The Virgin Suicides

Sofia Coppola's big entrance into the directing limelight came with her 1999 version of Jeffery Eugenides' novel by the same title. The story revolves around the story of the five Lisbon sisters, as observed by a group of mesmerized neighborhood boys who witness their suicides and are desperately trying to assemble the true happenings of that year. It's ethereal, dreamy cinematics and aloof, careful story-telling make this film intriguing at the least. The five sisters, Mary, Cecilia, Therese, Bonnie, and Lux, live under the thumbs of their possessive and ultra-Christian parents who show nothing but blind sincerity. The girls are not allowed to date until after high school, as is and was not uncommon in suburbanite homes, and the only one who seems to defy them is the polar Lux. Everything about her lives in contrast to the rest of her family, except for her platinum blonde sheen. When the youngest sister, Cecilia, attempts suicide, the family is baffled and is determined to right whatever has clearly been wronged. She is allowed home from the hospital, and soon succeeds in what she had failed before. The remaining 4 Lisbon girls are taken out of school and holed up in their home, cut off from the world, save a collection of travel catalogues that they subscribe to. We see the sisters slowly mellow into what would seem a walking trance, barely moving and wrapped by the death of their fifth part. They continue, dusty as the little relics that occupy every shelf and counter in their home, until the films final moments, when each of their deaths are revealed. Their reasons are never revealed; perhaps there were none. In other reviews and summaries and whatnot, it has been said that the point of the open ending was that people are unpredictable and their actions can't always be explained. But maybe it's not why we do what we do, but the fact that we did. The film has also been criticized for its aesthetic focus, which is part of the draw for myself. Sometimes you just want to watch something beautiful and pleasing, is there no place for that in modern cinema?
To wrap this up, I'd like to tell you that if you haven't seen this one yet, do. No matter what you are thinking by the end of it, I'm sure it'll never leave you.

-K

In Her Shoes

In Her Shoes was released in 2005 and stars Cameron Diaz, Toni Collette, and Shirley MacLaine. It is based on the 2002 novel by Jennifer Weiner. It's a chick-flick to a tee; about sisters in all of their love and rage, living together and apart and trying to cope with simply being a family.

I found this movie pretty underwhelming. It's a good story and there are parts of it that I truly enjoyed (Rose and Simon's first supper, Maggie reading to the old professor, etc.) but I think that the main flaw of this film was the constant lack of music.

I have to confess that I am more than a music enthusiast. Usually I try to hear the soundtrack before I see the movie. If the music is no good, there's no way I'm going to enjoy a thing. The music written for the film itself was off; it sounded mischievious and dark, something more suiting a children's fantasy film, not a film titled to draw women in groups of 2-6 ages 16-56. However, this is not usually the music I remember. Typically current movies (ESPECIALLY ones like these) at least include a smattering of current girl-with-a-guitar or soulful-metrosexual-European pop guilty pleasure style tunes, but the only song I remember at all is the reggae cover of Sonny & Cher's "I Got You Babe." Huh. Did I Mention that the majority of this film is based in Philadelphia? As in Pennsylvania? As in THE FARTHEST FREAKING PLACE FROM JAMAICA IMAGINABLE? I suppose it doesn't help that I'm not a huge fan of either Sonny or Cher, with the exception of Cher's guest appearance on Will & Grace. I guess I should also mention that I'm not much into reggae either. So it's a big 'meh' for me.

Honestly, this film just didn't have a lot to offer me. True, there were shoes involved. And there was a stand-up guy that knew food like nothing I've ever seen, but I think for me it was doomed from the start. I'm not a big Cameron Diaz fan, especially in more "dramatic" roles. If I'm going to have to see a movie with her in it, I want to see some car-chases or kung-fu action or something resembling comedy. NOT her living with her grandmother in a retirement community in Palmetto, Florida. I do enjoy Toni Collette, and I found her character genuine and accessible. I did however, have a problem with her constant "weight" issue. The woman is maybe 125 pounds and it's not until she drops 5ish by leaving her job (as a lawyer) and becoming a dog walker . . .yes I said dog walker . . .that she becomes comfortable with herself. I know it's cliche, but I like my movies to generally be free of female characters hating themselves for having perfectly functional bodies and creating their own person black hole of self-loathing.

Now that I've been a downer for the past 300 words or so, we'll pick it back up. I didn't feel like this was a total waste of time that I could have been sleeping or washing the dog or finding a job for next semester. It was time well spent with women that I love and a decent way to unwind after a hectic day. If your looking for something that requires no extreme problem solving or maddening plot turns, this is perfect.

Roman Holiday

Hello to all fellow bloggers and blog readers! It's been a while since I've been a-blogging, so please excuse any faux-pas or outright idiocy.

I figured the best way to start is with an absolute classic, and so we begin with Roman Holiday, originally released by Paramount in 1953. It stars two of the largest acting icons in the industry: Audrey Hepburn and Gregory Peck. This was Hepburn's theatrical debut, and it earned her the 1954 Oscar for Actress in a Lead Role, among other awards and nominations. If you don't recognize the names, I do not have the time or patience to explain the entirety of mid-20th century American culture to you. Sorry.

This is a first-time viewing for me; something I'm mildly ashamed of, but readily admit.

From the start, it's hard not to love. As stated in the opening credits, all filming takes place in Rome itself. Single locations are a non-option in the modern film industry, so to see something all contained in one city is a splendid thing in itself.

The premise of the film is something familiar to any human of the current time. A lovely, young, European princess on a diplomatic tour of the world finds herself overwhelmed by social and political responsibility and abruptly relieves herself of it. In the process, she is assisted and accompanied by an American ne'er-do-well, who wants nothing more than to use her for his own advance, but adventure ensues and mischief leads to mutual emotion. It's a story that's regretfully mundane by now, but it's not the story that sells this movie. The combination of Hepburn's poise and lithe, genuine spirit, Peck's shrewd chivalry, and the splendor and romance of Rome itself make the entire picture nothing less than intoxicating. This is the film that set the standard for all romantic comedies, before and since, and it's clear that considerably less than few meet the criteria.

It's films like these that make a girl want to speak frankly and walk slowly with a smile. It does not extend beyond itself, and because of that it is perfect in every moment. It's simple and fine, qualities so frequently overlooked in the advent of technicolor and CGI.

If you haven't seen it, I suggest it, if only to take an hour and a half to enjoy the warmth of a truly good film and to see the sights of the eternal city. Make for yourself a pleasant little holiday.