Quick Entry: Chloe and Waiting for Superman

Yet another quick entry hits my blog and this time it is not because I saw Chloe and Waiting for Superman (WFS) ages ago (I actually saw them this past week), but because I only have a few thoughts on each and I figured trying to expand them into separate, expanded blog entries would be foolish.

If you're not familiar with each, here's my quick synopsis of both:

Chloe is about a woman named Catherine, played by Julianne Moore, who suspects her husband of cheating, so she hires a young woman named Chloe, played by Amanda Seyfried, to tempt her husband and report back to her. Slowly but surely Chloe draws Catherine into her web and threatens to destroy her family. I will say that part of my thoughts contain spoilers, so SPOILER ALERT.

WFS is a documentary film about the deficiencies in K-12 public education in the US, and it also illuminates what are the factors that contribute to successful, sustained learning in a classroom.

Here's my notes on each:

Chloe:

• I like the three principal actors of this film, Julianne Moore, Amanda Seyfried, and Liam Neeson, I just don't like them in Chloe. They all seem to be going through the motions and it makes me feel like they were only there to get a paycheck. The effort from these three was lackluster, particularly from Moore. I was disappointed by that, even if they did have mediocre material to work with.
• I saw the big plot twist, which is when Catherine finds out Chloe was lying about the entire affair with David, about 20 minutes into the movie. That makes getting interested in the remaining 75 minutes very difficult, which is why the lackluster effort by the actors was even more apparent and disappointing. I can tolerate a blasé plot if the acting is solid, and it just wasn't here.
• My biggest problem with the movie was that I didn't understand why Catherine chose to see if her husband was cheating in this way. There was very little groundwork done with her character that made it believable that she would do this. That's shoddy screenwriting right there.
• The one scene that explains why Catherine and David have a strained relationship with their son is deleted. I know this because I watched the deleted scenes and saw the one where he explains why. I cannot fathom why this was cut, as it is a pretty HUGE character development point. Just unexplainable.
• I have enjoyed a few of Atom Egoyan's films (most notably The Sweet Hereafter and Exotica) but this one was terrible. I hope he rebounds with his next film.

WFS:

• I should start by saying I'm biased: my mom is a 4th grade teacher in a public school. This film made me appreciate that much more the hard work and passion she has for the students she teaches and the idealism she has for education. I love her so much and am super proud of her.
• Man, public school is screwed up! That's what I thought first when I left the theatre. WFS does a phenomenal job of clearly and easily laying out the problems with public education, how those problems arose, and what are some steps we can do to fix them. You can't ask for a better formula from a documentary.
• This film packs an emotional punch. You feel sad, shocked, and appalled when they outline the problems with public education (many of the people I saw the movie with cried at some point); you feel invested in the futures of the kids they profile, you feel optimistic when you learn about KIPP schools, and you may, as I did, feel inspired that we can do better for our kids when the credits roll.
• I think this is one of those films that everybody should see. I don't usually say that because with most movies I recognize there will be something that will not connect with everyone, but I think that this is one of those movies that everyone can learn from - even the teachers unions. One of the best documentaries I've ever seen.

So there you have it. Skip Chloe and track down WFS. If you'll excuse me, I need to go call my mom.

Quick Entry: I Love You, Man and The Informant

In the interest of full disclosure I considered not posting on the movies I Love You, Man (ILYM) and The Informant (TI) as I saw them almost 2 months ago, but the whole point of this blog is for me to write at least a little something about the movies I see, so here I go.

Why did I not write about them earlier? Honestly, I don't know. Sometimes I have no strong feelings about a movie one way or the other, and that would be the best way to sum up my feelings about both ILYM and TI. They were fine viewing experiences, but nothing that made me want to write a blog entry immediately.

And so with that, here are some quick notes about each movie, as best I can remember:

ILYM:

• Jason Segel is good, but Paul Rudd is great. I think in comedy, and most comedians will back me up on this, that in any comedy team it is exponentially harder to play the straight man. Playing the goof ball is easy in that you can do crazy, outlandish stuff and it seem appropriate. As the straight man, you have to be just silly enough for the goofball to bounce off of and just smooth enough to make the comedy work. Rudd has proven over and over again (Think The 40 Year Old Virgin) that he is a master at this, and he does it again in this film.
• I'm a Rashida Jones fan and wish she got more leading roles and wasn't on the God-awful Parks and Recreation.
• I like that comedies like the aforementioned Virgin and this movie treat its audience like adults and talk like I do with my friends. How refreshing that they didn't edit it to get a PG-13 rating and suck all the originality of it.
• The first hour is pretty good, but the last 45 minutes or so are a bit lackluster. But the first hour makes it worth it.

TI:

• This is a REALLY quirky movie and has a very specific sense of humor, so be warned in advanced that this definitely won't be everybody's cup of tea. It wasn't mine, and I like to think I'm pretty quirky. I just got continually frustrated by the film's narrative approach, particularly the voiceover, to the point that at about halfway through I was just marking time til the film was over. One of my least favorite Steven Soderbergh and Matt Damon movies that I've seen.
• I applaud Damon's effort, but this character is not very likable, particularly when you get to the last half hour when what's really going on is fully revealed. I won't spoil it, but he is not going to be winning any popularity contests. The only reason I even remotely liked him is because Damon works overtime to make him at least slightly sympathetic.
• The visual look that Soderbergh gives the movie is very sepia-toned, which I'm not sure I would've done with this film, but I will give him credit in that it definitely sets the mood and tone for TI, as it is a slight period piece. The sepia-toned choice makes me think he was trying too hard to be a "filmmaker" and wasn't focused on telling an interesting story. Lately in his film I've been thinking that he needs to get out of his own way. I don't know how else to say it.

That's all I got. Don't judge.