reviews – Page 7 – Pop Culture Nerd

Book Review: U IS FOR UNDERTOW

I’ve been reading Sue Grafton for a quarter century now, starting in high school when I found her books in the school library (I spent a lot of time there). I devoured the “A” through “C” Kinsey Millhone adventures like an ex-con having his first meal on the outside. Over the years, the books were uneven but I kept reading out of obligation, as if Kinsey had become an old friend whose imperfections I accepted. I listened to her tales even if she rambled a little.

I was thrilled, then, to find her latest adventure, U is for Undertow, utterly captivating. After only a few pages, I knew Kinsey was back on track and I could dive in out of pure pleasure.

The case begins when Kinsey is approached by a young man named Michael Sutton who suddenly remembers something that happened when he was six years old. At the time, Sutton attached no significance to the incident but, after reading a newspaper article about an unsolved 21-year-old kidnapping of a little girl, he believes what he saw were two people burying the child.

After Sutton hires Kinsey to investigate, the story moves back and forth between 1988 (Kinsey’s present) and 1967, when the kidnapping occurred. Grafton deftly juggles multiple POVs; besides Kinsey’s, the author doles out pieces of the puzzle from the perspectives of several characters who are directly and tangentially involved in the crime, painting a full-bodied portrait of each. The plot turns in unpredictable directions and though it might be obvious early on who did it, Grafton keeps you guessing about the why.

The case is complex enough to keep Kinsey busy, but she’s also grappling with personal issues after making startling discoveries about her past which destroy her long-held perceptions of certain family members. Because the books are told in first person and I’ve sided with Kinsey for years against the relatives who abandoned her as a child, these new revelations threw me for a loop as well. Kinsey won’t be able to change overnight but at the end of this book, she takes brave, hopeful steps towards what could be an extreme life makeover.

Nerd verdict: Strong Undertow will pull you in

11 Comments

Movie Review: NINE

Nine (and the movie 8 ½, on which it’s based) is about a writer/director who has a hard time coming up with a story for his latest film. It’s ironic, then, that Nine, written by Michael Tolkin and the late Anthony Minghella, also seems to be lacking a plot of its own.

Daniel Day-Lewis plays the auteur, Guido Contini, who’s having a breakdown since his movie Italia is supposed to go into production within days but he still hasn’t written one word. His leading actress, international star Claudia (Nicole Kidman), is getting impatient and demanding to see a script. He’s haunted by memories of the women in his life, including his mother (Sophie Loren) and a prostitute he knew when he was a boy (Fergie). In the real world, he continues his dalliance with mistress Carla (Penélope Cruz) despite telling his long-suffering wife, Luisa (Marion Cotillard) the affair is over.

Rob Marshall said during the post-Variety-screening Q & A that he thought long and hard about how to integrate the musical numbers into the movie. On that level, he succeeded; the songs are interwoven well and don’t really disrupt the story’s pacing.

Trouble is, there’s not much plot to interrupt. It’s mostly about what’s going on in Guido’s head and since he comes across as a self-absorbed, lying, cheating bastard, I couldn’t sympathize with him. He hasn’t earned the self-pity because his misery is of his own doing. It’s not Day-Lewis’s fault; he gives a consummate performance as usual. His Italian accent is spot-on and his singing robust (is there anything he can’t do?). The problem lies more with the character and this was partly why I also disliked Fellini’s film: Guido is a whiny little boy.

As for the all-star female lineup, Cotillard, Cruz and Dench come through most spectacularly. Cotillard is wistful and heartbreaking at first then busts out the sexy in “Take It All,” doing a striptease and letting Guido know she’s done being the accommodating little wife. Cruz scorches the screen in her “A Call from the Vatican” number, with her, um, gymnastic moves. She’s also emotionally flexible, going from vixen to little girl lost, and somehow manages to make me feel sorry for her adulterous Carla. And Dench, as Guido’s confidante Lilli, displays a fun side and hearty voice along with her usual gravitas.

Kate Hudson also knocked my socks off, singing and dancing with abandon in the movie’s catchiest number, “Cinema Italiano,” but her Vogue reporter is otherwise given nothing to do. Likewise Fergie’s Saraghina. Although this character was in Fellini’s movie and Fergie attacks “Be Italian” with impressive ferocity, the prostitute from Guido’s past has no usefulness here. Kidman looks great but this version of Claudia could have easily been played by any other beautiful actress with a passable singing voice.

The costumes are dazzling, the dancing and singing energetic, but I’m afraid I’m not in love with this Cinema Marshalliano.

Nerd verdict: Nine‘s a 6 on scale of 1 to 10

All photos by David James © The Weinstein Co.

Subscribe to Pop Culture Nerd by Email

13 Comments

Movie Debate: THE BLIND SIDE

It’s the return of PCN vs. EE. Every once in a while, I post a Siskel & Ebert-style movie review instead of a traditional one when my occasional movie partner, Eric Edwards, disagrees with my take on something.

We recently attended a screening of Sandra Bullock’s upcoming movie, The Blind Side (opening Nov. 20), based on the true story of Michael Oher, an African-American teen with a mother addicted to crack who bounced through the foster care system before he was taken in by a Memphis family, the Tuohys. He eventually went to college and became a star NFL player with the Baltimore Ravens.

After the screening, Eric and I had the following discussion.

Warner Bros./Ralph Nelson

PCN: What didn’t you like about it? It stars our girl, Sandra Bullock!

EE: Sandra Bullock is the best thing about it. Take her out of the movie and you’ve got something that should be a Lifetime movie of the week.

PCN: Yeah, but it does have Bullock and she elevates the material like she usually does. You can’t judge it on what it might have been.

EE: Okay, but you must admit the movie’s very safe. The stakes are never very high and no matter what Michael does, there are no repercussions. Also, we hear there are issues at school but we never get to see any of it. He may have had a rough past but once the family takes him in, everything works out and he’s beloved by everyone.

PCN: You’re right, the movie doesn’t break any new ground. But since there are supposedly only seven original ideas in Hollywood, I look at the execution. Bullock’s performance as Leigh Anne is quite engaging and there are some funny moments. The Proposal wasn’t an original concept, either, but Bullock made that watchable.

EE: But she only brings to life her role. She can’t carry the whole movie and whenever she’s not on screen, the movie drags.

PCN: I thought Quinton Aaron did a nice job as Michael. He’s got such sad eyes and a gentle soul, which make for an interesting contrast with his intimidating size. Aaron hasn’t done much film work but he kept up with Bullock.

EE: I think the director told him that less is more and that’s what he did. He let his eyes do most of the acting and he’s got great eyes.

PCN: The casting of Tim McGraw was curious. He turned in a good enough performance as Leigh Anne’s husband, but I was thinking, How come they had to get a country singer for this role? There weren’t any qualified actors who could have played that?

EE: I agree, and there’s no arc for that character at all. He’s pretty much written as one-note all the way through. The only justification I could think of for casting him is that it’s set in Memphis and he’s a country star.

PCN: Yeah, but this movie is opening nationwide, not just in Memphis.

EE: But country music is huge and maybe they’re going after those fans, to give the film any kind of advantage possible. I maintain, though, it’s not worthy of the big screen. It’s a nice family movie with very little drama and low stakes.

PCN: How about looking at is as a character study instead of a plot-driven piece? You didn’t find these people compelling?

EE: The problem is, the strongest character is Bullock’s, but the movie isn’t about her. It’s about Michael and he’s not that interesting.

PCN: He’s a kid from a really rough childhood who makes good in the NFL!

Warner Bros./Ralph Nelson

EE: But we only get tiny glimpses of his childhood in flashback. It’s not enough to make me care. The story mostly deals with him living with the Tuohys, where it’s pretty much smooth sailing.

PCN: I know where you’re coming from; normally I’d be making the same arguments you are. This time, though, I recognized the movie’s flaws but went with it anyway because I was rooting for Michael and thought the Tuohys were pretty cool for what they did. Maybe I just have a soft spot for true stories about kids overcoming adversity to achieve great things.

EE: It’s not a horrible movie but I’d still recommend waiting for the DVD.

Nerd verdicts—PCN: An enjoyable Side show, EE: Movie turns Blind eye to conflict

9 Comments

Music Review: GLEE soundtrack

Oh man, I’m so excited to be able to access my blog again. I had some weird issue with WordPress for the last two days and was unable to edit or write any new posts.

But I’m also happy because I’ve been listening nonstop to the Glee soundtrack, Glee: The Music, Volume 1, which dropped this week. I’ve been dancing around my room, singing along at the top of my lungs (I think neighbors called animal control) and now I’m writing about it in case you’re still not sure what all the fuss is about.

First, let me say I usually like musicals about as much as I enjoy eating a bag o’ glass with a Tabasco chaser. It annoys me whenever the narrative comes to crashing halt for some guy to burst into song in a cornfield because he just figured out he’s in love. Go find her and tell her already! In the four minutes it takes him to sing and prance about with a hoe to represent the object of his affection, the girl could be accepting a job in a foreign country or marrying another guy. Come on!

Despite this, I love Glee and look forward to it every week. I even get grumpy when it gets pre-empted by baseball (the show returns next Wednesday, November 11). That’s because the musical sequences are cleverly worked into the plot so they don’t slow down the pace. The recent dance number featuring the entire high school football team doing Beyonce’s “Single Ladies” on the field? All part of an exercise to loosen them up. And a teacher twirling in a wedding gown, singing “I Could Have Danced All Night” from My Fair Lady? She was testing if she could actually move in her dress to the song she wanted for her first dance.

But the reason I’m addicted is the phenomenal cast. When Lea Michele, who plays Glee Club diva Rachel, opens her mouth, pure magic comes out. Her voice can probably cure illnesses. Matthew Morrison, who plays the love-torn music teacher, Will, busted out in the last episode, performing “Bust a Move” while showing off eye-popping dance moves.

That song’s included on the soundtrack, which features some of the show’s most memorable numbers to date (Volume 2 comes out December 8). My faves: “Don’t Stop Believin’ ” (might as well download it directly into my frontal lobe), “Somebody to Love” (I think Freddie Mercury would’ve approved), “Take a Bow” (defiantly sung by Michele) and “Sweet Caroline,” which seduced me completely when Puck (Mark Salling) sang it to Rachel though he’s usually an ass.

In the time it took me to write this, the disc has looped around twice already and I ain’t stoppin’ it. The neighbors might have the cops bust down my door, but first, I’m gonna bust a move.

Nerd verdict: C’mon, get Gleeky

20 Comments

Movie Review: PRECIOUS

After seeing Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (limited opening, Nov. 6), I think the Academy should just hand over the Best Supporting Actress Oscar to Mo’Nique right now because that race is sewn up. Hers is one of the bravest, most blistering performances I’ve seen in years; it’s breathtaking in its monstrosity.

Photo courtesy of Lionsgate

Precious (Gabourey “Gabby” Sidibe) is an undereducated teen living in Harlem with her abusive mother, Mary (Mo’Nique), who’s on welfare. Precious is also pregnant with her second child by her father (yes, you read that right). Kicked out of school, she gets sent to an alternative school, where a sympathetic teacher (Paula Patton) inspires her to read and write and reclaim her life.

You may be thinking you’ve seen this story before—youngster who has been written off by the system meets a tough-but-compassionate mentor who turns his/her life around—and you’d be right. But director Lee Daniels, working from a script by Geoffrey Fletcher, takes it to a whole ‘nother level of rawness and Mo’Nique, known primarily as a comedian, goes there with him.

Photo by Anne Marie Fox

The award season is just getting revved up in Hollywood and there are many more contenders I need to see, but I don’t know how anyone can top Mo’Nique’s portrayal of the mother who’s jealous of her own daughter for stealing her man. When she was on screen, I just sat there gaping, wondering where she pulled all that evil from. Mary is like all the scariest mother figures you’ve ever seen on screen rolled into one, with the level of cruelty taken to the 24th degree then multiplied by a thousand. Mo’Nique’s performance, however, is second to none and if Oscar voters don’t give her a statue, somebody’s throwing the competition.

Sidibe is no slouch, either. In her feature debut, she plays a child whose eyes are much older than her years, who’s uneducated but not stupid, who’s been beaten by life but refuses to stay down. When I saw her in person after the movie (see notes below), the vast difference between the actress and the character makes the performance even more impressive.

Photo courtesy Lionsgate

The supporting cast is also noteworthy—an unrecognizable Lenny Kravitz as a kind male nurse, Paula Patton (without noticeable makeup, she’s more beautiful here than I’ve ever seen her) as the teacher who goes beyond the call of duty to give Precious a chance at a better future, Xosha Roquemore as a classmate who provides much-needed levity, and the de-glammed Mariah Carey, who’s surprisingly good, playing her scenes as a social worker in a no-nonsense manner that doesn’t quite disguise the judgment in her eyes.

Daniels, Sidibe, Patton, Fletcher and producer Sarah Siegel-Magness did Q & A after the Variety screening I attended. Interesting tidbits gleaned:

Daniels said at first he “was looking for the truth” in his casting, auditioning over 400 girls for the title role, including kids he met on the street and in subway stations. He finally decided against casting an actress from a similar background because that “would have been exploiting the real Precious.”
Daniels found Sidibe in an open call. She’s a bright, articulate 26-year-old who cut a college class to audition.
As upsetting as the movie is, Daniels said the book is even tougher. If he had filmed the book as is, the movie “would’ve been X-rated.”
Carey had to learn to walk by fully using the bottom of her feet because she’s so used to “walking on her tippy toes” from wearing high heels. Daniels asked her to come stripped down and leave her entourage at home.
Fletcher at first wrote the script under a pseudonym since that’s what the author known as Sapphire did when she wrote the novel (Precious is loosely based on one of Sapphire’s former students). That idea was eventually abandoned. Fletcher then met Sapphire during a completely random encounter when he found himself sitting next to her on the subway. He recognized her, introduced himself and said he was adapting her book.
Sapphire is a scholar and poet who’s completely unimpressed by Hollywood. Daniels stalked her for nine years before she gave him the film rights.
Patton did this movie for her mother, a teacher with 35 years in the Los Angeles United School District.

Nerd verdict: Precious is a gem in the rough

19 Comments

Michael Jackson's THIS IS IT

Watching This Is It, I felt like a cave person being exposed to fire, thinking, “Fire. Good,” because I lacked the vocab to adequately describe what I was seeing. This documentary of rehearsal footage for Michael Jackson’s tour-that-never-was gives an idea of how incredible the spectacle would have been. The pyrotechnics, props, and dancing are eye-popping, but the most amazing special effect is MJ himself.

The man was a genius. He was not only able to visualize things most people can’t imagine, he had the talent and means to bring them to life. His passion for entertaining is obvious, the stage truly his home. It was moving to see how kind he was to his crew and how much he inspired them, how they loved him for it, and what a perfectionist he was without being a nightmare. He worked harder than anyone and the few times he disagreed with his musicians or director Kenny Ortega, he was respectful about it and always right.

My favorite numbers were “Smooth Criminal” and “Thriller,” which incorporated Jackson into filmed segments leading into live performances. For “Criminal,” Jackson inserted himself into that signature scene from Gilda with Rita Hayworth singing “Put the Blame on Mame” and stripping off her gloves (Jackson catches one). For “Thriller,” he was reinventing the video in 3D. After more than 25 years of watching countless others perform that infamous monster dance, it’s quite, well, thrilling to behold the mastermind himself doing it again and see that he’s still got it.

And that’s the thing—at 50, Jackson still had It, the ability to wow me and turn me into a little kid again. I can’t think of many entertainers from my childhood who can still impress my more cynical adult self. The sense of loss is slightly mitigated by the realization that Jackson will probably be with us for a long time, like Elvis and Marilyn. People will continue to organize “Thriller” dance-a-thons and new generations will attempt the moonwalk. The documentary’s title notwithstanding, I don’t think this is it for Michael Jackson.

Subscribe to Pop Culture Nerd by Email

11 Comments

OD'd on PC

This past weekend, I wore my nerd badge proudly and indulged my reading, TV- and DVD-watching, M&M-eating, CD-listening, pop culture-loving tendencies. Here’s what I covered.

DVD — Chéri

Michelle Pfeiffer stars as Lea de Lonval, an early 20th-century Parisian courtesan who takes Chéri (Rupert Friend), the teenage son of a former rival, under her wing to teach him the ways of the world. A weekend turns into a six-year affair which ends when the boy’s mother (Kathy Bates) arranges for him to marry a girl closer to his age. Lea and Chéri pretend they’re okay with moving on until they realize they can’t.

Pfeiffer is as radiant as ever, showing the vulnerability beneath the proud and elegant facade. Friend’s titular character, however, comes across as a spoiled rich brat and borderline stalker. I didn’t get a sense of true love from these two; it’s more like Lea just doesn’t want to grow old alone and Chéri only wants what he can’t have.

Lea’s gowns are resplendent and Alexandre Desplat’s score is melodious as always, but I expected more from director Stephen Frears and screenwriter Christopher Hampton (adapting stories by Colette), both of whom had worked with Pfeiffer on the superior Dangerous Liaisons. Nerd verdict: Respectable in parts but not that endearing.

CD — Pete Yorn & Scarlett Johansson’s Break Up

Last month, my friend Tomas made me aware of this album over at his blog, make.see.eat.do, and I finally had a chance to listen to the whole thing. If you were envious of Johansson before because of her bodacious looks and acting skills, you’ll positively want to push her down the stairs after hearing her sing. Because she can, quite impressively. Her retro smoky tones blend well with Yorn’s emo voice on this album of mostly catchy, toe-tapping, folk-rock tunes. This isn’t some misguided star trip a la Don Johnson or Bruce Willis; Johansson (who was asked by Yorn to collaborate) is better than some “singers” out there and should do more albums.

Don’t believe me? Watch the video below for the first single “Relator” (you’ll need surgery to get it out of your head afterward), then go to www.lala.com and register to listen to the entire album for free by entering the actress’s name in the search window. (This only works for U.S. visitors. If you’re overseas, search YouTube for other videos like this one.) Nerd verdict: A recommended Break Up.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRtydnIycCY]

TV — White Collar & Grey’s Anatomy

White Collar, USA’s latest original series, stars Matthew Bomer as Neal Caffrey, a convict who excels in the kind of crimes for which the show is named. In order to stay out of jail, he makes a deal with the FBI agent who finally nabs him to let him help solve cases, using his expert criminal mind. Bomer is handsome with his piercing blue eyes and does a capable job, but he lacks the extra oomph that makes an actor a breakout star. Tim DeKay is solid as Agent Stokes, the straight-up guy who’s frustrated by and a little envious of Caffrey’s lifestyle. The show doesn’t offer anything new but I might tune in again if I’m home on a Friday night and there’s nothing better to watch. Nerd verdict: Lightweight criminal.

Over on ABC, this week’s Grey’s Anatomy episode had the kind of action-packed, pulse-quickening drama that called to mind the show’s best episodes from seasons past (i.e. the “Into You Like a Train” crash ep in which two people were impaled on the same pole and the doctors could only save one). A patient dies amidst the chaos in the ER after a nearby fire and Chief Webber interviews the doctors to determine who’s responsible. The camera swirls like a Tasmanian devil through the scenes, throwing the viewer into the confusion and leaving no time for the kind of angsty stuff that can drag the show down. The Rashomonian element of the doctors telling conflicting stories about the same events made it fun to try and figure out who made the fatal mistake. It also made me hope that Izzie never returns. I didn’t miss her at all and found Alex’s repeated phone calls to her super annoying. Nerd verdict: Heart-poundingly good.

Book — Daniel Judson’s The Violet Hour

This noirish thriller, set in the Hamptons, unfolds over three days as auto mechanic Cal tries to hide his pregnant former boss from her abusive husband while searching for his friend, Lebell, who has gone missing after leaving a trail of blood in his apartment. Cal wants nothing but an orderly life to prove he didn’t inherit criminal tendencies from his father and brother, but as he gets more involved in his friends’ crises, he wonders how far he’s willing to go to keep them out of trouble and even save their lives.

Hour grabbed me from the first minute with its mysterious opening paragraphs about a deadly female assassin. The pace is non-stop, the language rat-tat-tatting through one plot development after another. This book reminded me a little of Charlie Huston’s debut, Caught Stealing, another crime noir with a lean style in which an innocent bystander is driven to violence after inadvertently crossing paths with bad guys.

The novel isn’t perfect; it’s a little too coincidental that all the bad stuff happens to different friends of Cal’s on the same weekend. Judson also has a tendency to overuse commas by inserting adverbs and prepositional/adverbial phrases in awkward places, disrupting the flow of his sentences. Witness:

Closing her eyes, she held still for a moment, or tried to, ended up, despite her efforts, wavering a little.

And:

It took a moment for her eyes to adjust, and when they did, she saw, beside the house, in its shadow, both the motorcycle and the Lexus.

But Judson’s characters are dynamic and his plot riveting enough that I was willing to overlook this quirk. Not only that, I now want to read Judson’s other novels, too. Nerd verdict: Hour goes by fast and is time well spent.

What did you read/see/hear this weekend?

8 Comments

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE from Kids’ Point of View

I’m happy to have my junior reporters, Aline and Mena Dolinh (11 and 8, respectively) back with their takes on Spike Jonze’s Where the Wild Things Are. I’d published an earlier review by contributing writer, Eric Edwards, who felt the film might be too disturbing for children. Here, Aline and Mena offer counterpoints.—PCN

Mena’s Thoughts

Courtesy Warner Bros.

I like Where the Wild Things Are very much. I think the monsters are very funny in the film. I like how they jump up and down and make noise and throw a lot of stuff around. But in the book, Max went to his room and the forest grew all around him. In the movie, he ran out in the street. I think it’s harder for you to go home when you run out in the street. If you just go off in your own room, you can always come back out when you want to, and it’s also easier for someone to find you if they’re worried about you.

My favorite phrase in the movie is at the beginning, in the scene when Max looks at the globe in his room and there is a sign at the bottom from his dad: To Max, the Owner of this World. The monster named Carol says the same phrase later when he shows Max his kingdom. I like Carol and I don’t think he’s scary. He’s a little like me. I think he’s sensitive because whenever he’s sad or mad, he destroys everything.

from Maurice Sendak's book

I like the sunny days that Max spent with the monsters. I know that Max will have to leave after awhile. The filmmakers did a good job copying the pictures of the monsters from the book, because after the movie I went back home and looked at the pictures in the book by Maurice Sendak again. I could pick out the monsters by name when I looked at the book, except in the book they’re just monsters with no names, and in the movie they have names. Although, there’s a bull with people’s feet on the book’s cover that has no name in the book and also doesn’t have a name in the movie. It’s so random that the monsters have generic names, except for Judith and Ira because I don’t know anyone with those names.

The fort in Max’s room at the beginning of the book, and the part with Max running downstairs with a fork after his dog, are right at the beginning of the movie. It doesn’t scare me to see the scene in the movie. I feel like I’m Max running down the stairs chasing his black dog (but in the book he’s a white dog) because the camera was jumping around really fast.

Courtesy Warner Bros.

I can’t explain everything in the movie, like the scene with a giant sheep dog suddenly appearing and running away on the sand when Max is taking a walk with Carol to see his kingdom. Why Alexander played with a cute kitten also doesn’t make sense to me. It’s so random because on that island, you would think there are only monsters and not normal animals. But overall, I thought the movie was funny and I enjoyed it.

Aline’s Take

Courtesy Warner Bros.

Where the Wild Things Are was an enjoyable romp for me. It’s a good family movie laced with the positive, untarnished themes of family, imagination, and good adventure. Despite some early scenes featuring the sensitive Max (Max Records) acting up, destroying parts of his sister’s room in a fit of rage, and running away from home when his mother doesn’t pay attention to him, most kids probably won’t be impacted by it at all.

All kids cry when they’re neglected or their fort is wrecked. They blow up at their family when they’re fed up with being ignored. Running away from home is exaggerated, but even if the original book didn’t include this plot device, it’s a common theme in children’s books. It isn’t something that will be planted into children’s mind and trouble them.

courtesy Warner Bros.

Max’s little boat sails day and night to the land of the Wild Things—a group of whimsical creatures that seem like a dysfunctional family. One of them, K.W., has apparently run away with her friends Bob and Terry, much to the disappointment of their leader, Carol, who appears lonely, misunderstood, and sad at first as he smashes their huts. Naturally, Carol is intrigued by the small newcomer. The rest of the film is basically lighthearted scenes of Max—King of the Wild Things—and his subjects jumping around to the music of Karen O, interlaced with emotional moments of Max finding out more about his new friends.

Courtesy Warner Bros.

Finally, when a planned dirt-clod fight backfires, Max and his subjects drift apart. Carol has a few mood swings, Max decides he wants to go home and makes an implied reconciliation with the others (they didn’t want to accept him as king earlier, but apparently respect him enough to join in the goodbye cries when he sets off for home). This part of the ending left me with many questions, such as, “Are the Wild Things back on good terms with each other?” “How has Carol’s character changed from meeting Max?” “Do all of them understand why Max had to leave?”

When Max gets home and hugs his mother, their reunion seems pretty resolved, but our last sight of the monsters is slightly confusing because Max’s relationship with them is somewhat unevenly treated by the director. While the characters have been expanded from the book, they aren’t played to their full potential. Carol’s sensitivity and source of frustration is never explained, Ira and Judith’s unusual romance isn’t shown much, and we never do find out what caused K.W. to leave or why she seems to be the most understanding of Max.

I guess you could say I was disappointed by how it turned out, but I suppose I shouldn’t have expected a full hug-and-make-up sequence between Max, Carol, and the rest of the monsters. Maybe such a tidy ending would have made it seem like Spike Jonze had underestimated the minds of his intended audience by giving them a family-friendly, watered-down, happy-mushy ending. Maybe from the director’s viewpoint, the ending was subtle and well handled.

Every good work of art, as they say, can be viewed a number of ways, and the bottom line is that Where the Wild Things Are is a good movie for young kids and art-house snobs alike. It doesn’t underestimate its audience like a squeaky-clean Disney film would, and manages to be fun and childish yet intelligent and dark at the same time.

Subscribe to Pop Culture Nerd by Email

14 Comments

Book Review: Lorrie Moore's A GATE AT THE STAIRS

Written by Thuy Dinh, contributing writer

My children, ages 11, 8, and 6, are discovering the Beatles for the first time. Not only do they listen to the songs endlessly during the rides to and from school, but they also play some of the Beatles’ simpler melodies on their piano keyboard almost 24/7.

It might have been a simple case of osmosis, then, or it could have been just a quirky coincidence that I heard the whole message of Lorrie Moore’s most recent novel, A Gate at the Stairs, summed up in “All You Need is Love,” but with double negative lyrics:

There’s nothing you can do that can’t be UNdone

Nothing you can sing that can’t be UNsung

Nothing you can say but you can’t UNlearn how to play the game

It’s NOT easy….

There’s nothing you can make that can’t be UNmade

No one you can save that can’t be UNsaved.

Nothing you can do but you can’t UNlearn how to be you

in time…

Though the message is unflinching, it’s affirming in that it holds the reader in high regard and tries to portray the world in a complex way. Told in the voice of Tessie Keltjin, a 20-year old college student, Stairs begins in the fall of 2001, shortly after 9/11. Right away, Moore sets the stage for the polarizing forces of her novel: faith versus faithlessness, love versus the absence of love, life versus death.

Tessie comes from the rural town of Dellacrosse (of the cross) and she goes to college in Troy (like its Greek antecedent, a liberal, cosmopolitan town somewhere in the Midwest). Soon, Tessie is hired to be the nanny of a mixed-race child adopted by the Thornwood-Brinks, a white, upper-middle class, progressive couple who live and work in Troy.

While working as a nanny, Tessie becomes involved with a darkly handsome but vaguely dangerous classmate in her Introduction to Sufism class. The man may or may not be Brazilian and only speaks or sings in Italian. The third plot strand is Tessie’s relationship with her family, most notably her close connection with her younger brother Robert, who plans to join the U.S. Army after high school. Moore takes her time getting to the heart of the story so at first it’s challenging, but once it speeds up, she covers impressive ground in a take-no-prisoners way.

The title of Moore’s novel is both literal and elusive. A Gate at the Stairs may simply mean a baby gate to prevent Tessie’s 2-year old charge, Mary-Emma, from reaching the stairs, or it could mean Babygate, Watergate, or even…Henry Louis Gates, Jr. (The novel, which was clearly written before Professor Gates’ July 2009 incident with the Boston police, has a character in a consciousness-raising group casually mentioning a story about a black youth being accidentally shot by the police in his own home). A gate, therefore, can be something shameful and secretive, an impediment to progress, barring the stairway to heaven, blocking the path to true understanding.

Stairs is streamlined and layered, more like a Chinese shadow box, or a Vidalia onion as opposed to a messy head of radicchio (vegetables are also prominent in Moore’s novel, as Tessie’s father is a gentleman farmer who cultivates organic “pearl” fingerlings for yuppie consumers). The various gates in Moore’s novel are variations on the same theme: love and/or the lack of, and loss of love. Her characters are either recklessly in love or reckless with love. Lust, hunger, lack of faith, neglect and/or mistreatment of children, and racism are simply manifestations of love’s absence. Tessie poetically compares a decadent meal to an empty experience that leaves “the spirit…untouched,” “a condition of prayerless worship,” or an “endless communion” that offers no grace or salvation.

Moore’s cast of passionate yet lonely characters, like her punning/cunning use of language, have names that aptly describe them, yet at the same time may not represent who they really are. Like doomed figures in a Greek tragedy, Moore’s characters misinterpret events, or misinform each other, to escape from their oppressive fates. Tessie always complains of “not hearing things right” or “not believing what she hears.” Language in Moore’s universe is itself a shape-shifting, subversive character. In church, Tessie thinks she hears “Our Father” as follows:

Our father who art a heathen

Hollow be thigh name

Thigh king is dumb

Thigh will is dun

on earth as it is

at birth.

Stairs is the feminine, and feminist, answer to J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye. (Incidentally, Holden Caulfield’s yearning to save the young children who run too close to the cliff of a rye field is also a deliberate misreading of a literary source. Robert Burns’ 18^th century poem, “Coming Thro’ the Rye,” is sexually provocative and has nothing to do with saving children.)

At the end of the novel, after undergoing many forms of personal losses, Tessie becomes “nobody’s sister” who literally stares death in the eye. Wiser, sadder, but still at heart a romantic, Tessie concludes, “Love is the answer…It was OK…as an answer. But no more than that. It was not a solution; it wasn’t really an answer, just a reply.”

Just a reply, but it was way moore than enough for me.

7 Comments

Movie Review: THE INVENTION OF LYING

Ricky Gervais’s The Invention of Lying is the funniest serious movie I’ve seen in years. There are many moments that will make you laugh out loud, but at its core, it’s also a smart meditation on faith, free will and happiness.

The movie opens with “chubby loser” Mark Bellison (Gervais) explaining that in his world, everyone tells the truth all the time. They know no other way. They don’t even have a word for “truth” or “true” because everything just is. This situation makes the first half hour of the movie ridiculously funny, with Jennifer Garner’s character, Anna, telling Mark exactly how she feels about him on their date, and a motel advertising itself as “A cheap place for intercourse with a near stranger.”

But after Mark utters the first lie out of desperation (he’d been fired and facing eviction from his apartment), he discovers what a truly awesome power he holds. He goes about making himself and others happy by feeding them lies, until one about “the man in the sky” gets way out of control. Everyone interprets this notion differently, making Mark wonder if it brings people comfort or takes away their free will.

Gervais, who co-wrote and co-directed with Matthew Robinson, shows a side of him we’ve never seen before. In one scene, he exhibits such deep emotional pain, I had to keep reminding myself this is a man who’s always making me do the liquid-spewing laugh. But this is good, because he draws us in with the humor and then takes us to unexpected places.

Garner has never been lovelier than she is here. She imbues Anna with both the childlike innocence of someone with no edit button, and the confidence of the hot babe who knows she possesses excellent genetics. She has wonderful comic timing, cries beautifully, and is dressed in a wardrobe so fetching, I want to own everything she wears in the movie.

There are many comic superstars in the cast but most of them are underused. My idol Tina Fey is miscast as Mark’s assistant. She has such a take-charge vibe, I don’t buy her as anybody’s lackey. At first, Rob Lowe is quite funny as Brad, Mark’s rival for Anna’s hand, but his arrogant act becomes a little one-note after a while. Edward Norton has a wacky bit as a motorcycle cop, but Christopher Guest is frustratingly wasted.

There’s been some concern in the media that this movie might be offensive in its viewpoint but I feel that’s unwarranted. Gervais isn’t trying to make you believe anything; he’s simply showing a version of the world as he sees it and maybe provoke thought about some big ideas. You can choose to agree or disagree with him because hey, that’s free will. Or you can just look at it as a funny movie, which it is, and that’s the truth.

Nerd verdict: Lying isn’t perfect but still entertaining

15 Comments

Book Review: Audrey Niffenegger's HER FEARFUL SYMMETRY

This review was really difficult for me to write because I desperately wanted to like this book. I’ve been waiting six years for it, squealed with joy when I received it, and approached it with as much affection as one can muster towards an inanimate object.

Unfortunately, I found Audrey Niffenegger‘s Her Fearful Symmetry to be a disappointment, and not because I was so in love with her debut novel, The Time Traveler’s Wife. In fact, I think it’d be unfair to compare this to that so I shall judge Symmetry strictly on its own merits.

The story begins with Elspeth dying from leukemia in London and bequeathing her flat to her nieces, Julia and Valentina Poole, twins who live in America with Edie, Elspeth’s own twin. The girls come to London and immediately get tangled in the lives of Elspeth’s neighbors, including Martin, a shut-in who suffers from OCD; and Robert, who had been Elspeth’s younger lover. They also share their space with Elspeth’s ghost, whom only Valentina can see.

As they explore their newfound independence and adulthood, Valentina starts longing for a life separate from her sister, who insists they must do everything together. Valentina gets extra impetus when she falls for Robert and senses her sister’s resentment of the situation. Valentina’s plan for escape from Julia has disturbing results with an O. Henryesque twist at the end.

One of my struggles with this book was to get past the first 300 pages or so, where not much happens while the twins get acclimated to London and acquainted with their new neighbors. They tour Highgate Cemetery, go to museums and look at jars of organs and dodo skeletons, learn how to use the tube, etc. Note the following samples from the book:

Days went by and nothing much happened.

Exactly. And this:

I’m bored, Julia decided. It was no fun to be bored alone. Julia looked around, but found nothing worth looking at or thinking about.

Me, neither. This is from p. 287.

But then Valentina puts in motion her plot to escape and things get really complicated in the last 100 pages. Niffenegger deserves credit for coming up with a wildly imaginative idea but I couldn’t understand why Valentina wouldn’t choose a much easier way out. I’m all for paranormal and dark and twisted but it has to make some sense.

The end results would be really tragic if it weren’t for my other big problem with the book: I didn’t really care about the characters. I couldn’t find an adequate guide to take me through this fantastical story. Robert, mourning Elspeth and unable to complete his thesis, is stuck in a rut with no real plan to get out of it. Likewise the obsessive-compulsive Martin. Though I’m sympathetic towards OCD sufferers because I’m very close to a few people who have it, scenes about Martin repeatedly scrubbing his floors and hoarding newspapers don’t make gripping fiction.

Because we never get a full glimpse of the relationship between Robert and Elspeth before she died, her yearning for him as a ghost feels superficial, stemming more from a desire for physical contact than deep romantic love. As for the twins, Julia is bossy and Valentina is weak, in spirit and body (she’s asthmatic). Their exclusive twin-ness and otherwordly vibe—with their almost-white hair and propensity to dress all in white—keep them at arm’s length from other characters and the reader.

The one good thing I got from Symmetry was a comforting vision of the afterlife. I recently lost a friend to cancer so this is no small gift. Niffenegger posits that the soul lives on after death and if we open our minds to this possibility, we can visit and co-exist with our departed loved ones in a non-spooky way. Yes, being a ghost can be lonely but the ending suggests that rapture can also be found.

Nerd verdict: Fearful disappoints but has moments of grace

NOTE: Head over to Niffenegger’s website to see her striking artwork and photos of Highgate Cemetery, where she worked as a tour guide.

17 Comments

Movie Review: Jane Campion's BRIGHT STAR

Before I get to my review, I want to mention something funny that happened on my way into the Variety screening of Bright Star. There was a red carpet premiere taking place at the same multiplex where the screening was held but I had no intention of stopping to gape. Sometimes I just get annoyed at all the security and photogs who get in my way.

But then I saw Hugh Laurie. I just stumbled upon Dr. House on a random Thursday evening! Most of you probably know I’m a huge fan of his and there he was, a cane’s length away from me. He was sporting a cropped do which he’d said helps him look like a mental patient (I disagree). Turned out the event was for House‘s season 6 premiere (airing next Monday, 9/21) and once I peeled my eyes off Laurie and looked down the line, I saw Lisa Edelstein, Jesse Spencer, Olivia Wilde and Robert Sean Leonard walking the carpet, too. I guess this time, the paps are forgiven.

*************************

OK, on to the review.

Jane Campion has created a gorgeous piece of art. Bright Star (limited U.S. release today) is about the romance between the poet John Keats (Ben Whishaw) and his muse Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish), the spirited girl next door who is good at fashion and sewing. At first, she has no interest in poems and he thinks fashion is frivolous. But once she reads his Endymion, she asks him to teach her how to appreciate poetry. Soon, a passionate love blooms between them, rudely cut short by his death at 25.

In this age of 3D movies with overblown budgets, director/writer Campion has created something almost magical—a full-bodied, 2D movie with a $13-million budget that seems to stimulate all five senses. In a scene where Fanny lies on her bed with the wind blowing seductively through her curtains, you can almost feel the coolness on your skin. You can smell the flowers in her garden, watch the brightly colored butterflies flitting about in her room (as part of her butterfly farm), taste the soup Keats slurps gingerly to soothe a cough and hear the wonderful a capella singing and violin playing which occur often in the Brawne household.

As Fanny, Cornish is definitely the bright star of this movie. Looking like a cross between younger versions of Nicole Kidman and Charlize Theron, she shines with intelligence, wit and spunk. In the last five minutes of the film, she’s devastating. She’s been on the cusp of stardom with significant turns in Elizabeth: The Golden Age and Stop-Loss; I hope this role pushes her over the edge.

Whishaw does solid work as Keats and generates chemistry with Cornish that’s more playful than sizzling. I thought he looked a little too old in the movie to play Keats from 23-25 years old (perhaps because of facial scruff) but when he showed up afterwards to do Q & A, he looked about 12.

Schneider as Brown

Schneider as himself

As Keats’s best friend, Charles Brown, Paul Schneider is practically unrecognizable with facial hair, ample girth and Scottish brogue. Though I’ve seen this character actor (and so have you) in lots of roles like Ryan Gosling’s brother in Lars and the Real Girl and the guy Amy Poehler has a crush on in Parks and Recreation, I didn’t know it was him until he showed up for the Q & A, clean-shaven and speaking in his native American accent. Then my reaction was “Oh, it’s that guy!” His transformation is quite impressive.

There are a few factors which might deter some moviegoers from seeing this movie: lack of big stars, period piece, poetry being a main topic. Let me emphatically say there’s no need to worry. I’m practically illiterate when it comes to poetry, always hitting a mental block whenever I try reading it (Campion said in the Q & A she had the same problem when she was younger). But this movie still made me swoon because the actors are very good at conveying the feeling behind the words. All you have to do is let the beauty wash over you.

Nerd verdict: A Bright Star indeed to start off Oscar season

9 Comments

Older Posts

Newer Posts