Five Films I Wish I Hadn't Seen...

A friend of mine is currently doing a blog challenge where she posts on a certain topic everyday. The other day, the topic was top movies you'd watch over and over or, for a negative spin, movies you wished you never saw. My friend did the positive side (you can read her post here). I, however, feel it is my duty as a film blogger to help all of you avoid terrible movies. In the interest of time, I will limit myself to five, however if you guys enjoy this type of post, let me know, and I'll try to do more at other times.

Step Up

I liked it better the first time, when it was called Dirty Dancing, and the second time, when it was called Save the Last Dance, and really, I could probably come up with several other dancing films in which two people fall in love and the relationship is forbidden. Any time I bash this movie, someone will defend it because the dancing was good. Fine, you're right, the dancing WAS good. But when I watch a film, I want to fall in love with the writing, the acting, the direction, and the originality of it, none of which were on par with anything that you can even call decent. One day I'm certain that everyone will get over Channing Tatum...he just needs to get ugly.

S. Darko

I'm certain that a lot of this list will contain remakes or sequels because they generally suck (fairly soon, I will be posting about how to make a good remake, because despite being rare, they do exist). For anyone who has seen Donnie Darko, you know that the film is incredibly interesting, well-written, well-directed, and well-acted. If you decide to pick up S. Darko, you should expect absolutely none of that. It was not written nor directed by the same man as the first and the only character that is in both is Samantha. I think the writers of this just decided to try and make the movie equally as confusing as Donnie Darko, except instead of putting effort into it and keeping you intrigued, you just give up and decide that this movie is a piece of crap...and it is.

Bring it On: All or Nothing

I debated whether or not I should list this one. After all, stating that I wish I hadn't seen this movie also states that I have seen this movie. I have actually seen the first three Bring it On movies. The second one I watched at a slumber party in high school and the third I watched with a group of friends, also in high school. Hopefully this excuses the fact that I've seen three of them. Anyway, while I'm not a fan of the first even, I can see how it's possible teenagers would enjoy it. After all, I did once. But beyond the first, I find nothing of value in any of these ridiculous films. It's the same concept repeated over and over and over again, but with new and exciting teen speak that makes me feel as though most people consider my generation as a bunch of ditzy idiots...we're not...and I never spoke like that, not even in high school.

August Rush

If you read that title and wanted to mention how great the music is, then you must have skipped over my comments on Step Up. The first thing I said after leaving the theater back in the fall of 2007 was, "I think these writers went on strike early." First of all, a guy in a band has a one-night stand with a violin player and falls in love with her? There is no dialogue between them that seems at all special or meaningful, and a guy who plays in a band has got to have A LOT of one-night stands, so we really needed that dialogue to tell us why she's so meaningful. But then, when he becomes so depressed that he never saw her again, he quits his band? Everyone who's ever written music knows that the best songs come out of tragedy. No actual musician would quit playing music because they're upset over losing a girl...if anything, they would play more. And do I really need to mention the dialogue again? Plus, Robin Williams as a character out of Oliver Twist? Seriously, this movie was terrible and needs help, especially since the cast list was decent.

Nicholas Cage Movie: City of Angels

If this does become a regular fixture on Firestones on Film, I thought it would be fun to complain about Nicholas Cage. For those of you who don't know, Nicholas Cage is by far my least favorite actor. Irony of all ironies, he is also the reason my favorite actor (Johnny Depp) is in acting, since he suggested the career path to him. He really only ever does one thing, and I hate that one thing that he does. Even in films that I otherwise enjoy, he makes my skin crawl and I want to punch him in the face. By far the worst of his I've seen is City of Angels. What is this movie even really about anyway? An angel has sex with a human? Isn't that wrong...like a heavenly version of beastiality or something? Also, are we really supposed to read that Heaven isn't as good as Meg Ryan? If so, that will be a sad, sad eternity...(nothing against Meg Ryan. Obviously I enjoy her, since I wrote about how awesome When Harry Met Sally... is. However, I would hope that Heaven is more enjoyable than sex with Meg Ryan.)

It's Okay, Nolan; Hitchcock Never Won an Oscar

Throughout the years, I have lost more and more faith in award shows. There are a lot of politics that surround voting in Hollywood, which is why I take them with a grain of salt. However, I am still overjoyed with some of the Academy's choices (such as eight nominations for Inception, a nomination for Hailee Steinfeld, and a nomination for the Coen brothers for Best Director) and I am definitely angered at some...

I mean, why is Julianne Moore's name not listed under Best Actress? Granted, I am happy that votes will not be split between her and Annette Bening, but really...Moore's performance was outstanding and she deserves some recognition. Plus, while I'm pleased with Steinfeld's nomination, I don't understand why she's supporting and Bridges is leading...after all, True Grit is about Mattie, and she was Mattie. I understand that she's young, but I don't think that means she should be supporting. And Nolan is not nominated for Best Director? I hear everyone saying that he was snubbed for the Coens, but really David O. Russell and Tom Hooper are two nominees I could do without. Keep Coens, kick out one of them, and give me Nolan.

This shouldn't be too surprising, as Alfred Hitchcock, who is considered by many to be one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) directors of all time, never won an Oscar. You may not believe me and may look him up and see that he did receive one, but this was the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award, which in Hitchcock's case was more or less an award to apologize for never actually letting him win an Academy Award. It's utterly depressing that a director of this caliber managed to never win, though he was nominated five times. (Also, this year is actually Christian Bale's first nomination, which is kind of insane considering his performances in films such as American Psycho and The Machinist). So, Christopher Nolan, if you're feeling sad, just know that there are many greats that went their entire career without winning an Oscar. Maybe one day you too will receive the award apologizing for the Academy's failures.

EDIT: I found this article which discusses part of the problem of Academy Award nominations. So, check it out.

Why Can't More Rom Coms Be Like When Harry Met Sally?

I'm not a romantic comedy kind of girl. Frankly, I don't understand the point of them. Any film genre that is defined by a specific, formulaic process doesn't make sense to me. It's the same reason why I can't stand sports movies (the underdog will win in some way, shape, or form and there will be a rousing speech). I don't want to know what's going to happen next when I'm watching the movie.

However, like with all rules, there are exceptions. If you show me something new or do something creative or just make it plain good, I'll like it. There are very few romantic comedies that manage to do this, but by far my favorite is When Harry Met Sally...

This isn't because the film manages to create some incredibly odd plotline or something. There can be (and has been) many movies about friends that fall in love. What's beautiful is how it's done. It doesn't purely focus on Harry and Sally, you also get the differences between men and women and the conversations they share. Also, there's comedy. Actual, REAL comedy. Even lines that are hilarious even though they can just float by you ("I have a theory that hieroglyphics are actually an ancient comic strip about a character named Sphinxy").

So, when I heard that No Strings Attached compared to When Harry Met Sally... I decided to check it out. However, as I expected, it was nowhere near it. First of all, the flashbacks to the different points in which Adam and Emma meet take up around ten minutes, which means it shows you nothing of their actual personality, just enough to show you that they've known each other for a while, but barely. The flashbacks of Harry and Sally (which have one less than Adam and Emma) are just over twenty minutes of the movie. They establish where they're both at in life, and it's wonderful because as you see them in real time, you get to see the changes (an example being a post-college Sally insisting that Ingrid Bergman actually doesn't want to be with Humphrey Bogart at the end of the movie because it is impractical, and a thirty-one year old Sally states that she would have never said that).

Secondly, the relationships between men and women are barely even highlighted in the film. I love the discussions between Harry and Jess or Sally and Marie. It shows the differences in gender, but then it also highlights the different relationships you have between members of your own gender and that of the opposite.

Finally, there is no real friendship between Alex and Emma. The two of them barely know each other and then decide to start having sex, but without the relationship. Maybe it's just me, but I don't find this half as beautiful as being friends without the sex. The thing here is which intimacy takes precedent. In No Strings Attached, Alex and Emma share physical intimacy and attempt to avoid emotional intimacy. In When Harry Met Sally, Harry and Sally share emotional intimacy and attempt to avoid physical intimacy. With another film of the former being released soon (Friends with Benefits), I have to wonder why it is our generation is more fascinated by the idea of casual sex over the idea of real communication. Are we all so terrified of emotional vulnerability? Or is it just that no one can create a friends to lovers film the way Rob Reiner and Nora Ephron did over twenty years ago? Until I can get more great rom coms like When Harry Met Sally, I think I'll stick to romantic tragedies...