Bridesmaids (A So-so Film)

I know this isn't an exactly timely review, but who reads this anyway? But, if you are, there be spoilers ahead.

The film I saw last week with my good friends was "Bridesmaids" and it was... all right?

The film had potential. It really did! However, I felt it squandered it trying to do the same things it did well. Let me explain:

I felt this film did a really good job of Showing as opposed to telling. In the film's opening act you really get a feel for who the characters are and how they are all, mostly, interconnected. You can feel the friendship between the main character Annie and her best friend Lillian. Also, when the rest of the cast is introduced you do get a feel for their personalities and what kind of plot you'll be seeing out of them.

However, this made for a very lengthy act 1. And I mean very lengthy. Probably 20-40 minutes of the total 125 minute run time. Normally, I wouldn't complain about a lengthy set up, but the payoff isn't there. The end is just kind of an end, no real resolution of plot lines. The only plots that are resolved are: Annie's fight with Lillian, Annie's fight Helen, and Annie's fight with Nathan. While that seems like a lot here are plots that weren't resolved, but set up: Annie's bakery, Annie's joblessness, Annie's living with her mother, Helen's comeuppance, Lillian's moving into a richer culture, the two married, to different men, bridesmaids making out, Annie's mom and the mechanic, and so on.

Seriously, this movie sets up a million different plot lines that go nowhere. TV Tropes, which as you know is a wiki so info from there is variable, says that this film is a deconstruction of the plucky girl who's life is shit turns it around kind of movie, and while I could maybe deal with that, the fact that it's a deconstruction doesn't mean a film can just not resolve plot lines willy-nilly.

Another problem with this film is that, for showing really well, some scenes drag on and on. While I understand "Crossing the Line Twice" I never felt some of the scenes crossed back over. The two scenes that really seemed to outstay their welcome were: The Engagement Party Speeches Scene and the Food Poisoning Scene. They started off funny, and established what the meant to do: Establish Helen's character for the former and be down right grossly funny for the latter. They did that at first, but began to outstay their welcome and should have been cut down, which annoys me even more because of the aforementioned lack of resolution.

The acting was brilliant, like I said about showing earlier, you could feel each character come alive and shine each time they were on screen, especially Helen, as played by Rose Byrne. Helen is the closest thing we have to an antagonist and damn I hated her, in a good way. The way you're supposed to hate a villain.

Overall, it's an alright, if sometimes oddly paced, film. I don't regret seeing it, but wait until it's in the cheap theatres if you're dying to see it.

Coming up later this month: Book Vs Film II: Howl's Moving Castle!

Unusual Role Association Because of My Childhood

As much as we don't want to admit it typecasting happens to even some of the greatest actors. But I'm not talking about the normal kind of typecasting/role association. This is far more of a personal typecasting. You firmly get the idea of someone as a character and no matter what role they take in the future that role influences you to believe things about that character, even if it's untrue.

Because of this unconcious typecasting I've come to believe certain things bout certain actors. Here are just a few.

Derek Jacobi:

He may look like a friendly old man, and he probably is, but I will forever associate him with the role of Professor Yana/The Master from Doctor Who. It was the first role I saw him in and he can't escape it. I see him as a bad guy in everything. It didn't help the next role I saw him in was in The Golden Compass where he played a bad guy as well. Even when he was in the King's Speech, playing a fairly nice character, I interpereted everything he did as quasi-evil. All because of Doctor Who.

Tim Curry:

Going in the opposite direction I don't see Tim Curry as a bad guy on first appearance. I know, you're probably listing twenty different roles in disagreement with me right away. I can do that too: Frank N. Furter in Rocky Horror, Pennywise the Clown in IT, just about every role he's ever had ever.... I get that. However, I grew up watching Wild Thornberries. In this show Tim Curry played the kind and loving father Nigel Thornberry. Yes, you read that correctly, kind and loving. In fact, he was the goofy if slightly ineffectual parent, because he was the British one. I'm not kidding you. I associate his voice with Nigel Thornberry, one of the coolest dads I know.

Micheal Caine:

Micheal Caine has recently been known as the Bad-Ass Alfred in Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy. This was, while not shocking, an interesting break from his kind and thoughtful old mand appearences in the past, like in Cider House Rules While not exactly weak in either Second Hand Lions or The Prestige he still wasn't the former action man that he was in The Dark Knight or Batman Begins. However, the role I have of him permanantly lodged in my brain is a much younger role, that was Bad Ass. In the original Italian Job, Micheal Caine plays Charlie Croker, a criminal mastermind and ladies man(well, not really a master mind, but he does add a lot to the plan) and this doesn't really gel with his current persona. That is what I associate him with.

Roger Allam:

This is another perpetual bad guy for me. I can't help it. The first two films I saw him in were V for Vendetta and Speed Racer and he played a bad guy in both. He didn't play slightly evil people, he played  truly heartless people. He played Royalton in Speed Racer (the big bad) and The Voice of London in V for Vendetta (where he played an evil general turned evil talkshow host). This colored my recent viewings of The Queen, where he played an aide to her majesty. Even though he just seemed quiet and had good intentions I still felt he was a jerk, even though there is NOTHING to support this.

I just realized this list is full of British men. I didn't mean it that way. It's just sort of funny.

More Shows I Never Want to Be On

After chatting with my boyfriend about this post I thought of more shows I'd never want to be on, unoriginal I know, but schools almost out.

Wife-Swap/Trading Spouses- I don't know if these shows are even on anymore, but I'd never want to be on them. No one comes out looking good. The wives look like whiny bitches for the first half and then the husbands follow suit during the second half. If I ever get put on one of these shows it means I'm not willing to compromise or work with someone who feels different than me, or the few things I'm unwilling to compromise on will get blown out of proportion (curse crafty editing!). When I say I try and maintain an open mind, I mean it. I don't want to be caught in a lie.

Hoarders/Hoarding: Buried Alive/Confessions: Animal Hoarding: I'm already an untidy person, but I stop before things get too far. If I'm even considered for one of these shows that means I not only have a mental health problem, but I've let my untidiness get too far. Besides, there's a point where things are too gross even for me and I doubt I would let myself live in that unsanitary of an environment. Especially animals. As much as I love animals, if I can't count them all on one hand I'll know I'm in over my head (not counting fish/water frogs because they live in one tank).

Baggage- For similar reasons I don't want to be on any of the above shows I don't want to be on GSN's baggage. No one comes out of this show looking good. If you haven't seen it, by the way don't!, the premise is contestant A has one large secret, they sort through opposite gendered contestants B, C & D's small secret, then anonymously go through their medium sized secrets (one of which is chosen as a 'deal breaker') and eliminates one contestant. Finally, the remaining contestants big baggage is opened and contestant A chooses to accept one of the ramaining contestants baggage. The tables are turned however when the last remaining contestant examines contestant A's baggage and deciedes to accept it or not. The secrets, even the small ones, are deal breakers for me. Last night one small piece of baggage was "I eat dog food." I kid you not. If that's what passes for a small secret on this show I don't want to be on this show.

Tosh.0- If I've done something dumb enough to be on this show I'll die. I'll just die.

Again, any other ideas feel free to comment. I hope this will be my last post.

Shows I Never Want to Be On

Secretly, almost everyone hopes to be on TV someday. Wether being interviewed for a movie or book or actually being a TV star people want to be seen on the television. I am no exception.

However, there are plenty of shows I will never be on, or hope to never be on. It may be any number of reasons I won't be on these shows so I thought I'd go over a few of them with you. Most of them are reality shows, so if you're a fan of the genre, here's your warning.

America's Next Top Model- Normally I don't mind competition style reality shows, because generally they involve some kind of skill. I'm not saying modeling doesn't take skill, but this show just bugs me. And really in the grand scheme of surviving the wilderness, singing, having an unusual talent, having intelligence, and dancing, where does modeling lie? Not only are the challenges utterly ridiculous and I'm pretty sure most don't have a lot to do with normal modeling gigs, but the way people are judged drives me up the wall. One week, a contestant is in trouble for not taking it seriously enough, but then a different contestant can be in trouble for seeing it as a competition and not trying to be friendly and just get the job done. On top of all this, Tyra Banks drives me crazy. She takes herself far too seriously (her ego dwarfs Seto freakin' Kaiba's) and she's the main reason for the judging being all over the place.

Supernanny- This should be fairly obvious. If I'm ever on Supernanny that means I've probably failed as a parent. I also might be slightly crazy or in an abusive relationship. I watched two episodes this weekend. Not only were the fathers of both couples featured absolutely nuts, they also seemed to be controlling and semi-abusive jerks. If your family is on that show, there is something terribly wrong with your family, and I don't want that to happen when I'm an adult.

Teen Mom- Similar to why I don't want to be on Supernanny. I don't want to be pregnant any time soon. Thankfuly I think I'm past the stage where I can be on it. I'm 19 and because I wasn't 16 and Pregnant I think I'm okay having missed this oppurtunity. I also don't want to be on this show because of my children getting knocked up. It'll again mean I've failed as a parent.

Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?- If I have to ask myself this I'm already in too deep. Secondly, though this doesn't happen often, some contestestants answer with an answer that's correct, but not in 5th grade level knowlege.

Million Dollar Money Drop- The whole premise of this show is flawed to anyone who isn't on the show. Contestants start with a million dollars, unfortunately the only place they can go is down from there. The show gives you a false sense of security by encouraging you to spread your money around onto more than one answer, thus causing you to lose money quicker than if you were sure of your answer and put all your money on it (even if it might be wrong).

To Catch a Predator- Do I need to explain this? I'm not a pervert, but I'd feel weird even if I just showed up in the background of a shot.

That's all I can think of for now, if there are shows you don't want to be on feel free to comment below.