Who's Reviews: It's Complicated + Sherlock Holmes

To combat this posting drought, I thought I'd post not one, but two, reviews for all you hungry people out there who need a fix of Eighth St.

#1: It's Complicated

This is a good film to watch with your mothers if you ever need things to do on a mother-daughter (or son) outing. I watched this with Mummy dearest on her birthday, and we were both thoroughly entertained. I have to say at the outset that I may have been a bit biased due to my love for Alec Baldwin who is such a funny actor.


The film deals with some pressing moral issues. Is it ok to do something you consider immoral if you can benefit from it? Meryl Streep, who plays divorcee Jane, wonders whether having an affair with her ex-husband Jake (Alec Baldwin) might help her step outside of her comfort zone. In essence, she feels that she might develop as a person by doing something outrageous. Of course, things are not so simple as there are added complications. Jake is married to a younger woman whose fierce tiger tattoo is an embodiment of her own personality. Adam, Jane’s architect (played by Steve Martin), is also courting her. Jane’s three children are still emotionally scarred from their parents’ divorce 10 years ago. To learn that their parents are back together would push them over the edge. Harley (John Krasinski), Jane and Jake’s son-in-law-to-be, knows about the affair.

When you have such seasoned actors, it’s hard not to be entertained. The movie contains hilarious laugh-out-loud scenes, thanks largely to Alec Baldwin. Oh, and Harley (my nearly-namesake). John Krasinski also acts in the US version of The Office, which is probably where he got his humour from. In fact, my mother voted Harley as her favourite character.

Harley being funny

The film works well as a whole. The scenes are infused with sufficient amounts of humour/funny dialogue/”ponder-this” moments that I wasn’t looking at my watch for the time (which I often do in the cinema). Given the subject matter of the film, most of the humour is slightly crude if not downright cringe-worthy. Still, the actors seem to pull it off with (most) of their dignity in tact. The conclusion is surprisingly neat though somewhat didactic. Director and writer Nancy Meyers takes a clear position on Jane and Jake’s affair, and about infidelity in general. Some serious issues underlie the surface frivolity of the film – especially in regards to the effect of marriage/divorce/infidelity on children and the responsibilities of a good parent.

Overall, it was a great film and very funny. If I wasn’t laughing at what was going on, I was drooling at the sight of Jane’s beautiful house – especially her kitchen. Watch this if you want to have a good time at the cinema – it’s foolproof entertainment. I’m giving this film a 8 out of 10.

#2: Sherlock Holmes

DISCLAIMER: this is a rant about Guy Ritchie's directing skills (yes, he is the man who divorced Madonna) and the whole movie in general. I think I was being overly harsh when I wrote this but I needed to get a few things off my chest.

The trailer for this movie (which they played incessantly on TV for a period of time) didn’t look too bad, so I was looking forward to watching this film. BIG MISTAKE, HURLEY! WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?

This movie was really badly arranged in terms of the sequence of scenes. The movie skipped from one action/sleuthing scene to another without much explanation, leaving me feeling slightly disoriented and confused. To further complicate things, the character of Sherlock Holmes was simply too good to be true. Guy Ritchie and whoever else helped write/direct this film seemed to invest too much intelligence and intuition into Holmes. He stepped over the line of ‘brilliant detective’ into becoming almost psychic – definitely undermining the ending. Instead of instilling a sense of amazement/wonder at Holmes’s detective skills, it left me feeling doubtful that anyone could have analysed such clues to piece together such an explanation of the events of the plot.

Not-so-evil villain Lord Blackwood

The only (minor) salvation was Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law (who plays sidekick Dr. Watson) cause… they were cute. Ok, not ‘cute’, but not so bad to look at. This made the duration of the film (128 mins) slightly more bearable. Rachael McAdams was simply average. She wasn’t sly enough to pull off her character (the criminal ‘mastermind’ Irene Adler) well and a sub-plot which had her double-cross Holmes and Watson simply added to the insignificant fluff of the movie. Mark Strong, who plays the evil villain Lord Blackwood, was also unconvincing. I suppose his crooked teeth were supposed to be menacing and scary, but they were almost comical to me. There was also a whole host of other characters, most notably a giant Frenchman. Where casting agents find such actors is a mystery.

Not even the regularly-timed gags in the film could save it from disasterville. Individually, the scenes were well-made. The visuals of the film captured the dreariness of London well. It was mostly grey and black, except for the huge pink puff of material on Rachael McAdam’s butt. Seriously, her dress was crazy. Anyways, as I was saying (typing?) the individual scenes were good. But put together, they didn’t make a coherent whole. There was no smoothness in the transition of one scene to another. There was no discernable direction which the film was leading towards. The so-called ‘resolution’ at the end was nothing short of a far-fetched and patchy conclusion to a largely disappointing film. I literally sat there during the credits and said (loudly) “That film was CRAP!”. I do not say such things often.

Rachael McAdam's pink booty

For that reason, this film gets a 4 out of 10 from me. Ok, maybe a 5. Just for Robert Downey Jr.

~ Hurley Who?

PS. Disco - I'd like to hear what you thought of this film.

Who's Reviews: An Education

An Education was a delightful film, thanks largely to Carey Mulligan. Plus, watching it in Dendy Quays meant Count Lucifer and I enjoyed a great view of the Opera House before and after the film and a fun trip to and from Circular Quay where we were accosted by, not one, but two strange men. That was an entirely appropriate entree to the central concept of this film, I guess.

Set in 1961, on the cusp of social change to attitudes about sex, this is a morally troubling film. On one level, the surface politeness of David (Peter Sarsgaard), a charming 30-plus man who makes a living doing ethically dubious things, made me almost forgive is pursuit of Jenny (Carey Mulligan), a 16/17 year old precocious schoolgirl who dreams of jazz music, Paris and the high life. But on the other hand, CL and I couldn't help but think "eugh" when you think about the basis of the story: older man seduces younger girl with charm and trips to Paris. This has 'pedophile' written all over it.

At the beginning of the film, we are immediately aware that Jenny is different to her friends. While they are insufferably obnoxious and inappropriate, she peppers her sentences with French and is altogether more self-assured and intelligent. But this proves dangerous because she is bored. Bored with studying Latin, bored with her pushy parents and bored with Graham (Matthew Beard), an adorable but clumsy schoolboy who is pursuing her. Then in comes David, a suave and charming gentleman, cough, cough, with glamorous friends Danny (Dominic Cooper from Mamma Mia) and Helen (Rosamund Pike, who is hilarious), a lifestyle of leisure and a strange attraction to her. Although there is something fishy about David and his friends, Jenny turns a blind eye to some confronting facts about them (essentially, some of their income comes from thieving).

The rest of the movie plays out with complications galore. Jenny believes her "life education" should come before her school education. She forfeits her chances of getting into Oxford when she is expelled for being with David. To the shock of her peers and encouraged by her parents (who fail to protect Jenny from David's steely grasp), she goes on not one, but two trips with David. Once to Oxford and once to Paris. Lets just say this was very cringe-worthy not because of sexual content, but because the most morally confronting issues were raised in these scenes.

Do we accept their relationship because it's consensual or is it just wrong for an older man to have a relationship with someone who is essentially a child in many respects?

Jane ignores the advice of her teacher and mentor, Miss Stubs (Olivia Williams, or Jane Fairfax in the Kate Beckinsale version of Emma). But who can blame her? Going to jazz clubs and conversations about pre-Raphaelite paintings are just so much more interesting than King Lear.

But, without giving the ending away, Jenny must eventually pay for her actions, ignorance and impatience. Cue rude awakenings, heart-breaking confrontations and attempts to rectify what was wronged.

Carey Mulligan is the 'bright star' of this film (haha CL). Even though she is 24, she manages very convincingly as a 17 year old girl. She is sufficiently wide-eyed and simultaneously stubborn to be believable as a strong-willed teenage girl on the cusp of womanhood. Emma Thompson has a nice cameo as the delightfully frumpy and anti-semitic headmistress who manages to slap some sense into Jenny in the end.

What wasn't very convincing was David and Jenny's relationship. Sure he was a smooth operator, but there was no believable chemistry. Maybe because he was a total cad, I dunno.

I spent the whole of today thinking about the end of the film. I'm not quite sure how to interpret it. Though there is technically a 'happy ending', one wonders whether or not Jenny truly values her education (with David, that is) or if she wishes to forget that chapter of her life altogether. I guess the overarching moral I gathered is that you must be educated in order to receive an education.

Rotten Tomatoes has 94% positive feedback on this film so I guess most people love it. I'd give it an 8/10. A morally stirring story where the strangest part was the fact that it was based on the life of a real woman... gross...

~ Hurley Who?