and concentrate fully on their music, it will be Chelsea Staub that we will be watching and wondering what she will do next to impress us. C

I've heard Sonny With a Chance described as "30 Rock for the tweens" but I found it hard to believe that any show airing on the Disney Channel could be anywhere as good as the best show on TV currently. I was wrong. Don't misunderstand me, 30 Rock will always be leaps and bounds smarter and funnier than Sonny, but for a Disney show aimed at tweens, this show is impeccably well-constructed and acted.

The Liz Lemon of this show is Sonny Munroe (played by Demi Lovato), the fresh-faced newcomer from Wisconsin to the cast of So Random!, a teen sketch comedy show obviously based on my generation's revered All That. The pilot episode deals with Sonny's integration into the cast and ends up preaching some nonsense about getting along with people that I've been hearing since elementary school. Thankfully, that is as close as this show ever gets to moralizing. The rest of the episodes are jam-packed full of fun as Sonny, being the Liz Lemon, gets in trouble, makes said situation worse and then rallies the cast--which includes the Jenna Maroney to Demi's Liz, self-absorbed, delusional diva Tawni Hart (portrayed brilliantly by Tiffany Thorton), the usual duo of fools Nico and Grady (Brandon Smith and Doug Brochu) and the young oddball (Allisyn Ashley Arm, who's mugginess and child actor tics are irritating to say the least)--to solve the problem. The premise is oh-so-simple, but you can't even imagine how many laughs they wring from it.


The characters on Sonny With a Chance are nothing more than stereotypes we've seen countless times before, but part of what sets the show apart is how committed these actors are to them. Demi starts the show off kind of rough, relying on that huge smile of her through much of the first episode to project niceness. As the season progresses, however, she starts to let loose and get into the (anarchic) spirit of the show. With a lesser actress than Tiffany Thorton, Tawni would have ended up as big of a travesty as Meghan Martin's diva/mean girl in Camp Rock. Thorton knows exactly when to go all out for the big laugh and when to pull back so she doesn't become obnoxious or overdone. But no one deals more with stereotyping than Sterling Knight (whom you may remember as Zac Efron's son in 17 Again) as narcissistic tween heartthrob Chad Dylan Cooper, star of the hit tween drama Mackenzie Falls which shoots in the studio next to So Random!. Given all the douchey characteristics he is given, it would have been easy for Knight to cop out and try to sneak some sympathy every now and again to make him more likable. Thankfully, he doesn't and plays the jerkiness for every laugh possible.

Obligatory pause to admire Chad Dylan Cooper (you know he would demand it).

I'm also impressed that any single episode of Sonny With a Chance is more structured than any Disney Channel movie released in the past four years. Take for example the episode titled "Battle of the Networks' Stars." The episode starts with Demi sitting at a table in the cafeteria with what she thinks are her co-stars. It turns out that they are simply look alikes so she heads to another table and runs into the same problem. Finally the real castmates come in and they have no idea what is going on. It tuns out that Chad is directing the biopic of his life (appropriately titled Chad Dylan Cooper: The Chad Dylan Cooper Story) and is holding auditions for people to play the members of So Random!. The castmates protest and eventually Chad gives in--partly anyways. He still makes Sonny tryout for the part of herself but in the end chooses Selena Gomez (playing herself) to play Sonny in the movie. So, Selena decides to study up on Sonny, following her and mimicing her every move, and decides to call her out on her love for Chad. Sonny, of course, denies this and when Selena brings it up again with Chad, citing that she needs to know for "character motivation," he denies it as well. The episode comes to a head when Sonny comes on the set of the movie and starts giving Selena direction on how to play her. When she starts overstepping the boundaries and yells "Cut!" during a scene, Chad gets angry at her and they proceed to have a shouting match through their megaphones while standing not more than 10 feet apart. Selena then stomps off the set after they both turn on her and mentions something about doing Camp Hip Hop. Chad then offers the role back to Sonny and she ends up taking it. At the very end of the episode, the castmates are all gathered around the TV watching Selena in Camp Hip Hop and it turns out to be a thinly disguised version of Demi's Camp Rock, complete with Jonas Brothers look-alikes and everything! The layers of comedy that Sonny consistently builds on never less than impresses me. The way that the show is able to laugh at itself and not take itself so seriously is one of the reasons why I think this show will appeal to people beyond its target demographic. The show may not be completely perfect (I could live without the dumb sidekicks even if I understand their purpose) but when it's right (that being anytime Demi, Tiffany or Sterling appear in a scene) it's damn close to being one of the funniest shows on TV, Disney Channel or not. A-

And You Thought Judy's Pain Pill Addiction Was the Worst Thing to Happen to Her

In case you're eyes are still functioning after shoving pencils into them, here is Judy's version to wash that nastiness away.

The Post Where I Give the People What They Want

It's been a bit quiet around here lately and I'm a bit concerned. Where have all my little chatterboxes gone? But rest assured that this isn't some cheap ploy to warrant sympathy comments or to chastise you for not loving me enough. I decided long ago to simply write for myself and not focus on the now just to get hits and/or comments. This is obvious since the last couple of posts have focused on a three year old wannabe Oscar contender, a Pier Paolo Pasolini film that even Pasolini fans haven't heard of and the most important title cards of 1960's cinema. Not exactly high on everyone's priority list in the same week that the latest Harry Potter film came out, huh?

But don't fret, loyal readers. Dame James knows just the thing to get this place buzzing again: pictures of Zac Efron (roaming the town with cast members of his latest film) and everyone's favorite piece of jailbait, Nick Jonas (playing baseball and in a promo with his brothers--conveniently edited out by moi--for the upcoming Teen Choice Awards). Just think of me as Spike Lee and this as the Inside Man to my previous Bamboozled--the fun work after the "important" stuff.



Side note: Is it just me or does Zac look really short in comparison to that other dude? I know it may just be a visual trick, but I wonder if I would be the Nicole Kidman in our relationship.

(Photos via Just Jared)

Rants on The History Boys

It's movies like Nicholas Hytner's The History Boys that make me grateful I live in one of the laziest countries in the world in the world, education-wise. I don't know what I would have done if I actually had to work hard and study in high school like these boys did, preparing for the rigorous exams to get in prestigious British schools Oxford and Cambridge. You want to know how I got into my college? I filled out a one page, double sided application and wrote a one page, double spaced essay that I completely BS'ed about why I wanted to go to the school.

The real central conflict of The History Boys isn't whether or not these exams are overkill but what exactly is the proper education the students should be receiving and whether or not these exams are the true mark of their intelligence. Should it be the cut and dry, rote memorization of historical dates, people and places taught by Mrs. Lintott (Frances de la Tour)? How about the more "general studies" approach done by the beloved Hector (Richard Griffiths) which involves memorizing poetry and reading literature while, in the lighter moments, singing "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered," performing the climax to Brief Encounter or conducting a skit set in a brothel en français. Or, should it be the odd synthesis of the two introduced by the school's newest teacher, Irwin (Stephen Campbell Moore), that teaches the students to learn about a wide variety of topics but only really get the gist of them, then combine that with the history lessons while never forgetting to approach any question that comes their way from an alternate viewpoint so that they will stand out from the pack? I think it's pretty clear what writer Alan Bennett thinks the right answer is, but, as with most films, there is more to be gained in the journey than in the inevitable conclusion.

The History Boys was a major hit on both the London stage and Broadway and it's readily apparent that this film has its roots in the theatre. In fact, it's often one of the film's biggest problems. A good portion of the scenes (most of the classroom ones, for instance) feel like they just set up a camera on stage and let the actors go for the millionth time (everyone in the film was from the original stage cast). The History Boys and director Hytner fall victim to the same problems Ron Howard ran across with Frost/Nixon. They have a highly regarded play and excellent actors who have done their business 100 times before, so they think they don't have to do anything to inject any life into it. Well, no matter what Hollywood and the Academy tells them, they're completely wrong. The director's job is to have a point of view and to get that across in the most interesting way possible, not sit back and yell "Cut!"

It seems to me that if they had gotten someone else besides Hytner (who directed the original stage version) and Bennett to work on this film, there might have been something new to glean from in those various aspects. Another edit of the script, for instance, would have been nice since both the discussion of the Holocaust and Lintott's rant about the lack of female voices over the course of history didn't work. They're both nicely written and performed well by the actors, but they served little to no purpose to the overall story other than as random excursion in academia to prove how "smart" Bennett is.


The theatricality of the piece also affects a couple of the performances (Clive Merrison's over-affected Headmaster, for one), but the largest (and I swear I didn't mean for that to be a pun) culprit is Richard Griffiths's larger-than-life portrayal of the beloved Hector. While good for the most part, he's so loud and overbearing and perfectly annunciates every single word that comes out of his mouth, it becomes immediately clear that he's still playing to the back row. This is film, Mr. Griffiths, there's no need for that phoney, excessively stylized demeanor. It makes you wonder if the powers that be were just too afraid to tell him to tone it down for the camera since he's "obviously" brilliant because he won all of those theatre awards for this performance.

If it sounds like I'm a complete hater, I really don't mean to be because there are plenty of things to celebrate in this film adaptation. Aside from Griffith's irritating performance complete with a side of ham, the acting from the rest of the cast is top-notch. While it can't be denied that some of these History Boys have been reduced to mere background characters to fill up the stage (er, set), the ones that are given any time to actually do anything achieve small wonders. Samuel Barnett, a dead ringer for Lucas Grabeel, has some wonderful moments in a traditional teenage homosexual role we've seen in countless films before (and probably since). After a dud performance that was completely shameless in Mamma Mia!, Dominic Cooper managed to impress me as Dakin, the ringleader of sorts of the group and possibly the only interesting character to emerge from the Boys.

But, if I was forced to pick a best in show, that would have to be Stephen Campbell Moore as the newcomer teacher Irwin. As he did so ingeniously in the criminally underrated Bright Young Things, Moore is able to effectively stand back and let others take their respective turns in the spotlight while somehow managing to remain engaging and thoughtful in the process. He's a completely unselfish actor and that's so rare to find- not just today but in any time period. There's this scene between him and Cooper towards the end of the film that's so excellently played between the two of them, I was hooked on every little moment. For various reasons, Cooper's character wants to have sexual intercourse with Irwin, who, remembering the touchy-feely antics of Hector's that got him in trouble, tries his damndest to rebuff the offer. In the hands of different actors it probably would have fallen apart, the scene plays out like a taut game of cat-and-mouse which sees Dakin as the headstrong predator and Irwin as the recoiled prey, never ceasing back away and nearly double over in his internal hatred of himself.

The above scene is one of the many the critics of the film cite when they mention the almost overpowering homosexuality in the play, to the point that it becomes the main focus of the film and doesn't cohere with the rest of it. I think the above scene works because Dakin has slowly been internalizing everything Irwin has been spewing in his lectures, even beginning to write like him as one of the History Boys points out to him, and the only way he can thank him for helping him these past months is to offer his body. You have to remember that he's still only 17 or 18 and still apt to make stupid decisions regarding sex (hell, there are people decades older who still make dumb choices). My big problem with the homosexuality in the film is in the ridiculously stupid finale where the Boys sit in the auditorium, reciting the occupations they will have in the future and we learn that Barnett's character (the only one who truly took Hector's lessons to heart, as we are told by Lintott) has become a teacher. He goes on to say this truly bizarre line that go something along the lines of, "I am attracted to some of the boys and it is hard to resist sometimes, but I never give in." The first time I heard, I didn't think much of it, but the more I sat and thought about what he was actually saying, I couldn't believe the stupidity radiating from that line. Am I actually supposed to applaud this guy for not touching his students like Hector did? Here, let me give you a big fat fucking medal for your valor. Give me a break. But this is what The History Boys does frequently throughout: on first glance, everything seems to flow well and an interesting argument unfolds in front of you, but on subsequent viewings and with time to actually think about it, much of it could be easily improved on. The central conflict about modern education and most of the acting is still extremely well-done, but that can only take you so far I'm afraid. C+

Intimacy is the Word

At first I wasn't sure I was going to talk about the recently released posters for Jane Campion's Bright Star and An Education starring the unknown yet strangely ubiquitous Carey Mulligan. I've come to realize (just like you, hopefully) that Glenn is the master of all things movie poster related, often trusting his opinion about a particular poster more than my own. But when he gave a general thumbs down to both of them, I really just wanted to offer my two cents.

I'm actually a fan of both of them. In fact, I find both posters to be absolutely stunning. They are both simple in concept, but the pay off is in the execution. The Bright Star poster feels so sensual and passionate that it feels like anybody glancing at it is intruding on an extremely personal moment. Plus, the colors seem to catch the eye for whatever reason. I wasn't too excited about this film a week ago, but with this poster, I'm curious to see what it is all about.

An Education's poster isn't as sensual as Bright Star's, but it does feel just as intimate and intrusive. The Photoshopping is a bit blatant (Peter Sarsgaard, who is approaching 40 if he's not there already, looks younger than Zac Efron) but they just look so Goddamned beautiful, don't they? Being a fanboy of all things New Wave and Mad Men, I especially love the 60's inspired costumes. They're so extremely classy and beautiful at the same time. Combined with the lovely trailer released around a week ago, I, just like Bright Star, now have a rising interest in this movie.

Pig Fucker

Pier Paolo Pasolini's Porcile is certainly a strange film to start exploring the filmography of one of the most polarizing and controversial filmmakers of all time. I always intended to see Saló first but never had access to a copy. However, once I saw that my beloved Jean-Pierre Léaud had done a film with Pasolini and it was available on DVD, I knew I had to see it immediately. The film itself is...interesting, to say the very least. I'm actually not quite sure what to make of it. Porcile revolves around two unconnected stories: one involves a medieval soldier (I think) wandering around a barren unnamed land eating people while the other is about the bored, disillusioned child (played by JPL) of a rich German industrialist who spends his free time in the local pigsty. To say that nothing happens in this film would be an understatement--the soldier wanders around for a good portion of the time while JPL just kind of stands around talking with his female friend/love interest about disconnected socialistic ideas mixed with thoughts about their relationship--but I still found it all weirdly engaging. If you know me, that's a high compliment indeed since 98% of the time I need some kind of narrative in order to get me interested in a film. Obviously, Pasolini knows what the hell he's doing since even though (1) I had no idea what was going on most of the time, (2) the camerawork and editing were drastically barebones, (3) my beloved JPL was dubbed by this stupid-sounding Italian guy, (4) the cannibal story was vaguely dull and (5) the DVD transfer was a complete joke with momentary pauses between reel changes and the fact that TWO OF THE REELS WERE IN THE WRONG ORDER, and I still never had the urge to turn the movie off like I have with other vaguely similar art house titles like L'Avventura or 2001: A Space Odyssey.

What most struck me about Porcile was how its controversial subjects of cannibalism and bestiality aren't exactly as taboo as they once were. Sure, they're not accepted by 99% of all civilized countries, but we've heard about them so much in the past 40 years that we've become jaded and they don't really shock us in the way that they probably did in 1969. I don't believe any of this affects the film since Pasolini isn't going simply for the shock value; we never see Jean-Pierre with the pigs, only vaguely disguised references throughout the movie, and the medieval soldier only eats his victims in long shots. If Pasolini can inject this much interest into such a thin whisp of a plot, and manage not get caught up in his "taboo" subjects, I can only imagine what his (apparently) greater and more well-known work is capable of doing. B-

The Sex

I was already planning on seeing G.I. Joe: Something About a Cobra for the newly married Mr. Tatum and the hope that lots of interesting, engaging acting shirtlessness ensues, but I'm glad to see that Channing is still working the promotional circuit trying to entice people like me into the theatre. Bravo to him for thinking of his fans first! And as long as he continues taking off his shirt, I think we all win (unless you're one of the odd ducks who happens to dislike him, then I guess it's just more for you to ignore or shake your head in disgust at).