Reviews by lotr23

The poster features two guys in nothing but boxers looking at one another. Then you have the synopsis, which says that the film is about two straight guys who decide to make a porn movie that shows them having sex with each other. Finally, there's the title: HUMPDAY. These three things will easily give people the impression that this movie is going to be your run-of-the-mill, crass, gag-infested buddy comedy, perhaps a raunchier, more homoerotic version of I LOVE YOU MAN and the HAROLD & KUMAR franchise. What the poster, synopsis and title don't prepare you for is the enormous amount of insight on identity and insecurity that there is to be found here. You wouldn't expect this from a movie about two guys who are going to make a porn, but EVERYTHING that happens in this film and every line of dialogue is 100% authentic and natural. There's not a hint of falsity to be found here. HUMPDAY is an astoundingly observant piece of dramatic filmmaking... and yes, it's also often extremely funny. :)

Ben (Mark Duplass) is fulfilling every requirement of what we like to call a normal life. He's married to Anna (Alycia Delmore), and they seem to have a sweet and loving relationship. They live in a great house and are on their way to hopefully getting pregnant. One night, they're visited by Ben's old college friend, Andrew (Joshua Leonard), who just got back from Mexico and looks like your standard free-spirited hippie, with the full beard to make it even more obvious. Ben "steps out" of the conventionality of his married life for one night, and goes to a house party with Andrew, where they get drunk and high and decide to submit an entry to an art festival that focuses strictly on porn. Two straight dudes having sex on a porn is revolutionary, they say, and they both agree that "art should push boundaries." Shock of all shocks, the next day, when they're sober, they both still want to do it, though the reasons aren't quite clear. This marks the beginning of some amazingly well-executed dialogue-based scenes in which we gradually get to discover more and more about the insecurities of not only Ben and Andrew, but also of Ben's wife, Anna. These three characters are fleshed out 150% during the progression of the film's hour-and-a-half running time.

"You're not as Kerouac as you think you are, and I'm not as 'white picket fence' as you think I am," Ben tells Andrew. This is one of the many utterly perfect lines that are delivered in HUMPDAY. This film recognizes that NO character should have a one-dimensional personality, which is why it would've been a mistake to depict Ben as a 100% working-class hero and Andrew as a 100% left-wing bum. In doing this, it refuses to make a mistake that most movies make. Sure, the debate between the guys as to whether or not to go through with having sex on camera becomes the movie's "running joke," but that debate isn't carried out through mindless sessions of yelling or of saying things like "Dude, this is so gay, we can't do this!" The dialogue here is way more intelligent than that, and focuses on the characters' fears, not all of which have to do with sex. I won't spoil whether or not they go through with it, but I WILL say that you won't ever see male nudity or "dude-on-dude boning" in this movie. That's not what HUMPDAY is interested in, despite the title and poster.

Of course, for all the seriousness, there's still plenty of hilarity to be found here. Not much of it is of the "dirty sex joke" variety; most of it is just unabashed wit. When Ben tells Andrew that he and Anna have been trying to get pregnant, he says: "We removed the goalie and now we're just doing free kicks." It took me a while to stop laughing after that one. The film's relentlessly perfect mix of drama and comedy comes across during the series of events that lead to Anna's discovery of the plan that her husband and his buddy have come up with: from a delightfully awkward dinner conversation in which Ben is forced to put the brakes on and back away from what he was planning to tell her, to a drunken interaction between Andrew and Anna in which the truth comes out in a perfectly executed and performed scene.

When Ben says "the pistons firing in my body want to give you a guilt trip, but I can't say shit," aside from feeling elation towards the line's brilliance, I felt so sad that the fact that this film is so small will make it impossible for its screenplay to get Oscar consideration. With that said, there WAS something that became obvious to me while watching HUMPDAY and that I later confirmed online, and it's the fact that a lot of the dialogue was improvised. It just has that natural feel, combined with the occasional ums and uhs that make the conversations more genuine. Some may complain about that, but I don't see that sort of thing as a problem, as long as the actors' spontaneous lines are also intelligent, which is more than the case here.

For all the greatness that comes prior to it, the final act was what would either make or break this film. It lasts roughly half an hour (a third of the overall running time) and features Ben and Andrew finally meeting up in the hotel room where they hope to, um, carry out the deed. I didn't think the movie could get much better during this act; I'm so glad that I was wrong. HUMPDAY could've easily failed by taking the risk of having its final moments devolve into a set of "physical humor"-based gags similar in nature to what we saw during the hotel room scene in BORAT. Thankfully, this film is way above that, and what we get instead during this last act is a laugh-riot of over-analysis and paranoia, as our two characters ponder every logistic of what they're gonna do. **SPOILER WARNING** I'd like to address here what some people have said about the film "backing down" at the end. The movie doesn't back down. The ending is 100% realistic. The things that happen and the statements they make that lead to their decision not to do it all make perfect sense. Honestly, it would've been too hard to believe if they had gone through with it. **END SPOILERS**

The only cloud that I feel is hanging over HUMPDAY is one that is based more on my personal bias than on any flaw that the film may have. While I totally believe that two straight guys could make a plan like this while under the effects of drugs and alcohol, it's not particularly easy to believe that they'd still be on board with it once they got sober. Yes, this issue is addressed, and both guys explain their reasons (or rather, their uncertainty towards their reasons), and there's nothing about the dialogue or the performances that feeds my skepticism; it's just an implausible situation, in my mind. Implausible or not, though, there's no doubt that it makes for a thoroughly involving movie-watching experience. HUMPDAY is both a wise and witty piece of dramatic/comedic filmmaking.

It's the kind of movie you want to hug after you finish watching it, because it's so good-hearted while keeping corniness at a minimum. After having watched a serious and disturbingly realistic portrayal of the teenage years in AFTERSCHOOL, it was great to see the other side of the coin less than two days later: BANDSLAM is a cheerfully enjoyable portrayal of the teens. That's not to say that the film doesn't deal with tough, painful subjects, because it does - it wouldn't be so successful at what it sets out to do if it didn't. But on the whole, this is the sort of cinematic effort that will undoubtedly make you smile, and even better, you won't have to suspend your disbelief to do so.

Will (Gaelan Connell) is an outsider at his high school in Ohio. He's bullied constantly, though we find out later that the reasons why he gets bullied are a lot more serious and heart-wrenching than we may have imagined. Fortunately, his mom (Lisa Kudrow) gets a better job in New Jersey and they move there. Will's now at a bigger high school, and he predicts that now it'll be much easier to be a nobody, since there's so many kids at this new school: "I don't do well in groups." That prediction soon proves wrong, as Will finds himself interacting with Sa5m (Vanessa Hudgens), who explains that the "5" in her name is silent, and with Charlotte (Alyson Michalka), who sees him perform a "good samaritan act" and immediately recruits him to help her manage the school's day care. Sa5m is in the same grade as Will, and they're paired up in a class project for which they'll each have to give an oral presentation describing the other person. Charlotte is older than Will, and as we learn, last year she was the "blonde, popular cheerleader", but she's suddenly had a 180-degree change of personality, which has led her to start interacting with social misfits like Will.

One of the best things about BANDSLAM is that, though we have one guy and two girls as the main characters, this NEVER becomes a "love triangle" situation. The romantic side of the film focuses on the relationship between Will and Sa5m as they work on the project and get to know each other very well, while the relationship between Will and Charlotte is a friendship that hits several bumps along the way. Everything in BANDSLAM is more complex than you'd think: the reason why Charlotte had a sudden change in personality is nowhere to be found in the "Conventional Teen Movie" handbook.

The blossoming romance between Will and Sa5m is a pure delight to watch. Their first kiss is depicted in a perfectly awkward way. The scene in which each of them gets to give the oral presentation on the other person is fantastic and super freaking endearing. I challenge anyone (even those with a heart of stone) not to feel moved by the looks they give each other while Will's video plays in the classroom. Meanwhile, Will and Charlotte collaborate (along with a few other kids) to form a band and have it participate in Bandslam, a contest for high school bands in which Will and Charlotte hope to beat out their school's other band, The Glory Dogs. Things hit a roadblock when Charlotte suffers a big change in her life, which leads her to reveal the reason why she switched from being the stereotypical popular girl to hanging out with the "losers" instead.

While I appreciated the surprisingly complex reason that led Charlotte to change her personality, there are more things that happen towards the end of the film that are harder to believe and not as easy to appreciate. Charlotte changes her approach to things at the last minute in an almost too convenient way, in order to give the film a rosier ending. There are also two contrivances involving Charlotte's ex-boyfriend Ben (Scott Porter), one involving the information he obtains about Will's past and another involving the song he sings at Bandslam, that feel misplaced. Despite all that, though, you have to give credit to the movie for not having the ultimate outcome of the competition turn out to be what you would've expected.

BANDSLAM is cute, touching and heartfelt, yet it's unafraid to deal with pain and with people's demons. The fact that these three characters are each three-dimensional is crucial, because we wouldn't care much otherwise. See how it's actually possible for a movie that looks like it could've premiered on the Disney channel to still be a delight to watch, and without insulting one's intelligence? This movie also serves as yet another counterargument to those who think that it's impossible to give freshness to familiar storylines. It's not impossible. You just need well-drawn characters, original dialogue, dramatic potency and some sweetness and good humor to boot. BANDSLAM has all of that.

It's usually a bad sign when a film is too cold and distant, but AFTERSCHOOL manages to be a fascinating piece of filmmaking despite the fact that those two adjectives definitely apply to it. This is a harsh, authentic and sometimes disturbing look at both the prep school/wealthy children community and at the effects of the current general obsession with Internet videos. The cold and distant approach is exactly the sort of thing that Steven Soderbergh tried earlier this year with THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE and wasn't particularly successful at, whereas first-time director Antonio Campos does a better job at it here. What matters most when you take that sort of approach is that you remember that a "cold and distant" movie can still be engrossing, which is exactly the case here.

I'd hate to spoil what happens during the first few seconds of AFTERSCHOOL, but suffice it to say that it's more than enough to give you an idea of not only the dark direction in which the film is headed but also of the troubled state of mind of its protagonist. Rob (Ezra Miller) is a sophomore at a prep school, who mostly stays in his room and watches videos on his computer. During class he's distracted looking at his English teacher's butt and breasts, but as soon as she asks him a question, he answers correctly (he may be a horny teenager, but he knows his Hamlet). He seems to get along reasonably well with his roommate Dave (Jeremy Allen White), but there's a constant undertone of hostility here. Dave copies his homeworks from Rob, and although they room together, Dave is such a lazy procrastinator that he doesn't actually copy the homeworks until they're sitting in the hallway waiting for class to start. Dave hangs out and does drugs with some other friends, but never invites Rob: "You're not cool enough, man." Indeed, when talking to his mom on the phone, Rob confesses that he doesn't think people like him; his mom basically responds by begging him not to bother her and to just put those negative thoughts out of his mind.

At this prep school, it's required to be in at least one extracurricular activity. Obviously, Rob's not much of an athlete or social butterfly, so he decides to join the video club, which seems to be right up his alley of interests. Things get complicated when the Talbert twins (two seniors who are the stereotypical blonde "most popular girl in school" types) die of a drug overdose, and it turns out that Rob filmed their agonizing final moments and stood over them as they died (the Talbert twins were also among the people that Dave did drugs with). Fortunately, we don't get the entire story on what happened, which is precisely what makes AFTERSCHOOL so intriguing for its entire running time.

This film features a brilliant blend between reality as you actually see it and reality seen through the lens of a camera. Although the death of the Talbert twins is what makes the plot move forward, the film is at its best when it examines Rob's perspective on what's happening around him. As one of the adult characters observes at one point, "it's hard to tell" what Rob is thinking, and the curiosity of discovering more about what's going on inside his head makes this a particularly engrossing film.

There are two missteps towards the end of AFTERSCHOOL. One involves a speech by the school's principal in which he states that everyone is responsible for the girls' deaths ("we all gave them the drugs"). While it's true that you could easily hold everyone accountable for the problem of teenage drug use, this is too much of a platitude for a movie that aims more towards disturbing unconventionality. My other complaint is that this is the type of film that would've benefitted from an intense, tough blow in its final scene. AFTERSCHOOL leaves things somewhat unresolved, which is something I don't have a problem with (and I usually think it's great when that happens), but I feel that, in addition to leaving things unresolved, it should've ended with a big emotional punch.

Nonetheless, this is still very intelligent and well-shot. AFTERSCHOOL isn't for everyone, but it easily satisfies those of us who appreciate this sort of risky, offbeat cinematic offering. There are traces of Gus Van Sant's masterwork ELEPHANT here, which is nothing but a great accolade especially for someone who's making his directorial debut.

I found out about ZOMBIELAND a few weeks ago when I saw the poster for it while at the movie theater, and my first thought was: "Wow. That's a great cast." But bad movies have had great casts in the past, so I wasn't filled with confidence yet, and the trailer certainly didn't help: it made the film look lame, unfunny and unoriginal. What a misleading trailer it is. You can say what you want about movie critics, but this is a case in which at least I was swayed to watching the film solely because it scored a surprisingly high tomatometer, and I'm delighted to see how accurate it is. ZOMBIELAND is one heck of a fun ride: it features several moments of comedic brilliance and some thoroughly exciting action sequences.

The fact that this film was going to be far better than most of the usually bland and uninspired entries to the genre becomes quite clear once we hear a voiceover from our protagonist, Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg), one of the few humans who survived a plague that has turned everyone else into zombies: "I may seem like an unlikely survivor with all my phobias and irritable bowel syndrome." That's just the beginning of a set of absolutely hilarious lines that we get to hear as Columbus goes on an unorthodox road trip of sorts with Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), who is in the "ass-kicking" business, as we find out immediately upon meeting him. The two of them later meet Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), two sisters who are far from being as innocent as they seem and have been con artists ever since before the plague even started.

While the laughs here are constant, there are two moments that need to be singled out (and I'm just going to make reference to them, rather than spoil them). The first is a short scene featuring the "kill of the week," which is a perfect example of why horror and blood and guts and all that good stuff works so well in the realm of comedy, as these filmmakers are clearly aware. The second involves a cameo that you may have already found out about since people are talking about it on message boards, and as great as it is, the best part about it is the punchline, which has to do with the movie GARFIELD.

Now, if that were that, I'd gladly give the film a 60%, and commend it for its success in the humor department despite its failure to do anything else, which is what happens with most films of the "zombie-horror-comedy" subgenre. But there's more here. Even though the film seems like it'll focus mainly on the four characters' struggle to survive zombie attacks and that it'll mostly feature action sequences, that's far from the case. This is actually a road trip movie, with plenty of subtle, interesting moments that give space for character development - yeah, that's exactly what I said. Who would've thought you'd find that in a movie like this? Most filmmakers who handle this sort of material would think of that as unnecessary: "Pfft, the audience just wants to see blood splattering everywhere; forget everything else." Thank God that that's not the case with ZOMBIELAND, and it's even more impressive that this film finds room in its brief 80-minute running time to get us to care about its protagonists. It helps that there are a few flashbacks in which we get to see what each of these people's lives were like before the plague struck, but there are plenty of instances in which director Ruben Fleischer allows his characters to interact with one another in a far more honest way than we're used to seeing in this sort of film. Massive kudos for that. There are two especially noteworthy instances of this: the first takes place while our characters are playing a board game and they talk about the best things and worst things that, in their minds, have come out of Zombieland. The second takes place during a scene in which Columbus and Wichita reminisce about the year 1997; it was hard not to get nostalgic about something as specific as "I saw my first R-rated movie: Anaconda," which brought back some memories of my pre-teenage years.

It's kind of interesting to note that, not only has Jesse Eisenberg starred this year in two films with titles ending in "land," but that both films are about a thousand times better than they ought to be. ADVENTURELAND's trailer made it look like a lifeless comedy, when in fact it was a delightfully honest drama, while ZOMBIELAND's trailer made it look like an uninspired horror movie, when in fact it's a hilarious riot of a comedy. Eisenberg often plays very similar characters in his films, which is something that some people may criticize, but I've already said what my thoughts on that are: I don't have a problem if an actor plays the same character in all his/her movies, as long as he/she does a GOOD job at it (which is why I think someone like Cameron Diaz DOES deserve to be criticized for this). I'm also partial to Eisenberg because his character in THE SQUID AND THE WHALE is my all-time favorite movie character, but all bias aside, he handles himself predictably well in ZOMBIELAND. He's aided by the company of Woody Harrelson's uproarious performance as the badass Tallahassee - so many comedic actors try this sort of thing and fail by going over-the-top or just not doing enough for it. Harrelson is perfect for this role. Emma Stone brings a similarly understated persona here as she gave us in SUPERBAD; I'd like to see her do more because I haven't detected even the slightest bit of falsity in either of the two performances I've seen her give. Abigail Breslin has less to do here than the other three actors, and she also has less to do than in other movies she's starred in (despite her age), but her presence is very much welcome, and she gets to deliver some delightfully blunt lines.

Despite having such great material to offer both in its very funny dialogue and in its exciting action sequences, ZOMBIELAND curiously focuses a bit more than it should on a plot line involving Tallahassee's obsession with Twinkies, which have become scarce ever since the plague. The joke is a bit overdone, especially when it takes on an unnecessary amount of importance during the film's final scenes. The other problem to be had with the film takes place during a predictably contrived moment in which a character shows up at the precise moment to interrupt a kiss: we've seen it happen in plenty of other movies, and it's certainly not a major flaw, but it sticks out in a movie in which almost everything else is sheer brilliance.

This was Fleischer's directorial debut, and not only do I want him to continue making stuff like this, but I think I'd also like him to try his hand at something more serious. Plenty of the more subdued moments in ZOMBIELAND are especially telling that there's some talent here in terms of the dramatic department. When I saw (and was disappointed) by the film's lame trailer, I would've never expected I would say this, but we need more movies like ZOMBIELAND. This film capitalizes on the fact that, for whatever odd reason, horror and zombies and blood-splattering can actually be FUNNY (if it's done well), but it's also not afraid to throw in character development and some intelligently perceptive dialogue, and for that, it's an above-average cinematic entry to an ostensibly disposable sub-genre.

JENNIFER'S BODY tries to be three things at once: (1) a horror movie, (2) a depiction of the emotional hardships of the high school years, and (3) a comedy. The film fails miserably at the first of these things, does a so-so job at the second one, and (occasionally) fares decently well at the third one. Screenwriter Diablo Cody (who won the best original screenplay Oscar for 2007's JUNO) brings us yet another story that includes an unlikely friendship between the popular cheerleader and the geeky girl. Unfortunately, the results are entirely different here: JUNO may have been imperfect, but it was still a delightful coming-of-age story, whereas JENNIFER'S BODY is a mixed bag of awkwardness, bad horror, and the occasional instance of wit that reminds us of the screenwriter's prior effort.

As I mentioned, JENNIFER'S BODY sort of tries to tackle three genres at once, and the second one I mentioned (the social difficulties of the high school years) initially SEEMS like it'll be the film's main focus, from the voiceover we start getting from Needy (Amanda Seyfried) at the beginning of the film. Once we get into the actual plot, though, this aspect is sort of pushed aside to give more way to the horror/comedy elements, and it only resurfaces whenever we hear other voiceovers from the geeky and insecure Needy. If the filmmakers had wanted to give more weight to this, they should've had more scenes in which we got to witness Needy's frustrations towards her friendship with cheerleader Jennifer (Megan Fox), who always makes it a point of being the "hot one," and the two of them have an implicit agreement that Needy will never "upstage" Jennifer in terms of looks. This would've been wonderful material for the film to explore on an emotional level, and it may have given way for at least a glimmer of the dramatic effectiveness we saw in JUNO, but sadly, it's given very limited importance here.

The majority of JENNIFER'S BODY consists of some oddly-conceived scenes that mix horror with dark comedy. When I say "oddly-conceived" I don't mean it ALL in a bad sense: some of the film's lines are funny (after all, Cody can't have just LOST all her talent, right?), but the horror aspect of the film is, well... pretty horrible. There are two moments in particular that are great evidence of this distinction between the levels of success at each genre that is tackled. The first involves a scene in which Needy is having sex with her boyfriend Chip (Johnny Simmons), while intercutting with an instance of Jennifer having, um, a different kind of intercourse with another guy. The editing here is very weak and the paralellisms are completely lame (we don't even SEE the gory moment: we just see the shadow of it), BUT the comedic punchline is great: "Did I hurt you? Am I too big?" (said with a smile) The second moment comes during the climax of the film, when we get a terribly unexciting and poorly-realized "fight sequence" of sorts in a dirty, swamp-like pool. There's nothing creative about this climax, EXCEPT for a brilliant moment of irony involving pepper spray that will certainly make the audience laugh. This is exactly my point: JENNIFER'S BODY should've focused more on being a comedy than on being a horror film, because there's no doubt that it would've been way more successful at the former than it is at the latter. There are several other funny lines scattered throughout the film. My only complaint about the comedic aspect is that there are a few too many Jesus jokes (no, it's not because I'm religious and was offended; it's because there were just too many, and they got a little old after a while).

Megan Fox is hampered here in terms of getting a chance to show acting range. People thought that since she had no chance to show any range in TRANSFORMERS, this would be her chance to do so, but they might have to wait longer (or forever). At least she gets a chance to do more here than she did in TRANSFORMERS, but it's far from a career-defining role, which is what it should've been. She's even more hampered by the fact that co-stars Amanda Seyfried and Johnny Simmons actually give solid performances. Seyfried hasn't been bad in anything I've seen her in, and in the case of Simmons, you have to give credit to the casting people for picking such an innocent-looking guy (which fits the character of Chip perfectly). I should also mention here (though I suppose everyone knows it) that the film features a French kiss between Fox and Seyfried. I guess that the fact that it's a kiss between two girls and Megan Fox is one of the two girls will make guys salivate over this and want to watch it over and over again, but for the rest of us, not much to see. Two girls French kissing in a movie was revolutionary 10 years ago when CRUEL INTENTIONS came out, but not so much in 2009.

Remember that scene in JUNO during which Ellen Page and Jason Bateman are sitting on a couch watching a horror movie and discussing their tastes in the genre? It's hard to imagine that Juno and Mark would be too pleased with this, though they might find it enjoyable on a "laughably bad" level, thanks to its occasional success in the humor department. Overall, though, JENNIFER'S BODY is an awkwardly concocted, unscary piece of filmmaking that becomes terribly ridiculous during its final moments.

Whether we're dealing with the caustic, depressing cinematic material that we got from last year's brilliant REVOLUTIONARY ROAD, or with the undeniably delightful charm of this year's AWAY WE GO, there's little doubt that director Sam Mendes is more than reliable (and he's also proven that with everything else he's done prior to these two films). While AWAY WE GO may not be as searingly intense as REVOLUTIONARY ROAD or as relentlessly raw as JARHEAD, there's no arguing the fact that it's a very good little movie, with a seamless mix of amusing and heart-breaking moments.

It's truly amazing how believable John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph are as a couple. There's not a second in which we doubt that they love each other, and this is mostly due to several "small moments" that they share rather than to things being said explicitly. Burt and Verona find out that Verona is pregnant during a brilliantly-conceived first scene which is also uproariously funny for the way in which it is "discovered" that she's pregnant. They are thirtysomethings who are still not quite sure what their aim in life is, and they decide to take a road trip around the country, perhaps to figure out which place would be a good one to move to in order to raise their child.

Every time that Burt and Verona make a stop at one of the towns or cities they go to, they meet up with someone who is somehow related to one of them, and for the most part, hilarity ensues. AWAY WE GO definitely relies quite a bit on the quirkiness of the supporting characters that our protagonists visit during their journey. Some may criticize this, but I adored it; my only problem with it is the fact that I would've loved to get to see more of some of these supporting characters, rather than just a few scenes. Take, for example, the segment involving Burt and Verona's visit to Ellen (Maggie Gyllenhaal), who goes by "LN" instead because, um, she's a Women's Studies professor (get it?). LN is Burt's "cousin" (they're not actually related, but I won't spoil the details), and the couple spends a few hours in her house before things become delightfully awkward. There are two moments during this segment (both involving a stroller) that got me to laugh the hardest I've probably laughed during a single scene of any other film this year. The magnificent Gyllenhaal is awesome here, and it would've been fantastic to see more of her character.

Despite what some may call the film's over-reliance on quirkiness, and despite the fact that we wish we got to see more of some of the secondary folks, there's no doubt that the pitch-perfect chemistry between Krasinksi and Rudolph works wonders and keeps one constantly engrossed in the plot. Although there are moments during which Burt seems like he might need to grow up a little, I have no doubt that he's exactly the kind of gentle soul any girl would love to have in her life. Verona is played remarkably well by Rudolph, and the character's difficulties dealing with her parents' death take central importance in the plot, particularly when it comes to the film's resolution. The couple's final destination may not be what we would have expected, but it makes perfect sense in light of what happens, and the film's final, sullen moments are handled in an expertly subtle way.

Don't expect to see Verona giving birth in the last scene and to get confirmation that the family now has everything figured out and that they'll live happily ever after, because that's clearly not what we can expect from a director like Mendes, and thank goodness for that. However, there's no doubt that AWAY WE GO is still largely sweet and light-hearted; it's just refreshing to get (for once) a film that can pull that off without needing to enter saccharine territory.

The first warning I need to get across here is that you shouldn't mix up this film's title with that of another, similarly-named 2009 film starring Amy Adams and Meryl Streep. The latter was JULIE & JULIA, which was a light-hearted look at Julia Child's culinary travails. While that film was good, it doesn't stand a chance at being on my year-end top 10 list, which is the opposite of what I can say about JULIA, a ceaselessly gripping thriller that initially looks like it'll be a story about an alcoholic woman, and later looks like it'll be a story about kidnapping, yet ends up being a lot more than either of those two things.

While JULIA is ultimately about redemption, that resolution isn't brought to us in a tidy, perfectly packaged way. In fact, basically everything that happens in this film is very much untidy, disorganized and reckless, which one expects is far more of an accurate representation of how kidnappings actually take place than what we normally see in the dozens of films that have depicted the carrying out of that crime. Yes, the title character (Tilda Swinton) kidnaps a boy and asks for money in return, but the circumstances that lead to this happening are far from anything you've seen before, and the interaction that we get to see between Julia and the child she has taken is far more authentic than anything we're used to seeing. This is one of those rare exceptions in which a director doesn't fall into the trap of making the victim a completely helpless and good-hearted soul and the villain a completely dehumanized and vicious character. The film isn't reluctant to expose the child's spoiled personality, and it's even less reluctant to show us that, while Julia is a deeply flawed, cheating, pathological liar, she's not devoid of good. I wouldn't trust Julia with my money, but I'd love to have a 5-hour long conversation with her.

Perhaps my affinity for such an ostensibly evil character is due to Tilda Swinton's immense talent. As a character, Julia goes through dozens of emotional stages; Tilda Swinton has 10 times more work to do here than most actors do whenever they take on a role, and she takes everything the script gives her, and fiercely brings an absolutely astonishing lead performance as the title character. I wonder if the fact that this film is so small, combined with the fact that Swinton won an Oscar so recently, will make it hard for her to get recognized, but I hope it doesn't, because she's simply incredible here. I didn't think her work in MICHAEL CLAYTON was award-worthy, but for this performance I'd give her five Oscars if I could. Ever since she starred in THE WAR ZONE 10 years ago, she's never failed to impress, and the greatness of what she does with the role of JULIA is central to the film's success.

During its last act the film makes an interesting decision to change gears a little bit and focus on something we've seen treated several times (and not always all that well) in other films: the issue of kidnapping for ransom money in Mexico. Julia gets into a sticky situation when the child she stole is stolen from HER by Mexicans who believe she is the kid's mother and a wealthy American. Although during this act the film continues to be every bit as entertaining and tense as it was before, it has to be admitted that the scenes that came prior to it, which focused solely on Julia's interaction with the boy and on how to get everything (and herself) together, were far more interesting. Inevitably, there are two or three things that happen a little too conveniently during this act in order to reach the film's final scene, but it's worth it, because the final scene will have you on pins and needles: it takes place on a highway with cars driving by extremely quickly, and the level of tension doesn't let up for a second.

The reason why JULIA isn't just about alcoholism or just about kidnapping is easily guessed from the film's title. As the RT consensus correctly states, this is a character study. Sure, it's a dark one, but the last shot right before the film ends gives you the impression that there may be a glimmer of hope for things to get better. The great thing about this, though, is that the film isn't dead-set in telling us that Julia has become a better person. The film ends on a seemingly haphazard note and without giving 100% closure to the plot, which can lead to several theories on what Julia will do next and whether or not she's even changed at all. JULIA is a surefire winner thanks to its relentlessly gripping pace and to Swinton's piercingly raw and devastating performance.

At the very beginning of the delightful, wonderfully bittersweet 500 DAYS OF SUMMER, we see a disclaimer that we're used to seeing at the end of a film's credits: that all of the characters are fictitious, and any resemblance to real-life people is purely coincidental. This is followed by an additional statement that will make people laugh, but more importantly, it sets a mood of acerbic humor that will prevail throughout most of the film. The laughs in 500 DAYS OF SUMMER aren't the belly laughs that you'd get from the average, gag-infested romantic comedy; the laughs here are punctuated with a sense of sympathy (and very often pain) for the main character... a guy. That's right: despite being categorized as a romantic comedy (which is arguable), 500 DAYS OF SUMMER is told from the male point of view, which is something we see so rarely.

This film is far too deep and observant to be considered a "chick flick." In fact, as the narrator says, and as you already know if you've seen the trailer, "this isn't a love story." That obviously depends on what your definition of a "love story" is, but the narrator's statement makes sense because 500 DAYS OF SUMMER isn't as much about the unfolding of the relationship between the two leads as it is about their extremely divergent perspectives on love, and how the clashing of those perspectives impacts both of them in very extreme ways. If this film were simply about "the story of Tom and Summer," it would follow a linear sequence of events. However, this movie is more of an examination of feelings within particular moments in time, and how these feelings can change so radically, which is why the film elects to show things out of order... BUT, for the love of God, don't let that dissuade you from seeing it because, surprise of surprises, the technique works remarkably well in this movie, as I'll explain later.

Although Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) studied architecture, he works at one of those Hallmark-type companies, where he's in charge of coming up with what many would think are the nauseating messages that we find in congratulatory and romantic greeting cards. He's a full-on romantic, and he's apprehensive about the possibility of never finding "the one." Tom's boss hires a new assistant, Summer (Zooey Deschanel), and although Tom is immediately struck by her, he's too shy to engage her, and it's not until a karaoke party to which all of the office's employees are invited that Tom and Summer, after having a few drinks, get to know each other on a deeper level. Much to his chagrin, Tom discovers that Summer doesn't believe in true love: "I don't feel comfortable being anyone's anything. It just causes pain." While she has a point, this doesn't deter Tom's growing feelings for her, and once they first kiss (in a cleverly staged and perfectly awkward moment in the photocopy room), they sort of come to an agreement: Summer warns him that what they have is "nothing serious," and Tom pretends like he's okay with that. The average movie would then progress to portray a linear sequence of the development of Tom and Summer's relationship. However, 500 DAYS OF SUMMER is better than that: it covers the "500 days" from Tom meeting Summer on day #1 to the film's final scene on day #500, but in the process of doing so, it will often go forwards and backwards between days. This may seem like it would be confusing. Why does it work tremendously well in 500 DAYS OF SUMMER?

The film chooses to focus on contrasts between the "stages" of a relationship, and in order to establish those contrasts, it's unnecessary to show the stages in sequence (in fact, as we notice during the film, it's often more effective to go from what happened later to what happened first). In the case of Tom and Summer, we realize early on that the relationship imploded right around day #300, so whenever the film goes to a day after #300, we know that the mood is going to be different. The best example of how effective these contrasts I mentioned are is an instance in which, first, we see something that happened in the later stages of the relationship, where Tom and Summer are at IKEA and Tom is joking about the dishwashers not working, while Summer is acting stoically... THEN, we rewind to the first few months that they were together, and we see Tom and Summer at IKEA messing around and pretending like all of the furniture is part of a house they're living in, and of course, Tom is on cloud nine during this entire moment. There's never going to be any doubt in the viewers' minds that Tom is submerged in his love for Summer; in one of the film's later scenes, he walks by her on a train without actually seeing her, but we can tell that he immediately knew that it was her. Unfortunately for him, Summer's focus on keeping things on a non-serious level doesn't bode well for the chances of the couple staying together.

While there is an enormous amount of emotional insight to be found in essentially every scene of 500 DAYS OF SUMMER, there is a sequence in particular that has to be singled out for its incredible brilliance. Just like the technique of showing events out of order, the "split-screen" technique is one I've never been a fan of either, because it's not often possible to keep track of what's happening on both sides, and there may even be a tendency to want to just look at one of the two sides and ignore the other. Such is not the case during a wonderfully fluid sequence in 500 DAYS OF SUMMER in which the left side is titled "Expectations" and the right side is titled "Reality." The sequence takes place during a party that Tom and Summer attend and, as you may have figured out already, the "expectations" part shows the way Tom would've liked the party to unfold, and the "reality" part shows, well, the sad truth. This segment of the film is put together in a way that it is not difficult to analyze what is happening on both sides: it is presented in a completely fluid way with perfectly appropriate music to boot. This sequence, combined with the pitch-perfect approach taken towards the way in which the days are shown to us, is evidence that the work done in the editing room was absolutely terrific.

Earlier in the film, there's a montage sequence which takes place the day after Tom and Summer first have sex, and it involves Tom happily ambling on the street. The decision to have the montage was appropriate because 500 DAYS OF SUMMER is largely about Tom's varying emotional states, but the way the montage is put together is one of the two small quibbles I have with the film. Put simply, it's too cute; it involves an exaggerated amount of dancing, and features Tom interacting with some animated birds, which are blue, by the way, which I suspect was done partly as a result of the camera's apparent obsession with Zooey Deschanel's eyes.

The other quibble I have involves the film's final scene. While the name that is revealed in the film's final line caused an uproar of laughter in the movie theater (and I admit was among the people cracking up), it's hard to ignore that it's a contrivance, and it actually seems like the type of contrivance that would beg for a sequel (which would be unnecessary - 500 DAYS OF SUMMER is a wonderful movie that needs no following up). Despite that, though, I do very much appreciate the film's sudden philosophical shift (which is made clear by the narrator) in terms of the "fate vs. coincidence" dilemma. The fact that this happens leaves the door open for interpretation, which means that everyone will not come out of the film having drawn the same conclusions.

While this film isn't entirely light-hearted, there are plenty of hilarious moments, which is why this is actually one of the most light-hearted films that Joseph Gordon-Levitt has taken part in, and while his roles during the last few years have been darker, that doesn't stop him from giving an emotionally devastating performance here; Tom's vulnerability is constantly palpable in every scene of the film. There's a moment later in the film (during a meeting at the office) when Tom's sense of disillusionment towards love blatantly manifests itself, and the moment could've easily been over-the-top, but Gordon-Levitt avoids that at all costs. Several of the reviews that have criticized Zooey Deschanel's performance have done so on the erroneous basis that Summer is an "unlikable" character. However, it should be noted that, since we're rooting for Tom to be happy, and Summer's stance on love is hindering that, it's not exactly going to be easy to LIKE her (though I did). So, to be fair, the sense of disgust may be more towards the character than the performance, and I think that Deschanel's work as the title character was remarkable.

On a personal level, I felt deeply engrossed in the conflict of ideas exchanged by the two protagonists due to their opposite views on love/relationships. I usually profess to share Summer's perspective that true love doesn't exist, that it's better to just enjoy things while they last, and that there's no need to find "the one" in order to be happy... but the truth is that I'm really a romantic at heart. That's the reason why, as I said last year in regard to IN SEARCH OF A MIDNIGHT KISS, this is my kind of movie: perceptive about relationships, emotionally searing, with characters who are more than compelling and easy to feel pain for. 500 DAYS OF SUMMER is one of the best films of the year.

A lot of credit has to be given when a film is carried so well by a single actor. There's not a dull moment to be found in MOON, despite the fact that it is a somewhat bleak film set in space, and despite the fact that the screen is dominated by a lone performer, Sam Rockwell (who plays two "versions" of his character in the movie, but further explaining that would force me to move into spoiler territory). Those who don't like "space movies" may be turned off by the poster for MOON, but the poster is actually deceptive because MOON isn't exactly what you'd call a "space movie," since most of its scenes occur inside the base where our main character is located. While this movie is a little simpler than I would've liked it to be (given the deep subject matter), it still mostly succeeds at what it tries to do.

One of the most interesting aspects of this film is that it gives us the opportunity to make a comparison between how a human being behaves when he is only just starting an arduous venture (a 3-year odyssey in space, in this case) and the state he's in once he's nearing the end of it. Rockwell has the difficult task of embodying both of these personas, and while he's more successful at portraying the latter one (which is surprising, because you'd expect it'd be harder to play a demoralized and worn-out person than to play a physically strong and enthusiastic one), his work is still 100% solid throughout the entire film. The movie also benefits from an intelligent and often witty script ("You look like a radioactive tampon!"), which is so often lacking in so many of the dense and lackluster films that make up this genre.

The other noteworthy subject is MOON's stance on the concept of cloning, and the way in which it gets across its criticism. As I said, going too deep into this would force me to spoil things, but what needs to be said is that, while the film deals with this topic intelligently (for the most part), with a few twists and turns thrown in for good measure, its final moments portray the film's stance a little too obviously, from our protagonist's statement of "We're not programmed, we're people," to the final comments we hear from people on the radio right before credits roll.

If there's one aspect of MOON that is great, it's the pulsating piano-based score that is used during the film's more tense moments. The score during the lighter moments is a bit too "pretty" and conventional for my taste, and doesn't seem to fit the setting all that well either, but the score that is used for the tenser moments is magnificent. Despite the genre, the film doesn't have many explosions or moments in which eye-popping special effects are employed, but that makes sense, because this is more of a pensive cinematic piece, which is something I welcome heartily. With his role in the recent CHOKE, and now his doubly strong performance in MOON, Sam Rockwell has totally established himself as an actor to watch, and once he stars in something more Oscar-baity, there's no doubt that he'll have a strong chance at recognition.

While it's more of a mildly appetizing diversion than the sumptuously great cinematic dish we should have gotten from a film featuring actresses of Amy Adams and Meryl Streep's calibers, JULIE & JULIA is a fine attempt at coalescing two stories that would seem somewhat inert if they weren't buttressed by the talents of the two actresses who occupy the title roles. The film gives us a fully delectable examination of the epicurean world from the perspectives of each of the two female protagonists, and it also provides a compelling analysis of two relationships and of the different ways in which the two men in each of these two women's lives coped with staying committed to them, despite at times feeling like they had become of secondary importance as their wives focused on each of their culinary pursuits.

As if we needed further evidence of her infinite talent, Meryl Streep is absolutely astonishing in the role of Julia Child. She is a hoot to watch, hysterically funny. It's truly amazing when an actor or actress that you have seen in so many other films manages to make you FORGET that you're watching the actor or actress, and instead submerges you with him/her in the character that he/she is playing, and that's what Streep does here. Watching her as the delightfully free-spirited legend of cooking, one even forgets about her equally magnificent, yet entirely different, performance in last year's DOUBT. Speaking of DOUBT, once again Streep pairs up with Amy Adams, and to be honest, if it were up to me, I'd love it if they both continued doing films together, if this is the result we'll constantly get in terms of their performances. Adams' role is obviously less meaty and not nearly as challenging as Streep's, but the younger actress still handles Julie Powell's emotional moments admirably.

As much as it would seem like these two stories would fit perfectly well together, there's something missing here that makes JULIE & JULIA fall short of being more than just good, despite the wonderful performances. Half of the film is about Julia Child's struggle to get her cooking book published, and the other half is about Julie Powell's struggle to cook her way through Child's recipes in a year (while blogging the entire venture). So, it would seem like there wouldn't be much problem intercutting from one story to another within a single film. However, the problem is that the transitions from one story to the other aren't particularly fluid here, and they're sometimes a bit disconcerting. The parallelisms are weak. I'm not sure that I would have liked them to make two separate films about each of the two characters (as that may be stretching it a bit much), but perhaps it would have worked better if we had seen a full hour of Julia's story, followed by a full hour of Julie's story (which took place several years later).

The other problem to be found in JULIE & JULIA is the fact that things sort of hit a lull around the halfway point, and this is because there's only so much you can show of Julia's concoctions and of Julie's cooking fiascos before things get repetitive. This is where the immense strength of the performances is felicitous, because Adams and Streep at least maintain a level of watchability even as the plot starts to wear thin.

Thankfully, though, the final moments of the film are handled nicely. Several signs seem to indicate that the film is going to have a conventional ending featuring a meeting between the two title characters, but we don't quite get what we expect. In fact, there's a point in the film during which we get some (surprising) information about Child's opinion on Julie's blog, and this is the kind of plot thread that begs to be resolved into a neat little package by the standard conventions of Hollywood, but instead, it remains unresolved, which is a welcome surprise.

JULIE & JULIA may not be tour de force filmmaking, but it sure is a tour de force of acting, particularly in the case of Streep, who (once again) gives one of the best performances of the year so far. Her presence alone is worth the admission price.