Pretty In Pink (1986, PG-13)

This John Huges film (The Breakfast Club, Ferris Beuler's Day Off) is about a high school senior girl (played by Molly Ringwald [The Breakfast Club, 16 Candles]) and her social/romantic interactions in an environment that has a strong divide between the wealthy and not-so-wealthy.  She's one of the have-nots.  Her best friend (your quintessential "friendzoned" guy) is played by Jon Cryer (Two And A Half Men.  James Spader (Wolf, Stargate) plays a douchebag rich kid who resents Ringwald for spurning his advances, and Andrew McCarthy (St. Elmo's Fire, Weekend At Bernie's) plays his best friend who is miraculously a nice rich guy and has mutual interest in Ringwald.

The Sleeping Beauty (2010, R)

Not to be confused with the similarly titled Sleeping Beauty starring Emily Browning (Sucker Punch), this French film ( originally entitled La Belle Endormie) is a small twist on the original fairy tale.  It's in a slightly more modern setting, but that doesn't impact the film very much, especially at first.  The interesting thing about this story is that most of it follows the sleeping 6-year-old princess Anastasia (unconnected to the daughter of Czar Nicholas of Russia) through her dreams during her prolonged slumber.  It's kind of like Alice In Wonderland but a little less wacky or like The Wizard Of Oz minus the ensemble cast (there are other characters in this film, but the only main character is Anastasia).  Each dream or story segment often works as its own short story (the first one especially feels more like the climax of another story) and often feel like a classic fairy tale. 

The movie very much changes gears for the final segment after she wakes up 100 years later but looking 10 years older (not sure why the difference), at which point the film becomes more of a romance movie.

The Four-Faced Liar (2010, R)

This movie is basically an exploration of different types of interpersonal relationships (friendships, romance, etc).  The main characters include a cohabiting tidy couple, a non-cohabiting less-tidy more spontaneous couple, and the non-cohabiting guy's also-non-tidy lesbian roommate.  The characters all move into their respective New York apartments at the start of the school year (all but one are students, the other a recent grad) and encounter each other at the film's namesake, a bar called The Four-Faced Liar, named after a clock tower in Ireland (so I'm told by the characters) that among its four clock faces tell four different incorrect times.

Romantics Anonymous (2010, NR)

I think the title of this film is either a translation that leaves something to be desired a joke reference to an element in the film.  This is a French film (subtitled in English for those of us with limited multi-linguistic ability) about two people who are involved in the chocolate industry and who each have a crippling shyness.  Angelique is a classically trained and exceptionally talented chocolatier who seeks employment at a chocolate factory.  She is a member of a support group for overly emotional/neurotic/shy people: Emotionals Anonymous (the title of the film is a twist on this).  Jean-Rene, the chocolate factory owner (more of a small shop really, as he has only 4 employees), is very much afraid of physical or emotional contact with other people and hires Angelique (first interviewee of the day) as a sales rep possibly so he doesn't have to interview another stranger.  She is too shy to correct him regarding her intended position and ends up suffering through a very human-contact oriented position.  This is an understated comedy, kind of like The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou or Wristcutters: A Love Story, and though much of the humor was due to awkwardness, I didn't find it unpleasant like I did with much of Sleeping Dogs Lie or Punch Drunk-Love.

Sleeping Dogs Lie (2006, R)

Bobcat Goldthwait is a strange man, and he wrote and directed this film.  I tend to like strange idea movies, and this one sounded like it would be a good one, but unfortunately almost all of the dialogue struck me as uninspired and the actions of the characters as lame despite the interesting concept.  The Netflix description of the movie indicates that the story is about the main character revealing a secret about herself to her fiance at the encouragement of her friends and family.  The issue of being honest or not, especially when the secret is a bombshell and being told-or-not to a (prospective) spouse, can make for a really interesting story, but this one was just disappointing compared to what it could have accomplished.  The online description tactfully left out the fact (revealed in the opening monologue, so this is not a spoiler) that her secret is that one lonely and curious night in college she fellated her dog.  She's not surprisingly disgusted by it and adamantly against telling anyone, but honestly: people do crazy things in college; it's a time of experimentation and this was one of the least harmful things she could have done (albeit taboo).  She could have gotten involved in a violent lifestyle or done drugs that harm her body, she could have gotten a full-face tattoo that would make future job interviews potentially awkward, but no.

The first half of the movie my face was in a constant mild cringe because of the steady awkwardness of the characters and situations (this means that Goldthwait accomplished his goal, not that he failed in it).  I don't find this appealing in a film, but you might.  The nearest state that I like is a quirky strangeness (I loved the first half of the series Twin Peaks, for example).  After she dropped the bomb, the awkward cringe left and I was just disappointed in the characters.  The highlight of the film by far was Brian Posehn's (television series such as Mr. Show, The Sarah Silverman Program, Reno 911, Tom Goes To The Mayor, and Just Shoot Me!) character, friend of the main character's brother.  His awkwardness was a distinctly different flavor that could be more thoroughly described as dim-witted, foot-in-the-mouth, good-natured charm.  His few appearances were a breath of fresh air, and I really liked him.  If you like the awkward tone of The Cable Guy (but dont'  mind that this has no action to it) or maybe Punch Drunk Love (which I found unpleasant but good) then you might like this, but I expect you'd be a small population.  For me I'd give it 1-1.5 out of 5 stars because it gave me so little entertainment in exchange for my time.  I almost never turn off a movie partway through because I find that the movies I like the least in the first half tend to have at least some redeeming quality in the second half... but if that was not my practice, I would have turned this off after about 30 minutes.

Lo (2009, NR)

OK, not what I expected.  Somehow from the cover of this movie I was expecting something along the lines of The Ring or The Grudge, and possibly a foreign (Japanese) film.  It was more like a cross between Faust, It's A Wonderful Life, Dante's Inferno, Hellboy, and an episode of Angel or Buffy The Vampire Slayer.  With a line from The Shining (1980) in one scene for good measure.  It was an indie film that could almost be done as a play.  I'm pretty sure the the vast majority of the budget was spent on the demons' makeup.  It's a closed-room movie, which means it's mostly focused on character development and interactions, which I like.  The characters (especially demons) are quirky and slightly comical though not knee-slapping funny.

The story is about a guy named Justin whose girlfriend was dragged to hell by a demon and he summons a demon named Lo (title character) to try to get her back.  The story's location is restricted not just to Justin's apartment, but to the pentagram he inscribed on the floor of his apartment (if he "breaks the circle" by moving any part of himself outside of it then his ward of protection from the demons is voided).  The film starts off with him finishing the circle and casting the spell, so they wasted no time there.  The back story of the two lovers and their romance is portrayed through flashbacks as Justin converses with Lo.  Justin was played by Ward Roberts, who I don't think I'd seen before but he kind of reminded me of Milo Ventimiglia (Heroes and Gilmore Girls television series), and the girl (April) was played by Sarah Lassez, who I was also unfamiliar with but she looks kind of like Chloe Moretz (Kick Ass, Let Me In) plus 10 years (which means she's adorable).

I was able to figure out part of the ending shortly before, but not all of it.  I think it was pretty clever especially at the end, though I can imagine the earlier parts of the film annoyging people if the dialoge was not to their taste/sense of humor.  Basically if you liked the Buffy and Angel shows, watch this and pretend it's a low-budget not-quite-Whedon spin-off... you'll dig it.  It's kind of hard to say what other movie it's like... scroll up and check out the list of movies in the first paragraph: if you like that idea, then you'll like this.  It's a creative take on a romance and on a horror, and the mash-up pretty much makes it right up my alley, but if you like your movies to do one thing and do it well then this might not be for you.

My Girlfriend's Boyfriend (2010, PG)

Hot dang, I was pleasantly surprised with this movie.  Alyssa Milano (Charmed television series), who I've had a crush on pretty much ever since I was old enough to have a crush (oh man, I want to bear her children... no wait, the other way around), meets and starts dating two guys on the same day: one is an aspiring writer and the other is a successful advertising executive.  The ad exec was played by Michael Landes, and he looked really familiar to me though I couldn't place it; looking it up now, he played Jimmy Olsen in Lois & Clark: The New Adventures Of Superman, but I don't know if that's it or maybe he just has one of those faces that look familiar.

The aspiring writer is the character the film began with and the beau I found myself rooting for (the non-rich, fiction fan, etc), though they both seemed to be good guys, were clever/witty and cared about Milano.  Milano's character was roommates with her brother who was played by Tom Lenk (Andrew from Buffy and one episode of Angel), who added his own awkward charm to the film.  The first few date scenes were more worthwhile to watch than later ones because they had more dialogue and character development, though I imagine a woman would like the chick-flicky qualities of the later dates more than I did.  She eventually had to make a decision and though the ending looked like it was going to be nauseatingly predictable, it turned out to be more creative, and then way more creative than I would have thought!

For a guy watching a romance (it was billed as a comedy, though wouldn't call it that overly much), this was one of the best I've seen.  Ladies, expect your guy to groan: it's his duty.  Guys, this is not bad, especially if you're a writer type who likes to see one of  your people kissing a girl (groan out loud and fist-bump me silently).  But keep in mind that the turn at the end totally makes it all worth it.


Parts of the movie made me go like this.

Mr. Fix It (2006, R)

Available until 10/9/12.

David Boreanaz (from such TV series as Bones, Angel, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer) plays Lance Valenteen, a man who hires himself out to date other guys' ex girlfriends and act like a jerk until the gal goes running back to the guy.  To his credit, he only takes on cases where the guy is genuinely in love with the girl and he makes damn sure that's the case before he starts.  So it's kind of like Hitch but in reverse (film with Eva Mendes and Will Smith, and very good).  As I've said in previous reviews, I'm a fan of Joss Whedon (and therefore the Buffy and Angel series) so seeing Boreanaz on screen reminds me of the joy I had seeing the intrigue and humor of his other roles, but I have to admit that his performance wasn't particularly stellar in this film.  In fact no actor really wowed me here, but they were not particularly bad either.  Boreanaz's performance was actually pretty comparable to in Angel and not quite up to in Bones (I guess a couple of years of experience do pay off).

As you might have deduced, this movie is a romantic comedy.  It was plenty silly at times, and at other times crept a little north of silly but not quite into over-the-top territory, though it was not non-stop humor (you get a break in there).  I was surprised that it's rated R because wasn't violent at all, harsh language was noticeably avoided, and the only "sex" scene involved two completely clothed people (no zippers open or anything).  One of Mr. Fix It's ground rules that he tells to his clients is that he will not have sex with their exes.  Early in the film, the level of silliness was established and it didn't really deviate too much, and I never found it off-putting as I (as a man) am at risk for when watching a rom-com (but don't get me wrong, there are occasional rom-coms that I can enjoy.  Don't tell anyone I said that).

The story is about Lance's newest case.  He says he's incapable of falling in love, so he doesn't think he's any worse off for spending his "dating" time working on other people's relationships.  His true passion is car racing, and he hopes to get into the professional circuit.  But he needs to fix his car up first and this new case could pay for it.  The woman this case is (surprise, surprise) a knockout.  There was one "twist" that I saw coming a mile away (though I'll not spoil it, just in case) and one that actually surprised me.  Good for you, Mr. Fix It!  Lance takes his car to a garage in a retirement community that is run by a trio of older men.  These guys are pretty much the heart of the movie if not the (main) focus.  They are quite lively and charming, and make up for Lance's apparent lack of interest in women.  Among the trio was Paul Sorvino, who you might know from Goodfellas.

I liked the film, but not enthusiastically so.  Overall I'd think this is a good compromise movie for a couple to watch.  Sir, you could do far worse than this as far as chick-flicks go (yeah, I'd call it a chick flick), and you may even enjoy yourself.  Madam, don't be off-put by the fact that the main character is tricking women (he's actually trying to show them that their ex is not as bad as they thought), and by the end you'll realize this movie is for you more than for a guy.  Neither of you needs to step over an old woman to grab this movie off the shelf (besides, you can... you know... stream it) but if you just want to sit back and chill with a decent flick, this can be that flick.

Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961, NR)

Right after Platoon, I watched Breakfast At Tiffany's (like I said, wide and varied movie tastes), and maybe you've heard of this one as well.  Apparently I saw the first minute of the movie before, but was fooled into thinking it was the end.  The credits were rolling and Audrey Hepburn's character was eating a bear claw (or some other kind of breakfast pastry) in front of Tiffany and Co.  Most movies these days wait until well into the movie and often the end before the purposed of the title comes to fruition (unless it's obvious like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, etc) and the credits... well, yeah.  Plus the scene had the feel of the end of a movie.  It didn't seem to be establishing a setting (like in Midnight In Paris) and it looked like she was relaxing and winding down after whatever course of events the film is about.  Plus she was getting out of a cab in the pre-dawn hours, again with a winding-down feel.  So when I walked through the family room years ago, I had assumed I'd missed the movie and walked away.  See, if I walk into a room and a movie is starting, there's a very strong possibility I'll stick around for the whole thing even if it's not normally to my taste.  Kind of a convenience factor thing.  That's how my sister got me to watch a Gilmore Girls marathon with her one time (though I must admit there was some good witticism in that show).  I tend to keep my brain on whent I watch movies and notice things that are blatantly unrealistic, though I try to keep in mind when suspension of disbelief or just-go-with-it mentality is required.  In this opeining scene she's wearing black full-length gloves when she reaches into her donut bag and I couldn't help but think there's no way someone dressed up like that wouldn't at least take off the gloves first (I didn't get the impression that this was for humor's sake, though much of the movie did have a lighthearted and slightly comedic feel to it).  The movie was listed as a comedy, and I suppose it was in several ways, but I think it's more of just a movie movie: elements of drama, elements of comedy, but neither foot far enough into its respective genre to call it a dramedy nor should your mood for either genre on its own lead you to this film.  This was another movie that I'd added to my queue as "homework" and it felt a little more like it this time.

It turns out the film is bases on a book by Truman Capote (the main character in the biopic Capote, starring Phillip Seymore Hoffman) which I have not read, but the general mood/feel of the conversation scenes doesn't make me doubt it.  The movie had that cool 50's/60's sense of style that made me want to put on a fedora and make a martini while watching the movie (it wouldn't be the first time I've done that...), but for me that was about the only reason to watch the movie other than to understand any pop-culture references to it.  I now know that Holly Golightly is the name of Hepburn's character in the movie and not just a request for a December-born girl to tiptoe.  As soon as Holly finished her donut and left the store window she exhibits several behaviors that reveal her to be a character that is the center of her own universe and seldom considers others.  I imagine her particular actions were intended to make her look fun-loving and idiosyncratic, but it just made me despise the main character (or one of the two anyway; for me the male lead became the main character simply because I could find some empathy for him).  At other times she just went along with things and I found myself thinking "nobody is that stupid...".  Also Mickey Rooney was made-up as the upstairs neighbor Mr. Yunioshi and lampooned a clumsy slapstick Asian man, an act which I found more than a little off-putting.  While Yunioshi had several appearances throughout the film, his most brutal exhibition was in his first (and to a lesser extent second) appearance, so I think if I were to view the film a second time, I would start about 10 minutes in and have a much better time for it.  Maybe then I would not have been rooting against her and feeling vindictively justified when things don't go Holly's way.

The premise of the movie is that single girl Holly Golightly wants to have money.  But she doesn't want to work for it.  She doesn't even want to steal it (too much work, I imagine).  She just wants to marry a rich guy.  To her credit (?) she's not concerned with a man's looks, just his ability to provide for her and stay out of her way when she's on a flight of fancy.  Paul Varjak (played by George Peppard, who I am not otherwise familiar with) is a writer who had one successful book several years ago but has a bit of trouble getting his next one onto paper.  Paul moves into Holly's building and handles her idiosyncrasies well in stride and they get along quite well.  As you might imagine by the fact that this is a movie over 10 years old and that it has both a male and a female lead, romantic tension builds.  I liked Paul's character overall except when he said things that remind us how much this was in a different time ("you belong to me").

Anyway, I think Breakfast At Tiffany's would be a fine movie to have playing in the background at a cocktail party or something because it demonstrates that level of classy cool, and if you've been meaning to watch it, you've got up though this Sunday, 9/30/12  to stream it, or else rent it (though maybe it'll come back to streaming soon after). [Update 10/1/12: it's back.]  Don't get me wrong, most of the film is just fine and I had a decent time watching it, I was just put off by the first few minutes.  I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it a second time, but again I say that if I did I would start a few minutes in and be OK.  I presume this film predates the MPAA rating system, hence the NR (not rated), but I would probably stick it with a PG only because of slightly adult suggestive scenes (though very young children would not know them as such) nor would a young child find any interest in the movie.