The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2011)

Every few years, Hollywood cranks out a marginal film featuring silver screen veterans dealing with old age in unique and supposedly funny ways. Whether it’s a last ditch effort to feel young, a journey to fulfill unfinished business, or a team of old pros called back into action, the results are usually shaky at best. Maybe it’s because The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel was made outside of the Hollywood system that it defies the odds.

After reviewing their options, several retired Brits take a major risk and move to India to stretch their retirement dollars. Evelyn (Judi Dench) is broke thanks to her dead husband’s debts, while Jean (Penelope Wilton) and Douglas (Bill Nighy) are scraping by after investing in their daughter's stagnant web start-up. Graham (Tom Wilkinson) is looking for an old flame, while Madge (Celia Imrie) is on the prowl for a new flame. Norman (Ronald Pickup) is trying to cling to whatever youth he has left, while Muriel (Maggie Smith) needs a hip replacement on the cheap. Upon arriving at the Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, everyone is dismayed to find the place is the opposite of the pictures on the website. As the hotel manager, Sonny (Dev Patel), struggles to keep the place from falling apart, the seven guests band together to help each other out on many different levels.

Far from being a charming tale for the geriatric demographic alone, this film has the potential to play well to most age brackets. It’s not for the youngest of viewers but anyone with an adult level of maturity can find something to enjoy here. The characters may be somewhat formulaic but the filmmakers put enough refreshing twists on type to keep you emotionally invested and genuinely curious to see how each of these seven retirees adjust to their new surroundings.

Maybe it’s the pedigree of the cast or maybe British actors are just a better breed of talent in general, but all the principals do a wonderful job of making their characters feel real. Whether it’s portraying the fear and anxiety of new and intimidating surroundings or the general vulnerability that comes with aging physically and emotionally, the cast is remarkably spot-on. This makes for several powerful moments and also for a few humorous moments that you don’t see coming.

On the surface, Dev Patel’s hilarious character does feel like an obvious ploy to appeal to young adults and thirtysomethings who might not otherwise be interested in a film about old people. Patel is more than just a throwaway to the younger set though. His youth and inexperience contrast against his tenants and open up the door to both sides learning from each other. Some of these lessons are more predictable than others but they’re not executed poorly.

Cynics may consider this film a kind of Breakfast Club for the retirement home crowd but take heart in knowing that cynics are usually little more than an extremely vocal minority. There is no shame in liking this film, regardless of your age. Years of Hollywood beating these kind of ensemble dramas (from coming-of-age teen flicks to gray-haired adventures) has trained us to brace ourselves for inevitable disappointment. It may not live up to its name 100% but The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel houses very little, if anything, to be disappointed about.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (1986)

Of all the films that John Hughes wrote, produced, or directed, perhaps none of them are remembered as fondly as Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (though The Breakfast Club certainly has its own following). His chronicling of a day in the life of a free-wheeling teenager determined to take in life before it passes him by speaks to a societal and cultural yearning for freedom while never going overboard with its humorous or dramatic elements. It’s not perfect and parts of it haven’t aged as well as others but there is a purity to this film that time and cynicism have not tarnished.

Rather than spend the day in school, senior Ferris Bueller (Matthew Broderick) hacks his school’s computer system to give his attendance record one more absence to take advantage of and still graduate. He drafts his best friend Cameron (Alan Ruck) to help spring Ferris’s girlfriend Sloane (Mia Sara) from school so the three can spend a day taking in all that downtown Chicago has to offer. Not everyone falls for the much beloved Ferris’s tricks though, as his sister Jeanie (Jennifer Grey) tries to expose her brother’s lies and the school principal (Jeffry Jones) seeks to finally catch his nemesis breaking the rules.

I think this film is the best piece of work by John Hughes because it is one of his most restrained films (despite its indulgence in all kinds of antics). There are certain elements that let you know if you are watching an 80s era John Hughes film. Is it a kind of coming-of-age film? Are most of the young people in it smart, aware, and blessed with plenty of witty dialogue? Is at least one of the young characters working through difficult parental relations issues? If all of these three ingredients are present, along with a catchy soundtrack, then you are probably watching a John Hughes film.

The interesting difference about this film is that Ferris doesn’t go through any formative changes. He’s the same person at the end of the film that he was at the beginning. He ends up with a better relationship with his sister and his friend Cameron but that’s because those two characters are the ones who change over the course of the film. His sister comes to terms with her disdain for Ferris on her own and Cameron decides to stand up for himself after minimal coaching from Ferris. What’s unusual is that these changes happen on the periphery; Cameron’s by a partial meltdown and Jeanie’s via a deep conversation with a punk in a police station. Usually, Hughes’s main character (or the main ensemble cast) goes through some kind of transition that slows the film down and adds a smarmy aw-shucks moment that is somewhat out of place with everything else.

Thanks to his sister’s turnaround though, Ferris manages to avoid taking responsibility for his actions, allowing his wink-and-a-nod lifestyle to continue into whatever future awaits him. Unlike most young adults, we never see Ferris facing the reality that he has to grow up, which makes us question if we can live in a similar spirited way. Does it give us hope that such an existence is possible as an adult? The message of the film is, to quote Ferris, “Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you might miss it.” To have that spoken to us by a character makes us wonder if we have been missing it. That’s a powerful takeaway from a teen comedy and one that has been exploited by inferior teen comedies ever since.

I think one of the things that help hold this film together is the decision to break the fourth wall. If Ferris was not allowed to talk to us and fill us in on his take on the things and people around him, he would not come across as a genuine person. Left in the confines of a strict third-person perspective, audiences would view Ferris as an obnoxious slacker who thinks he is enlightened and somehow superior to everyone else. Because Ferris is allowed to interact with us, and does so in such a welcoming and honest manner, audiences bond with him and get emotionally invested in what some would otherwise find to be an unlikeable character.

Matthew Broderick is another key ingredient to this film’s success. Broderick has a very every-man look to him that suits the needs of the character. If Ferris doesn’t look just right, the audience won’t buy in. Broderick looks like the kind of teenager who could float between groups. He’s not too attractive, too weird looking, too nerdy, too pompous, too muscular, or too skinny. But Broderick doesn’t just look the part; he acts the part perfectly. He somehow combines the sarcasm of a teenager, the wisdom of adulthood, and the warmth of a good friend into one person. If you’ve seen even just a few teen comedies, you know that this balance is rare.

I could be wrong in thinking this film is timeless. What does the current generation (aka high school and college students) think of this film? When I was a senior in college, this movie was still popular among freshmen but is that still the case? Sure, kids will probably enjoy the idea of taking a day off to do whatever they want, but will they appreciate more than just the concept of this film?

In this post-Occupy Wall Street era that we live in, can a spoiled, rich, know-it-all white kid from the posh suburbs serve as a protagonist and become a cultural icon? I doubt it and that leads me to believe that Ferris Bueller’s Day Off will lose a healthy percentage of its popularity with each successive generation. Most of that drop-off will be due to the fact that kids don’t pay attention to weekend movies on TV anymore and are growing up with little to no appreciation of what came before the cultural influences they view to be important.

Fortunately, there will always be a minority in each generation willing to look back at what influenced the present. Those lucky few will discover Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and be thankful that they did.

RATING: 4 out of 5

The Exorcist* (1973)

Going into this film, I knew it was renowned for being intense and scary. I had also seen numerous references and parodies of key scenes in other movies and on TV. What is amazing is that none of this knowledge came to the front of my brain while watching The Exorcist. That speaks to just how strong this film is.

Washington D.C. native Chris McNeil (Ellen Burstyn) notices increasingly strange behavior from her daughter Regan (Linda Blair). Fits of violence, swearing, and more lead Chris to seek medical help for the girl. When the doctors come up empty-handed, exorcism is suggested. The task is given to a duo of priests-one a weak-in-faith young man (Jason Miller) and the other much older and with personal experience with the supernatural (Max von Sydow). The quest to heal Regan pushes all parties involved to the breaking point.

This movie pushed me pretty far as well. It starts off slow and confusing (the elder priest is in the Middle East and finds relics of a demon he cast out of another person long ago) but the rest of the film is fantastic. Regan doesn’t pull a sudden 180 on us. Her possession is gradual, ratcheting up the creepiness a little bit at a time. Some modern viewers may balk at her possession stemming from experimenting with a Ouija board but I am fine with it. Getting no explanation for the possession would be scarier but also harder to digest.

Linda Blair deserves every word of praise she ever received for her performance. To be perfectly honest, it’s a wonder she wasn’t permanently scarred emotionally and psychologically from making this film because she does many things that I cannot imagine asking a child to do for a film. I know it is not her voice saying such vile things during the exorcism sequence but it all looks legit. The way she throws her body around and contorts her face is jaw-dropping.

This film impacts an audience because (as I’ve said numerous times before) human beings are hardwired to be troubled by seeing children in danger. The Exorcist resonates especially with me as a parent. I would do anything to protect my little girl, so I can understand the fear and anxiety exhibited by Burstyn’s mother character.

The underlying battle of science vs. faith is intriguing. The young priest called on to help Regan has been taught by the church that demonic possession is not real and just a combination of psychological and physiological issues. Experience tells the elder priest otherwise, making it interesting to watch Miller’s character confront something he was told not to believe in. It raises the question- are advancements in science and medicine blocking mankind from believing in the spiritual forces of evil?

You’ve seen the parodies, the references, and allusions. Even if you’ve never seen this film before, chances are that you know what ultimately happens. However, The Exorcist is a powerful piece of evidence to the saying ‘it’s not about the destination; it’s about the journey.’ No matter how prepared you think you are to watch this film, it will catch you off guard. The Exorcist is one of the most genuinely unsettling films I have ever watched. For me, that says a lot.

RATING: 4.25 out of 5

Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992)

Here is another case of a fun and engaging story striking it rich at the box office, leaving Hollywood execs dreaming of repeat business with a sequel. The first Home Alone was a delightful romp through one child’s chaotic misadventures of surviving on his own and defending his home. Familiarity doesn’t quite breed contempt this second go around but a change in location isn’t nearly enough to keep Home Alone 2 fresh.

Once again, the McCallister family is travelling for Christmas, only this time they remember to bring Kevin to the airport with them. This small victory turns into defeat when Kevin gets on the wrong plane, ending up in New York City instead of Miami. Once there, he crosses paths with Harry and Marv, the dim-witted bandits he thwarted a year earlier. Kevin must rely on his wits and ingenuity to prevent the Wet Bandits from robbing a toy store and exacting their revenge upon him.

This sequel has plenty of humorous moments but at least half of the laughs stem from the formula laid out in the first film. The writers avoid a total retread by changing up a few pieces of the formula but Home Alone 2 looks a lot like its predecessor if you put it in outline form. Kevin gets separated from his family (this time Kevin is not actually at home), tricks people with movie clips and props, and sets up a series of elaborate traps to thwart the bad guys. Our protagonist also finds time to make friends with and learn a lesson from someone who is scary at first glance.

The centerpiece of this film, as with the original, is Kevin’s funhouse of carnage. This time around, Kevin sets up shop in an empty house undergoing renovations. This change to the formula is innocent enough to be believable but it also allows the writers to escalate the severity of Kevin’s traps because the house is already halfway torn apart and does not need cleaned up after the chaos is over. Almost every single trap sees Harry and Marv enduring physical trauma that would either incapacitate or kill a real person. Where I was supposed to laugh, I sometimes found myself cringing at the injuries that I knew a real person would sustain. For me, the film crossed the line where comedic violence ceases to be comedic.

In the first film, Kevin learned a lesson about the importance of family. This time around, the lesson is about the importance of friendship via a homeless pigeon lady in Central Park. This subplot is a stiff and forced version of Kevin’s befriending of Old Man Marley in the original film. Whereas the Marley developments were sappy but acceptable, it is glaringly obvious that the pigeon lady sequences are there to add some form of emotional depth to the film. We all know that people just want to see Kevin humiliate a bunch of sad-sack criminals. This time around, the John Hughes-penned heartwarming moments are just hollow, unwelcome distractions.

If you liked the original Home Alone, you probably won’t protest about much of what’s in this sequel. Kevin McCallister is still the same cute, clever, sassy kid we met before and the slapstick comedy of Harry and Marv still elicits a few chuckles and laughs. If you look closely, you’ll find out just how much of Lost in New York is repackaged goods but it’s still not a bad comedy sequel. A little disappointing for sure but still a safe distance from the bottom of the pile.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

Misson: Impossible III (2006)

After the qualitative dud that was John Woo’s Mission: Impossible II, it’s a wonder that Paramount was even willing to entertain the notion of a third installment. Then again, the sequel put up good numbers at the box office and Tom Cruise was still a force to be reckoned with on the big screen. With director J.J. Abrams bringing his knack for savvy intrigue to the table, the end result is a whirlwind of a film that grips you more than either of its predecessors.

No longer an active field agent, IMF member Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) spends his time training new agents while hiding his job and past from his fiancé. When one of his former pupils is captured, IMF calls on hunt to rescue her. When the mission fails, Hunt is dragged deeper down the rabbit hole and goes full-on active duty again. Hunt and his new team must find a way to prevent a ruthless arms dealer named Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman) from acquiring a mysterious super weapon, sniff out a mole inside IMF, and keep Hunt’s wife out of danger.

Fans of the TV show Mission: Impossible have long complained about the film series and I am sure that any of those fans who saw M:I 3 did plenty of bellyaching. Perhaps Abrams drew from his work on Alias to form the foundation of the spy antics of this film. Gone is most of the long-winded exposition of how the plan is supposed to go down. In its place is a frantic pace and high-octane set pieces that grip you tight. Some fans of the series will find this approach refreshing while others may feel Abrams sold M:I out and emulates the secret agent mechanics of James Bond, Jason Bourne, and Jack Bauer. While the format does make this film harder to remember, I still found myself refreshed.

Abrams has been unafraid to take an unorthodox approach to his work on television and he is similarly unafraid to be unorthodox here. During what would normally be the key set piece of the film, in which Ethan Hunt breaks into a highly secure Chinese research center at the top of a dizzying skyscraper, the audience sees nothing. Rather than watch the frenzied smash-and-grab sequence, we wait outside with Hunt’s partners wondering what on earth is going on in there. Even the item he is grabbing, the Rabbit’s Foot, is never explained; it is simply something both our protagonist and antagonist want to get their hands on. It’s a total MacGuffin but the spy/thriller genre has always utilized that sort of plot device.

Because Hunt’s team members have been interchangeable over three films, the success or failure of M:I 2 and M:I 3 really lies with the villain. The first film introduced us to the determined and heroic Ethan Hunt, so emphasis on villain was minimal (and we didn’t know who the real villain was for much of the film). The villain in M:I 2 was a clichéd rouge agent. Mission: Impossible III features the most intense villain yet and Philip Seymour Hoffman deserves every word of praise he received for his performance. His character is so intelligent, resourceful, and vicious enough to make audiences feel that no one is safe. The level of ferocity that Hoffman injects into the film raises the stakes and helps make the break-neck pace feel warranted.

The plot itself may be forgettable but I walked away from this film marveling at how exciting it was. It boasts an excellent villain, slick directing, and a flurry of intense action sequences. In short, this is the kind of stuff we should expect from a spy flick. It’s not as convoluted as the original and not bogged down with the silly and intricate choreographed violence of M:I 2. It’s a fine cat-and-mouse game and stands, in my mind, as the best of the three M:I films thus far. It is also easily the most underrated film in the series. If M:I 2 turned you off to the series, do yourself a favor and check this one out. Chances are you won’t be disappointed.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

2012 (2009)

Michael Bay may be the master of blowing things up in Hollywood, but when your script calls for apocalyptic destruction on a global scale, look no further than Roland Emmerich. Love him or hate him, Emmerich has created special-effects heavy disaster popcorn flicks for a generation. If you are looking for big, dumb action, then this film is nearly perfect. If you are looking for an engaging disaster flick with believable human drama, well, let me remind you that this is a Roland Emmerich film.

In 2009, geologist Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) discovers that neutrinos from major solar flare activity are baking the Earth’s core. He estimates that within three years, this will cause the Earth’s crust to destabilize and the poles to shift, causing global destruction. Three years later, science-fiction writer and limo driver Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) scrambles to save his children, his ex-wife (Amanda Peet), and her boyfriend (Thomas McCarthy) from the end of the world. Along the way, secrets are uncovered, revealing who knew what, when they knew it, and how world leaders planned to survive the cataclysm.

There are some obvious missteps throughout this film. Right off the bat, you don’t hire John Cusack to be your everyman-turned-apocalypse-hero if you want your film to be believable. Second, if you’re going to tear the world apart, make sure you do so in a consistent and believable way. Is half of what we’re seeing even physically or geologically possible? Finally, divvy up the action between a few different groups of people. By the end of this film everyone in the audience will balk at all the coincidence and lucky timing that brought Jackson and his family through so many intense and crazy sequences unscathed. It is simply a pill that cannot be swallowed.

If nothing else, 2012 is frustrating to watch because I quickly saw enormous amounts of potential in the story. This is a broad, sweeping epic that would make for a great miniseries or even a full-on TV show if it were to be done correctly. Instead, every single plot line and story arc is rushed and condensed to fit an all-too-confining 158-minute runtime. While it seems strange to say that two and a half hours is not enough time to tell a story, it is definitely the case with 2012.

Many of the characters have solid foundations even if they are saddled with disaster clichés and stereotypes. You’ve got the family man trying to survive, a scientist trying to help humanity any way he can, and several colorful supporting characters that grow on you over the course of the film. This makes it all the more irritating when some of these folks die toward the end. If you’re going to spend two hours warming us up to annoying but appreciable characters, don’t kill them off to serve the obvious conclusion. In the 21st century, it should be okay to mix things up a little with who lives and who dies, especially when these characters have promise in a post-disaster world.

2012 is a film that tries to do too much. At its core, it strives to be a straightforward disaster drama. This goal is undermined by too many of the illogical character decisions and occurrences that plague the sub-genre. It even gives up on being a straight drama at times by throwing in silly gags and deaths intended to draw chuckles from the typical summer audience crowd. I would easily trade much of the CGI disaster stuff in this film for a tense conspiracy thriller about the chilling behind-the-scenes lottery that selects which of the world’s richest and most powerful have the clout and money to survive impending doom while the rest of the world is kept in the dark.

There is enough bad CGI, acting, and writing in this film to make you wonder why my rating is as high as it is. But I assure you that outlining all the best parts of this film leaves you with the framework for something potentially great. It's too bad 2012 turns out to be another case of a great concept ruined by terrible execution.

RATING: 2.25 out of 5

Tron (1982)

The geek in me went nuts for this film. As someone who grew up without photorealistic video games at the mall arcade or my uncle’s Nintendo, Tron looks very much like my childhood gaming experience come to life. The story may be far-fetched and character motivations suspect, but the computer world seen here is perfectly realized.

Software engineer and video game designer Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) is out to prove that a rival programmer (David Warner) stole his designs. To prove it, Flynn breaks into his former place of employment to hack the mainframe and find the evidence. The mainframe, called Master Control Panel (MCP for short) fights back by blasting Flynn with an experimental laser. This digitizes Flynn and brings him inside the computer world. As Flynn seeks a way out of his digital prison, he joins a band of computer programs that resist the MCP’s tyrannical thirst for power and control over the entire world’s computer systems.

When it comes to movies, I am all about understanding context. Sometimes I fail in that quest but I always try to understand a film and its impact as of its release date. Needless to say, many of the visual effects in Tron blew me away. Most are obviously dated now, but only a few of them look really bad by today’s standards. A few still look impressive yet today. Younger audiences will probably have a harder time appreciating this film because you have to understand what 80s and early 90s games looked like. Everyone else in the know will appreciate just how the filmmakers conceptualized a 1980s inside-the-computer world.

Are there problems? Sure. Flynn is really only interested in proving that he was ripped off. The only reason he joins the resistance movement is because he has to in order to find a way back to his world. Sure, he comes to appreciate the conflict against the MCP but that’s really only because it has it out for him. There is never an emotional attachment between Flynn and the program characters he meets along the way. There is a similar emotional disconnect between the computer world characters and the audience. The program characters never act human enough for us to be truly concerned about them.

Throughout the film, I found many elements that appear in later films. I was particularly struck by how similar this film was in many ways to The Matrix. Flynn is very much Neo, able to manipulate the computer world because he is special (in Flynn’s case, he is a ‘user’ or non-program). For a film that has largely been relegated to the cult-classic bin, Tron’s influence on later sci-fi is undeniable.

Tron continues to be an innovative and dazzling film. The pace lags at times but those slow points allow sci-fi geeks like me to examine the technical aspects of the film more deeply. It may not appeal to general audiences en mass, but it is a smart, daring film that is perfect for those who don’t mind veering off the beaten track of Hollywood blockbusters, Oscar bait, and formulaic genre flicks. As tempted as I am to nudge this film’s rating higher, I have to shrug off my personal bias and give it a fair score because there are a few bugs in Tron’s system.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Dinosaur (2000)

If you ever wondered what the adult dinosaurs were doing during The Land Before Time, here’s your answer. A massive and expensive undertaking that features real backgrounds and CGI dinosaurs, this film aimed to be something of an industry game changer. It may have hit pay dirt, but this film understandably lands with something between a thud and a flop on Disney’s all-time best list.

A family of Cretaceous-era lemurs adopt an Iguanodon hatchling abandoned during a Carnotaurus attack. As an adult, Aladar and his adopted family flee extinction when an asteroid collides with the Earth, causing widespread devastation. Herbivores of all species band together in a quest to find the Nesting Place, a valley unscathed by the recent cataclysm. Romance and conflict arises between the different personalities in the make-shift herd as they struggle for survival against the elements as well as roaming carnivores.

Survival, a mix of dinosaurs, and a rumored safe haven- that is the exact same framework as The Land Before Time, leaving Dinosaur with quite the uphill climb. The folks at Disney also don’t do themselves any favors by cramming this film full of cuteness, cheesy jokes, and a whole lot of clichéd ‘together we can do this’ rhetoric. Predictable as the film may be, it is not a total lost cause.

At times, the visuals in this film blew me away. After doing some digging, I found out that Disney filmed many exotic real world locales for backgrounds and superimposed their CGI dinosaurs into it. That explains why some sequences looked so impressive for a CGI film- it wasn’t all CGI. The blending of the two works very well for long shots (aka wide shots) with not a lot of action. When there is a lot going on or a shot is framed pretty tight, the visuals really show their age. I think Disney was onto something pretty cutting edge and it is a shame that it still had some kinks.

There are some curiosities with this film that make me wonder how much better it could have been. Only the herbivores have voices and personalities. The carnivores are just angry monsters on a rampage. Could the film be more effective if the carnivores talked as well, or if the herbivores also lacked voices? Also, the dinosaur nerd in me can’t help but wonder if different species of herbivorous dinosaurs really lived in tandem as the pre-cataclysm scenes depict. The dino-geek in me does, however, commend the film for keeping non-Cretaceous animals out of the film. An Iguanodon makes for a very vanilla protagonist, but at least he is surrounded by era-accurate dinosaurs.

Dinosaur is a difficult film to place amongst Disney’s other animated features because it is so very different. It completely splits away from any of the Disney formulas, which should make it refreshing. All of Disney’s other PG-rated films have suffered for one reason or another but Dinosaur feels like its biggest flaw is that it came too soon. With all the advancements in CGI imagery even within the five years following its release, Dinosaur could have been the spectacle its filmmakers were hoping for. It would take a few re-writes and tweaks, but the potential is in there for something great.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Waitress (2007)

Here is a film that I don’t really know how to react to. The cynic in me could lash out at the fact that this film is brimming with post-Tarantino hipster pretension. The softie in me could go easy on this film because the director was murdered before it was released at Sundance. Somewhere in the middle of all this is a quiet voice asking to see this film re-made so it can better serve the audience and the director’s legacy.

Stuck in a small Southern town and held back by a controlling husband, Jenna (Kerri Russell) searches for a fresh start. She plans to use her baking skills to win a pie contest in a nearby town to win enough money to leave her loser husband (Jeremy Sisto). Rather than hold her back, an unplanned pregnancy gives her added motivation to climb the great chain of being and move on and up in life. She starts an affair with her doctor (Nathan Fillion) and puts her plan to dump her husband into motion.

Am I too moral to enjoy this story? I asked myself this question not long after Waitress concluded. I feel sympathy for Jenna because her lot in life is miserable. I am all for women being treated with respect by their husbands but I also have a hard time supporting someone who decides to have an affair. A woman overcoming her obstacles makes for a good story. Make it a pregnant woman sleeping with her married doctor and it muddies the waters enough to keep me from diving in. Even if the affair was a way for Jenna to experience joy and “love” that are otherwise absent in her life, I don’t think it was a necessary story element.

This film also rubs me the wrong way because of its characters and writing. My beef with the characters stems from what I assume to be the writer-director’s perspective. Adrienne Shelly writes from a woman’s perspective, about a woman’s perspective, for a woman’s perspective. Jenna has a core group of friends who shine with all the spunk and wit in the world, particularly impressive for a dumpy little middle-of-nowhere town.

There are no good male characters in the movie though. By good, I mean round, believable men who do not just serve as a cog in Jenna’s tale of liberation. To keep the film light, Jenna’s husband is extremely dense- almost like Lenny from Of Mice and Men. He doesn’t really want to hurt her but he lacks the common sense to see what he’s doing to her. Jenna’s doctor is handsome but aloof, charming but easily caught off guard. The owner of the restaurant Jenna works at (Andy Griffith) is your typical grouch with a heart of gold.

Perhaps I am reacting to this film the way some women react to the kinds of films that I take for granted as ‘normal.’ There are plenty of great female roles out there but how many great female supporting characters are there in a given year? Maybe Shelly intentionally made her male characters very simple and uninteresting. Maybe it was the indie-quasi-feminist in her. Maybe still she just put so much effort into creating the kind of female characters that she wanted to see in movies that she forgot to throw a bone to those of us with Y-chromosomes.

As for the writing, I have to lay some blame at Quentin Tarantino. Ever since the success of Pulp Fiction, a fair share of independent filmmakers seem to think that their quirky minds have been granted carte blanche when it comes to infusing their projects with all kinds of witty dialogue, no matter how unrealistic it sounds. Pulp Fiction was a breath of fresh air but this trend has made unrealistic but interesting dialogue almost formulaic in indie flicks. Yet, for some reason even obviously trying to be ultra-hip still gets you lauded in Hollywood. Waitress oozes with enough indie-hipster chatter that I cannot in good faith take the film seriously. These are characters that do not and cannot exist in reality. Their situations? Yes. Their conversations? No.

For me, Waitress tries too hard to make a good time out of a fairly straightforward women’s empowerment tale. Feminists will enjoy it up until a deus ex machina ending that truly allows Jenna to break free from her bonds. Adrienne Shelly is not as indulgent as Quentin Tarantino but I still feel like she’s trying too hard here. It’s a good story but the execution is over-engineered. There is enough promise in this film to keep me from dropping it lower on my rating scale, so for now I will take a largely neutral stance on it.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

The Lost Weekend (1945)**

In the early days of Hollywood, addiction was presented on screen either in an over-the-top manner, watered down due to the production codes of the day, or buried between the lines. It was also rare for addiction to be the focus of a film. Instead of being laughably bad or yawningly bland, The Lost Weekend is dark and uncomfortable to watch. The film retains most, if not all, of its power as it drags the audience down into the murky depths of alcoholism.

Don Birnam (Ray Milland) could be a great writer if it weren’t for booze. His girlfriend Helen (Jane Wyman) and his brother Wick (Phillip Terry) try to get him away from New York City for a weekend trip to help keep him sober. Slave to the drink that he is, Don tells them he will meet them at the train station but heads to a bar instead. Thus begins a weekend-long bender showcasing Don’s pathetic state while flashbacks clue the audience in on his relationships with Helen, Wick, and the bottle.

I’ve seen every Best Picture winner from 1927 through 1945 and I have to say that this is the first one to make me uncomfortable. The Oscars have honored several cinema gems packed with action and humor, a few duds that are boring by today’s standards, and some powerful human drama with some kind of uplifting message. In stark contrast to everything that came before it, The Lost Weekend just keeps kicking you while you’re down.

It doesn’t take long to find elements of this film that have been recycled or lampooned in later films. Milland’s mannerisms, staggered lurch down sidewalks, and frantic behavior are everywhere in cinema, which is a testament to their original power. Some of these elements may seem cheesy if viewed out of context but if you watch this film from start to finish, there’s no snickering about it.

This film is also quite emotionally draining. For much of the film you are filled with disgust and surprise at Don Birnam, as he sinks to new lows to get his fix. At the same time you are bouncing back and forth between feeling pity and anger for Helen & Wick. They put up with a lot and that gets under your skin. At times you wish they would just cut Don off and let him rot in his own mess of a life. Whatever is left of the optimist in you clings to hope though, keeping you wishing for a recovery if only for Helen’s and Wick’s sakes.

As dark and depressing as The Lost Weekend is, it is that sense of hope that keeps you going, just as in real life. The ending of this film leaves you with a lot of hope for a major change in Don but you also have to wonder how many times he’s reached this point before. It’s that fervent, right-out-of-the-gate sense of urgency and deliberateness we all have when we start a goal. It’s why gym memberships soar around New Year’s.

But, as humans, we understand all too well how easy it is to fall off whatever wagon we stand so triumphantly on. We know Don Birnam is human, yet, we hope that this time it is different. Instead of triumph, we have cautious catharsis. It is expertly wielded by the filmmakers here because it feels authentic. This whole film hits a home run in that department and, while the subject is alcoholism, audiences can easily substitute whatever addiction they understand best for Birnam’s drinking. The Lost Weekend does what few films prior and since have been able to do- it humanizes addiction in such a way that grips you but doesn’t preach to you.

RATING: 4 out of 5