Waitress etc
May. 20th, 2007 02:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sub_dividedJenna (Keri Russel -- Felicity in Felicity) works as a waitress/chef at Joe's Pie Diner in South Carolina. Joe's serves nothing but pies -- breakfast pies, lunch pies, dessert pies -- and Jenna's pies aren't just good, they're excellent, nay fantastic, nay heavenly. (And let me tell you, from ten feet away (the only seats left were in the front row) with the screen thirty feet high, those pies looked the part. *is dieting, woe*) But Jenna doesn't just make pies, she invents them. She invents a new pie every day. She is a pie artist.
However despite her great talents, Jenna is deeply unhappy, because she is trapped in a marriage with a terrible (feel free to substitute "abusive" here -- the director doesn't only because Waitress is a comedy) husband and has just learned that she is pregnant with his unwanted child. Her husband really is terrible. He orders her around all the time, always makes her give him all the money, never lets her go anywhere, has awful fits of jealousy, and to top it all off, he's bad in bed (because he assumes that if he's happy, she's happy).
This is where Jenna's doctor (Nathan Fillion -- Mal from Firefly) comes in. Though Dr. Pottamer is also married, the chemistry between the two of them is undeniable and against her better judgment, Jenna somehow begins an affair. (Attacks him following one of the many 'checkups' he conveniently arranges for her, more like.) Meanwhile, one of her co-waitresses has a secret, while the other one has an admirer. The cantankerous-but-has-a-heart-of-gold owner of Joe's Pie Diner, Joe, also shows up from time to time to demand full service and make Jenna listen to him read his horoscope.
I thought the movie was extremely funny but I would not want to watch it again. That's because all of "romantic" scenes between Jenna and her doctor involve him ordering her around. Of course, when he's the one giving the orders, it's "sweet" -- and actually, these scenes are sweet. It's only when you notice how often he does it and think to compare him with Jenna's awful husband that his behavior becomes less sweet. And not just his -- everyone orders everyone around in this movie. Constantly. It's like how the characters show affection or something.
The doctor is also creepily good at not looking guilty when his wife and Jenna are in the same room together (or the nurse almost interrupts them...or he's on the phone with a patient with Jenna in his lap...I swear I didn't go into the movie looking for these things, as a matter of fact I went in expecting to be charmed because I love Nathan Fillion, and the previews made Waitress look like a love story. I don't think the director necessarily wants you to be charmed without any reservations, though, so maybe this is just a case of previews that misrepresent the movie.)
In short, Waitress is funny when it tries to be funny, ever-so-slightly off when it tries to be touching. Watching was also kind of creepy because the writer/director, Adrienne Shelly, was brutally murdered by her handyman several months ago and she has a part in the movie. She's the waitress with the admirer. I didn't realize this until I saw her name in the credits. I was watching a dead woman arrrghhhhh. And all the while thinking uncharitable thoughts about how much of Jenna's attraction to controlling men was autobiographical! Where's the confessional so I can repent of my sins orz.
As to whether there is anything to such speculation, as far as I know I am the only person to have come a way from the movie with such a strong WHY MUST ALL CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN JENNA AND THE MEN SHE KNOWS INCLUDING THE SUPPOSEDLY NICE ONES BE CONDUCTED IN THE IMPERATIVE TENSE ARGHHHH reaction. So I'll say for the record that it might not be that bad.
At least (MAJOR SPOILER, highlight to read) she doesn't end up with any of them.
***
More movies!
Spiderman III (major spoilers)
Either I'm getting soft in my old age or Sam Raimi is getting better about harnessing sentimentality to the service of the plot, because I really liked Spiderman III. As always the company made a difference -- I saw the first one (which I hated) with my extremely critical and grouchy second boyfriend, and this one with my friends from Michigan. What can I say, sap tolerance is higher in the Midwest.
And the sentimentality in Spiderman III is great. It's like I keep telling everyone, for all that the first movie (and the first X-men movie) kicked off the superhero movie boom, the Spiderman movies aren't superhero movies. They're movies about Peter Parker and Mary Jane's relationship, with superpowers thrown in to complicate the plot. Venom is practically a metaphor for Peter's state of mind in III. The powers aren't the draw, the characters are the draw, and they're the draw because they're caricatures of real people, not representations of the inner id or abstract virtues or kick-assitude or anything like that.
I thought Mary Jane was great in this movie. Take the superpowers out of the equation and she's too good for Peter. (Not that I believe there is any such thing, but the scriptwriters obviously do.) I thought she was just the right bit supportive, just the right bit demanding of support. After all, which of the two of them is more in a more dire personal situation when the movie begins? That's what I thought. Also on the "so he has powers, so what?" front: Peter Parker's superpowers don't stop him from being a colossal dork even when he's evil. XDDD Hilariry!
I really liked the movie's central "grow up and take responsibility for your actions" theme and Eddie Brock's illustration of that theme. The scene in the bar where Parker shows off and neither Gwen nor MJ is impressed was great as well. On a less character-oriented note, I liked the thing with the bells, because takes what had been a highly-charged moment fraught with symbolism and inner turmoil and presents a simple logical explanation. You get the logic without having to give up the drama.
Of course there were like, a ton of flaws too:
1. The scene between Harry and his butler is totally unnecessary on top of making no sense and coming out of nowhere. Also Aunt May didn't need to conveniently show up and tell Peter she forgave him when there'd already been a cleansing shower scene to show he'd sloughed off the last of his evilness. (At least there were only two unnecessarily over-expository scenes this time around, in Spiderman I there were hundreds or at least that's what it felt like.)
2. How many upsidedown kisses, confrontations with mirrors, Aunt May confessionals, church scenes, funeral scenes, and posing-before-flag scenes can a single franchise support anyway XD.
3. Real New Yorkers wouldn't cheer for the man in spandex (who just last week they'd thought might be evil!) fighting off two supervillians at great cost of city property. They'd wonder why these three guys couldn't take their personal grudges somewhere where there was less possibilty of collateral damage.
4. As various others have pointed out, it makes no sense to say that the central theme of the movie is "taking responsibility" and then turn around and forgive Sandman because his little girl is really cute. Where's responsibility in that? Accidental or not, he's still a burglar who shot a man during the course of an armed robbery.
And so on. But it's a fun, light-hearted movie with a real heart, and I liked it.
Hot Fuzz
"From the directors of Shawn of the Dead who have seen ever action movie ever" <-- That pretty much tells you everything you need to know XDDDD Imagine if someone made a movie about life in an idyllic English village but used cinematography tricks to make it the whole thing totally sinister and exciting until eventually, the action-movie quick fades overwhelmed the last vestiges of plot logic and actually turned the movie into an action movie. That's sort of what Hot Fuzz does. (I hear this is England's first cop movie because English cops don't carry guns so there are fewer opportunities for dramatic suspense. Boy was that problem solved ^^;.)
The "plot" is that a young, hardworking, psychotically dedicated London police officer is reassigned to work in a small picturesque village in the English countryside. You probably have to really be English to appreciate all the culture-shock humor that comes along with this move (besides the obvious ones I mean, like the hotel receptionist who says "There was a call for you from" -- *squints* -- "Loundeen?")
It's all fun and "small towns are backward" jokes until someone misplaces an arsenal, isn't it. XD The cop from London is convinced the town's frequent accidents are more than just accidents -- that's there's something bigger and more sinister afoot. The rest of the force is convinced that he's a workaholic starving for action. Only his partner, the commissioner's son, who has watched every action movie ever, is willing to humor him. Their blossoming friendship is a thing of beauty and gay jokes. I won't spoil the ending because it is sublimely ridiculous.
Also saw recently: The Inside Man, The Last Kind of Scotland
Still Need to See:Pan's Labyrinth, The Host
Looking forward to:Curse of the Black Pearl, The Savages
P.S. My father thinks I should edit films since I am so critical of them. Obviously he's never met a real film major XD.
However despite her great talents, Jenna is deeply unhappy, because she is trapped in a marriage with a terrible (feel free to substitute "abusive" here -- the director doesn't only because Waitress is a comedy) husband and has just learned that she is pregnant with his unwanted child. Her husband really is terrible. He orders her around all the time, always makes her give him all the money, never lets her go anywhere, has awful fits of jealousy, and to top it all off, he's bad in bed (because he assumes that if he's happy, she's happy).
This is where Jenna's doctor (Nathan Fillion -- Mal from Firefly) comes in. Though Dr. Pottamer is also married, the chemistry between the two of them is undeniable and against her better judgment, Jenna somehow begins an affair. (Attacks him following one of the many 'checkups' he conveniently arranges for her, more like.) Meanwhile, one of her co-waitresses has a secret, while the other one has an admirer. The cantankerous-but-has-a-heart-of-gold owner of Joe's Pie Diner, Joe, also shows up from time to time to demand full service and make Jenna listen to him read his horoscope.
I thought the movie was extremely funny but I would not want to watch it again. That's because all of "romantic" scenes between Jenna and her doctor involve him ordering her around. Of course, when he's the one giving the orders, it's "sweet" -- and actually, these scenes are sweet. It's only when you notice how often he does it and think to compare him with Jenna's awful husband that his behavior becomes less sweet. And not just his -- everyone orders everyone around in this movie. Constantly. It's like how the characters show affection or something.
The doctor is also creepily good at not looking guilty when his wife and Jenna are in the same room together (or the nurse almost interrupts them...or he's on the phone with a patient with Jenna in his lap...I swear I didn't go into the movie looking for these things, as a matter of fact I went in expecting to be charmed because I love Nathan Fillion, and the previews made Waitress look like a love story. I don't think the director necessarily wants you to be charmed without any reservations, though, so maybe this is just a case of previews that misrepresent the movie.)
In short, Waitress is funny when it tries to be funny, ever-so-slightly off when it tries to be touching. Watching was also kind of creepy because the writer/director, Adrienne Shelly, was brutally murdered by her handyman several months ago and she has a part in the movie. She's the waitress with the admirer. I didn't realize this until I saw her name in the credits. I was watching a dead woman arrrghhhhh. And all the while thinking uncharitable thoughts about how much of Jenna's attraction to controlling men was autobiographical! Where's the confessional so I can repent of my sins orz.
As to whether there is anything to such speculation, as far as I know I am the only person to have come a way from the movie with such a strong WHY MUST ALL CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN JENNA AND THE MEN SHE KNOWS INCLUDING THE SUPPOSEDLY NICE ONES BE CONDUCTED IN THE IMPERATIVE TENSE ARGHHHH reaction. So I'll say for the record that it might not be that bad.
At least (MAJOR SPOILER, highlight to read) she doesn't end up with any of them.
***
More movies!
Spiderman III (major spoilers)
Either I'm getting soft in my old age or Sam Raimi is getting better about harnessing sentimentality to the service of the plot, because I really liked Spiderman III. As always the company made a difference -- I saw the first one (which I hated) with my extremely critical and grouchy second boyfriend, and this one with my friends from Michigan. What can I say, sap tolerance is higher in the Midwest.
And the sentimentality in Spiderman III is great. It's like I keep telling everyone, for all that the first movie (and the first X-men movie) kicked off the superhero movie boom, the Spiderman movies aren't superhero movies. They're movies about Peter Parker and Mary Jane's relationship, with superpowers thrown in to complicate the plot. Venom is practically a metaphor for Peter's state of mind in III. The powers aren't the draw, the characters are the draw, and they're the draw because they're caricatures of real people, not representations of the inner id or abstract virtues or kick-assitude or anything like that.
I thought Mary Jane was great in this movie. Take the superpowers out of the equation and she's too good for Peter. (Not that I believe there is any such thing, but the scriptwriters obviously do.) I thought she was just the right bit supportive, just the right bit demanding of support. After all, which of the two of them is more in a more dire personal situation when the movie begins? That's what I thought. Also on the "so he has powers, so what?" front: Peter Parker's superpowers don't stop him from being a colossal dork even when he's evil. XDDD Hilariry!
I really liked the movie's central "grow up and take responsibility for your actions" theme and Eddie Brock's illustration of that theme. The scene in the bar where Parker shows off and neither Gwen nor MJ is impressed was great as well. On a less character-oriented note, I liked the thing with the bells, because takes what had been a highly-charged moment fraught with symbolism and inner turmoil and presents a simple logical explanation. You get the logic without having to give up the drama.
Of course there were like, a ton of flaws too:
1. The scene between Harry and his butler is totally unnecessary on top of making no sense and coming out of nowhere. Also Aunt May didn't need to conveniently show up and tell Peter she forgave him when there'd already been a cleansing shower scene to show he'd sloughed off the last of his evilness. (At least there were only two unnecessarily over-expository scenes this time around, in Spiderman I there were hundreds or at least that's what it felt like.)
2. How many upsidedown kisses, confrontations with mirrors, Aunt May confessionals, church scenes, funeral scenes, and posing-before-flag scenes can a single franchise support anyway XD.
3. Real New Yorkers wouldn't cheer for the man in spandex (who just last week they'd thought might be evil!) fighting off two supervillians at great cost of city property. They'd wonder why these three guys couldn't take their personal grudges somewhere where there was less possibilty of collateral damage.
4. As various others have pointed out, it makes no sense to say that the central theme of the movie is "taking responsibility" and then turn around and forgive Sandman because his little girl is really cute. Where's responsibility in that? Accidental or not, he's still a burglar who shot a man during the course of an armed robbery.
And so on. But it's a fun, light-hearted movie with a real heart, and I liked it.
Hot Fuzz
"From the directors of Shawn of the Dead who have seen ever action movie ever" <-- That pretty much tells you everything you need to know XDDDD Imagine if someone made a movie about life in an idyllic English village but used cinematography tricks to make it the whole thing totally sinister and exciting until eventually, the action-movie quick fades overwhelmed the last vestiges of plot logic and actually turned the movie into an action movie. That's sort of what Hot Fuzz does. (I hear this is England's first cop movie because English cops don't carry guns so there are fewer opportunities for dramatic suspense. Boy was that problem solved ^^;.)
The "plot" is that a young, hardworking, psychotically dedicated London police officer is reassigned to work in a small picturesque village in the English countryside. You probably have to really be English to appreciate all the culture-shock humor that comes along with this move (besides the obvious ones I mean, like the hotel receptionist who says "There was a call for you from" -- *squints* -- "Loundeen?")
It's all fun and "small towns are backward" jokes until someone misplaces an arsenal, isn't it. XD The cop from London is convinced the town's frequent accidents are more than just accidents -- that's there's something bigger and more sinister afoot. The rest of the force is convinced that he's a workaholic starving for action. Only his partner, the commissioner's son, who has watched every action movie ever, is willing to humor him. Their blossoming friendship is a thing of beauty and gay jokes. I won't spoil the ending because it is sublimely ridiculous.
Also saw recently: The Inside Man, The Last Kind of Scotland
Still Need to See:
Looking forward to:
P.S. My father thinks I should edit films since I am so critical of them. Obviously he's never met a real film major XD.