The Force Unleashed II

Plain and simple: The Force Unleashed can be viewed 1 of 2 ways. Neither of those ways concern the infinitely greater control scheme, or even the probably-not-as-good-as-the-first-one story. At its core it was a very personal story, as in the most about one person a story has been in a mass market Star Wars release, albeit with much much grander implications (natch).

SPOILERS

The primary motivation of Starkiller in this go-round is to a) find out if he is a clone and b) find his lost love. What we come to find out eventually, is that A doesn’t matter, especially if he has B. The resolution to the “is he a clone?” plot, or should I say lack of resolution, didn’t bother me much. As I didn’t really feel that it mattered whether or not we were playing the clone Starkiller or the “real” Starkiller. Even though the game didn’t come right out and say “Yep, He’s a clone.” I think the epic fight in the clone factory, spent murdering a couple dozen different versions of you, sort of answered that question for us.

The clone plot carries us to the inevitable show down with Darth Vader that culminates in your final decision: will you let the hate flow and the dark side win by striking Vader down, or will you do the “right thing” and let the Rebels take Vader into custody.

The 2 ways in which this game could be viewed depend greatly on the which ending you choose. When you’ve chosen, it will either paint your entire play through as a classic triumph of good over evil, in which our hero achieves personal redemption (whether or not he’s actually our hero from the first game or not) or as one the most depressing and bleak events in Star Wars canon, which speaks not to the fancy go-get-em destiny of the first three Star Wars films, but of the dark inevitability of the prequel trilogy.

If you chose the Light Side ending and the rebels win, then Vader is taken into rebel custody and sent off to Alderaan to stand trial as a war criminal. The last shot showing Starkillers ship jumping into hyperspace, ominously trailed by Boba Fett. The End. Obviously this ending leaves plenty of dangling plot-threads are in desperate need of resolution, as the game is set mere months before the events of A New Hope.

This ending is alright. The good guys win, the hero gets the girl and you get the signature vague threat from Vader. When Starkiller informs Vader that he is no longer under Vaders control, Vader replies, “As long as she is alive. You’re mine” or something to that effect. Basically letting us know that the same thing that did Vader in, love, will eventually destroy Starkiller as well.

Isn’t that bleak? Isn’t that pretty depressing? Once you are tempted by the Dark Side, there is no turning back, not even for the ones you love. It reminded me of the end of Return of The Jedi, when Vader informed Luke that it was too late for him to be saved. Obviously Vader knew that and felt that years prior to his final showdown with his son.

As depressing as that was, it still wasn’t as depressing as the Dark Side ending. When you choose the Dark Side ending, Starkiller raises his saber to strike Vader down and is instead stuck like a pig by a lightsaber from the shadows. It is revealed that the Starkiller we’ve spent the last few hours with wasn’t the only successful clone, another darker clone exists and that clone just murdered our guy. Vader shares a prideful exchange with Dark Starkiller, and we’re only left to assume that both Kota and Juno Eclipse are dead.

As with the Light Side ending, the Dark Side ending wasn’t afraid to tell us that the love is a bad thing. Good Starkillers quest for Love, and his worry about his origins, lead his beloved to her death. The Dark Starkiller we learn, through unlockable cinematics, had the love trained right out of him.

The Dark Side ending also gives a bit of a Bioshock vibe (I know that that is the thing to say to prove how deep you and the game you played are.) With the Dark Side ending you get the sense that your actions throughout the game were meant to happen, that you had no control over them. It sure felt like you did at the time, but the ending revealed your true purpose: tying up Real Starkillers loose ends. Just as the protagonist in Bioshock speant the game searching for something that he was ultimately being programmed to do, so was Starkiller.

I’m not so secretly hoping that the Dark Side ending proves to be in canon. The ramifications of it are outstanding. With the loose ends tied up from the first game, Dark Starkiller is free to do his master bidding, perhaps it also revealed that the many of the events of the original trilogy were not only touched by Dark Starkiller, but perhaps by Vader’s guiding touch as well. Afterall, we all have a destiny, whether we choose to honor it or betray it is entirely up to us.

Enslaved

Red Dead Redemption appealed to me on many levels, I loved the mechanics and the setting, but mostly it was the fact that I got to pretend to be a cowboy. I knew what I was doing, I knew what I was getting myself into. It was sort of like playing Cowboys and Indians when I was kid, these kids were the bad guys, these kids were the good guys. It was an appeal to my childhood and fondness for spaghetti westerns, albeit in the most violent way possible.
I bring that up as an example of the many different ways in which a game can hook someone. RDR gave me a cowboy hat and a six-shooter and let me do pretty much anything I wanted to with it. Enslaved on the other hand took me on a journey and it was proof positive that theres still something beautiful that can be done with the guided single-player experience.
Was it linear? Hell yes. Was the combat simplified? Absolutely. But it wasn't about leveling up and fighting evil robots, it was about developing your relationship with Trip until the point that you didn't need a slaves headband to be tied to her anymore. You wanted to help her see her mission through.
The affection that Monkey develops for Trip felt real. He saw her as this silly girl that was as fragile as a flower. Until her naïveté revealed itself as genuine fear. She wasn't a fragile flower that could be broken by single mechanical footstep, but someone who had no idea what she was doing or where her life was headed, much the same as Monkey himself. Where Monkey masks his fear with his acrobatic ability and proficiency for robot murder, Trip masks it in her unending optimism. Even in the face of utter despair and loss, she picks her self up and refocuses on her next mission.
The only complaint I could have about this game, is that it wasn't longer. I never felt like this wasn't worth my $60 dollars. I just wanted to play it more, which isn't something I could say about many games. It never overstayed its welcome, even though I kind of wanted it to.

Superman on film

I was never a big fan of the Richard Donner Superman films. I'm sorry, I just wasn't. They were mostly well done, but they haven't aged well (not to mention Gene Hackman's truly odd portrayal of Lex Luthor.) Despite that, I'm quite fond of Superman Returns. Sure it is flawed, but most movies are. Its biggest issue for me being that it tied itself so closely to the Donner-verse, going so far as making Kevin Spacey (a brilliant choice for the role) basically ape Gene Hackmans character that was tired when it was first put to film.
I've got high hopes for Zach Snyders Superman. He gave fanboys exactly what they needed with Watchmen and  I think that he can do it again with Superman. I want him to be careful with the material, but not too careful. For all the wonder, magic and fun that the Donner film had it still never achieved the sense of scale, power and might that Singer's Superman had. I'm hoping the Snyder can combine the two version, or make his own independent of what came before. Because Superman is a wonderful character that really does deserve a second chance at cinematic brilliance.

Sometimes I wish I could turn off my Design Nerd sensibilities...

By all indications the new Irrational developed Bioshock game looks pretty great and has more potential to be great than any other game of recent memory. So it is with a heavy heart that I admit something about the announcement bothered me: I could be wrong, but I think the font they used for the word "Bioshock" in the Bioshock Infinite logo is Helvetica.

What an nerdy thing to call out. Sorry, I can't turn it off. Its not disappointing and it doesn't make me mad, I just noticed it. It stands out even more because the first Bioshock had such an incredible sense of place and time and I think they're use of period typefaces really worked (for me at least) in selling the world of Rapture.

Helvetica was developed in 1957 by the Haas Typefoundry, a full 45 years after the game in question is set. A more accurate font might have been Akzidenz Grotesk, to non-type nerds the difference is negligible. But to type-nerds like myself, it means the world.

I'm glad at least that they didn't use Arial.

Iron Man 2

Marvel Studios gave you exactly what you wanted. You wanted a movie franchise that tied into something larger, in this case, The Avengers. In that respect, Iron Man 2 was a wonderful film. In comparison to other non-superhero or comic book movies, maybe it wasn't the best, certainly not as good as the first Iron Man to be sure.
There were probably too many characters to keep track of, and probably too many plot points as well. But it worked. Why? Because its the first for reals attempt at a comic book movie.
I always appreciated Ang Lee's Hulk for it's action-in-frames approach. He wanted to make it feel like you were watching a comic book come to life. But I think he missed the point. The frames aren't really the secret sauce of why we like comic books or why we like movies made from comic books. That secret sauce is pretty simple: dangling plot threads.
I stopped reading comics regularly after Civil War for the simple reason that the need to constantly leave the story open ended just left me frustrated. The best comics wrap themselves up after they tell their story, then they move on. But the stakes that were set in forth with Civil War were immediately undone by whatever the fuck the next event was. They needed to set up the next thing, thus giving valuable plotting to a story we didn't really give a shit about. "Oh guys, Hulk is coming back. That should be fun." Turns out, nowhere near as fun as Civil War.
Iron Man 2 gave us exactly what we asked for. It established the universe in which future Marvel movies will be set, and as a result had an ultimately underwhelming climax that removed the stakes, in an effort to leave enough room as possible to establish the next story. In essence, it did exactly what Marvel comics have been doing for decades.

Jeff Mangum vs. Mount Eerie, but not really

Did you ever go to a show and when whatever band it is plays your favorite song, you get kind of mad because it doesn't sound exactly like the version you've heard a million times. Maybe they change one line, or they play the guitar a bit differently, and it kind of throws you off. Its sort of like having someone show you a picture of your wife, but with the eyes a different color or maybe a little freckle is missing. Its not bad, it just throws you off for a second. I'm totally that way with Wooly Mammoths Absence by Mount Eerie, in that I really only like one version of that song (from the 7 new songs mini LP) even though its popped up a million different places and on a couple bootlegs.

I spent the last half hour watching youtube video of a Jeff Mangum performance at the knitting factory in NYC from 1998 and I am amazed and how much the live songs hes playing sound like the album I've listened to more than I can remember. I almost think they overdubbed it or something, but then again, maybe that dude is like a human tape player, he just plays the same thing over and over and over and there's only one entirely perfect version of it in his head and that's the one he plays.

I can't decide which approach I prefer. I love the organic nature of Mount Eerie's performances but as a fella who loves to be able to control and manipulate things in a specific order in a specific way, I'm tending toward the Jeff Mangum approach.

Observe & Report

I will give any movie a ton of credit that can make me dislike a character so much that you almost want to turn the movie off, if not for the perverse sense of wanting to see what will happen next. Seth Rogen's Ronnie Barnhardt is all that and more, just as depressing as an old high school buddy still living with their parents "living the good life" (according to them at least) and just as aggravating as a close-minded reactionary relative at a family gathering. I never hated Ronnie, but jesus did I want him to get his comeuppance.

Tower Records Goes To College: Star Wars & Culture Shock

Last Friday I was given an amazing opportunity by my good friend Scott Cashman to lead a discussion about my passion of passions: Star Wars. It was part of a series of classes/lectures/discussions being lead by former Tower Records employees as part of Harper College's continuing education program. It was an honor and privilege to talk with everyone. I feel remarkably blessed that I get to be a fan of something that so many other smart and eloquent people are also fans of. Thanks to everyone who came and I couldn't be happier with how it turned out.

As a bonus to everyone who came, I would like to share my work. My Powerpoint presentation, videos and excel spreadsheets can all be found by clicking this link. Let me know what you think, and thanks again.

(the excel spreadsheet isn't entirely accurate i was using a partial list from Wikipedia and another list from Box Office Report, i'll be adding the EPS files for graphs I made later, those are more accurate.)

Uncharted 2: Review

Uncharted 2 is a really, really, really good game. From a technical perspective it is at the top of its game. The modeling, the textures, the animation and sound design are all second to none. I defy you to find a game that looks, feels, and sounds better than this. It is unfortunate then that the one thing that keeps it from being "OMG! THE GREATEST GAME EVAR!" is the same thing that dampens the emotional resonance of many games: Narrative.

Uncharted 2: Among Thieves - So far, so good

I'm at the beginning of chapter 13. My first major observation so far concerns the pacing. It's really good. I started my first playthrough on hard and though the action is sort of slow in the first few chapters, once you get into it, it rarely stops for long.

VIDEO GAMES RE-VIEW: Blastman: Akron Asylum

I know what you are saying! Finally! A decent Blastman game! Typically licensed video games are bad. Not Blastman:Akron Asylum though. It will make you forget Blastman:Riddlemizers Revenge, Blastman vs. Jokester 64 and Blastman Blastamobile Karts X-Treme.

Special

Here's a case of wasted potential. Special had a lot of really good things going for it. The concept was pretty ingenius, a boring every man wishes he had super powers and he starts taking medication that gives them to him, or does it? It features one of the best lead performances from Michael Rappaport and visually it's blazing some trails with mostly hand held sparsely lit location shooting. It's just that the movie itself isn't any good.

Watchmen - Overview

I'm not totally sure why this movie was made. I mean, I know "why" but why? To meet, it felt like Zach Snyder was basically just trying to impress everyone with his reverence for the material while never actually delving into why the material is so treasured and respected in the first place. It was like an excercise in faithfulness. They sort of missed a golden opportunity to comment on the growing number of superhero movies, this movie easily could have done for superhero movies what the original Watchmen did for superhero comics. By focusing too much on the literal adaptation they missed the opportunity to translate. What works well in a comic won't always work well in a movie.

Dear Watchmen Fans,

Shut the fuck up until you see the fucking movie.

"they changed the ending" - yea, so? If you like the ending so much, read the fucking comic book jackass.

There are all kinds of reasons I have for just shutting the fuck up about any minor gripes i may have with what they done thus far, but you know what, i'll save my opinion for after I see the movie. Because i'm an adult and I can handle it if things don't always go my way. I also understand that "my way" is based entirely on my misconceptions about storytelling and the reality of the movie business.

So please. Shut the fuck up until March 7th.

Thank you.

-justin

Leatherheads

I'll be the first to admit that I'm no historian. I really really like movies, but I've definately not seen all of them, not even most of them, I've barely gotten through just the ones I want to see let alone the ones that I'm just remotely interested in. So from that perspective, and using the movies I have seen, I thought Leatherheads was thoroughly charming.

I've read alot of reviews of the film and everyone points out its stylistic ties to classic hollywood screwball comedies (none of which, i regret to inform you, have been seen by me). I'm sorry, I just haven't gotten around to it, like i said, I'm the farthest thing from an expert. And since George Clooney rose to prominence in the 90's it seems every tom, dick and harry has been trying to peg him as the next "classic hollywood" leading man while completely overlooking one glaring similarity that Leatherheads had on full display.

Imagine the movie was made in 1969. Put Paul Newman in the George Clooney role and Robert Redford in the John Krasinski role, leave Randy Newman's score where its at and throw George Roy Hill behind the camera. I can totally see this as an alternate timeline follow-up to the success of Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid.

Naturally, the age difference between Clooney and Krasinski is quite a bit larger than the age difference between Newman and Redford, but they're also brilliant actors who could completely pull it off.

So to me, Leatherheads was a throwback's throwback. A movie inspired by movies that were inspired by other movies. It was remarkably charming and witty, quickly paced and superbly acted (save for Renee Zellweger) and I'm actually a little surprised that that it hasn't shown up on more best of 2008 lists.

Then again, I'm not an expert and I have yet to see all the movies released in the past year, let alone all the movies released in the past 80.

Dear Chrisopher Nolan,

Thanks.

Sincerely,
Justin D. Russo

Ironman

I’m not sure when, but there was definitely a point between the opening blaze of bullets and the closing press conference of Iron Man that my mind sort of drifted to a happy place that I normally reserve for especially intriguing New York Times articles, Wikipedia entries about Space, Star Wars Video Games and socially conscious/culturally philosophical comic-booking. In this happy place, my awareness of reality melts away and become one with my chosen medium and embrace it wholly as a part of my being. It makes me feel warm, accepted and beautifully coddled in the precious womb of geekery. Needless to say, I liked Iron Man quite a bit.
I’m not going to say much that other people haven’t already said, especially regarding the flawless performances of the main cast (special recognition goes to Robert Downey Jr. for playing Tony Stark better than I could have imagined, and to Jeff Bridges for making Obadiah Stane chilling and relevant, and for being the only person to ever look like a badass on a Segway) Jon Favreau knows how to direct, and direct well. This film easily slips from rock n’ roll action to non-exploitative social commentary in a way I’m not sure I’ve seen before. It was like the Spielberg duality of thrilling of action films and historical drama sort of rolled into one, it was just fun, it was smart.
Tony Starks evolution from a male Paris Hilton to a Robotic Barack Obama is done extremely well and never once did I feel like Favreau was pandering to me or telling me “just wait til we explode stuff!”. The relationship that Stark develops while captive is heartening and develops real weight, as if it was just what he needed to divine is real purpose.
I’m also a big fan of how quickly paced the story was. The plot unfurled efficiently and never felt like it was dragging along. When the movie was over, I had hardly realized that I’d been sitting there for 2 hours, I though the film had just begun. It was fresh and never boring, each scene held its own but still made sense in the larger context of the film. All in all, the main chunk of the film takes place over a couple days, and the plot hits the right notes and it unfolds into a climactic battle that could be one of the only chinks in the armor. The final battle felt rushed and went by too fast. Having now seen it twice though, I now realize that the oft-compared to Transformers fight scene is actually just what the doctor ordered and fit well with-in the established universe, pacing and context of the film. It wasn’t too flashy, but meaty enough to make sense in the end. I think most people didn’t like it in the same way most people on a diet don’t feel full after just having a salad. We were expecting a bloated, gluttonous cheeseburger like all the superhero/action/jerk-off movies of the past, but instead, we got a well-balanced, nutritious and well portioned meal of awesome.

There Will Be Blood

Just a couple thoughts. I watched this last night, the first of many times I plan on watching it. I'm waiting for the blu-ray to just buy it outright.

also, there are SPOILERS.

Firstly, I loved the movie. It was beautiful on many levels, but also equally sad and depressing. Not the film itself, just the journey of its main character, Daniel Plainview. He's a sad guy, and I was never positive what his motivation was. It wasn't really money, because he had tons and was offered more. He obviously stated during his campfire boozefest with his faux-brother that he hated people, and his only motivation was to make enough money to get away from everyone. That said, then why, at the end, is he still surrounded by people? Are we to assume that he achieved his goal and his definition of "alone" happens to include being surrounded my a handful of close associates and butlers. Or are we to assume then that he has yet to reach his eden of lonesome wallow? I suppose it could be taken either way and the ambiguousness of it is sort of why its great.

Secondly, I love how at first you're lead to believe the Daniel takes back his son because he might have actually been saved when being baptised at the church of the third revelation. That we might have actually witnessed a miracle, this barren soulless man finding redemption and expressing remorse over his abadonment of his adopted son. Then in the final minutes of movie, as the now grown-up H.W. informs his father that he is leaving with his wife to start his own business, Daniels true intentions come to light. He didn't save young H.W. from being an orphan out of mere compassion or sympathy. He saw a way to sell himself as a family man when seeking out new investments, a "pretty face" for people to look at while he shilled them with his tales of being a family man and took their land and oil. It was then that I realized that Daniel was never saved, he simply saw that by sending H.W. away, it made him appear weak and vile, and that by bringing him back, it would make him appear to be saved and aid him continuing the expansion of his business. What a dick.

Thirdly, much has been said about the score. I can't say much more than: indeed, it kicked ass.

Lastly, I've never been a fan of Daniel Day Lewis. Maybe its the contrarian in me. I don't believe that someone is just automatically a genius. I'm more of a fan of the theory of acting relativity, in that you're only as good as those around you. I didn't like him much in Gangs of New York because I think that both Liam Neeson and Leonardo DiCaprio are much better actors than he is, and you sort of have to prove yourself when going toe to toe like that. In the case of There Will Be Blood though, Daniel Day Lewis was amazing. Not only that, but Paul Dano was brilliant, the unsung hero of the film if you will. Every performance was outstanding and Daniel Day Lewis made it even better by taking pain and aggression to a new level. I never doubted his character for a second, there was never any time when it thought "i'm watching Daniel Day Lewis with a mustache". He's a fantastic actor and as far as I'm concerned, this is probably the best work he's ever done.

Last King of Scotland

The Last King of Scotland was a pretty good movie. Generally, when I write a review or analysis or whatever you want to call it, I precede my opinion of the film with a lot of hullabaloo. Sometimes three to four paragraphs of nonsense until I finally get to the point, in this case, I thought it smart to state my opinion of the film first, and then do all the hullabaloo and caca that I like to write.

I say The Last King of Scotland was a pretty good movie because it wasn’t a bad movie, but it didn’t knock my socks off. It was an above average film, but I wasn’t blown away. It wasn’t mediocre; it was better than mediocre. It just wasn’t all that special.

Now, if you must go see this film, don’t just wear general movie socks, because like I said they won’t get knocked off. If you go into this film wearing Forest Whitaker socks, they will probably get blown off, because Forest Whitaker is an amazing actor. It’s just kind of unfortunate that the whole reason to watch this movie isn’t even the focus of the film.

The Last King of Scotland follows Nicholas Garrigan (James McAvoy), a Scot doing some volunteer medical work in Uganda at the beginning of Idi Amin’s rise to power. Garrigan and Amin cross paths and become quick friends. The gist of the rest of it is that Garrigan eventually becomes a top advisor for Amin but doesn’t realize or pay attention to the truly evil shit that Amin is involved in.

Let me tell you why I didn’t like this angle. The set-up, the process through which we must wade to get to the meat of the story, is remarkably self-aware and pedantic. I kept getting the feeling of “going through the motions” of a kid-in-over-his-head story. I was getting flashbacks of Boogie Nights, except not awesome, just kind of boring. It was like the director (Kevin Macdonald) was just nodding at us for the first hour, saying “Yea, this is all just a formality, wait ‘til we get to the good stuff.”

When we finally get our first reveal of what kind of person Idi Amin actually is, then you get the sense that the film is getting more comfortable with itself and letting things hang out a bit. What does it say about Kevin Macdonald that the films most well executed scenes involve violence, anger and torture? It was kind of like you playing with your sister. She has Barbies, and you have G.I. Joes, you just kind of humor her while she arranges the house and living area and sets up the wedding and does all the boring stuff, and you’re just waiting for the evil terrorists to come in and kidnap Barbie.

Like I said, if you really need a reason to see this movie, it would be Forest Whitaker. He plays Amin like you can really imagine he would have been. He’s this goofy, super-friendly and overly charismatic best pal to almost everyone, until he starts to lose his shit and realize that he to is in way over his head. Perhaps that's why Garrigan and Amin got along so well, neither of them had a fucking clue about what was going on. Whitaker has no problem switching between the charismatic best-friend and the lost-his-shit dictator. If that isn’t enough justification for him to have won that Academy Award, I don’t know what is.

I’m wondering how the film would have been if it ha broken its traditional lateral story telling and perhaps had broken form with an Alejandro González Iñárritu-style fractured narrative. Maybe starting at the end of the story and then peppering the film with tidbits of how they ended up there. It’s a style that’s been done, but in the right hands its done well. The Last King of Scotland could have benefited a lot from being jazzed up a bit. It could have been so much more brutal and more unflinching in its portrayal of Amin and his surroundings and not left the weight of the picture on Forest Whitakers shoulders.

The Holiday

The only thing worse than a romantic comedy, is a meta-romantic comedy. The Holiday fully acknowledges its status as a romantic comedy by inserting a character who is an expert on such matters, a former Hollywood screenwriter; thus it thinks that it deserves kudos for being so brash and fun with the concept. The problem being that even a meta-romantic comedy is still a romantic comedy, so it has rules and guidelines that it must follow, no matter how “original” or “daring” it is with the concept.

The only movie I’ve ever seen that actually made the romantic comedy concept work on a level slightly higher than appealing to the viewer’s base sensibilities was Love Actually. Love Actually was comprised of a handful of stories, each one barely related to the other, kind of like You’ve Got Mail by way of Pulp Fiction. It worked because each story was short and concise and everything we needed to know about the characters was shown to us and anything else was inferred. Normally, each one of these little vignettes could have comprised an entire films worth of pandering nonsense, irrevocably ruining their concepts by adding filler like singing to a popular song of the era in which the film is made (and in turn dating the movie considerably) or perhaps dancing around candles or something. Love Actually was like a bunch of expanded trailers for a bunch of romantic comedies. Nothing was inherently different or good about the film other than its relieving concept to break up all the action between a bunch of people rather just focusing on Hugh Grant or Alan Rickman or Liam Neeson.

The real problem with The Holiday is that though it winks at the audience every once in a while, it still feels the need to jerk the audience off by including such romantic comedy mainstays like: meet-cutes, lip-synching to a popular song, dancing around a candle and/or piece of furniture, the jerk ex-boyfriend, the put upon female lead, the “breath of fresh air” male lead, montages, more meet-cutes, yet another put-upon female lead, the male lead with a secret that could prohibit him getting close with the female lead, last minute decisions that no one in their right mind would make (not giving a shit about spending tons of money on a plane ticket, then and the last second deciding you don’t want to go), oh yeah and a couple more meet-cutes for good measure.

I know, there’s a thing called suspension of disbelief. I’m supposed to go into every movie trusting that the director and/or writer of the film is God and the world they are showing us is world that exists outside of our reality. Eli Wallach plays an aging screenwriter long past his prime and he points out to a slumming-it Kate Winslet all the little things going on in her life that are just like the movies and how she could fix them, just like the movies. Cameron Diaz basically plays herself as a movie trailer editor whose life is interrupted occasionally by narration in the movie trailer guy voice. These bits are handled so poorly, it makes me think that I didn’t actually see them, and that I made them up, but they were so bad I don’t dare go back and check if they actually existed. I’m completely content with thinking they weren’t real, because that would make the movie a iota better in my mind. Like the universe that this movie is set in is one remarkably like ours except that it contains these brief quantum lapses where the collective subconscious of society simultaneously experiences these ethereal dream states and meta-interactions with our God/Creator. Hmm, maybe this movie was a little better than I thought. But no, the films director, Nancy Meyers, tries so hard to convince us that this movie is set in our world by including constant references to films we're familiar with, but its still run by the same conventions of the romantic comedy world.

A lot of people complain that movies like The Matrix and Natural Born Killers inspire kids to kill people (which they don’t, I assure you) but no one ever says anything about how movies like The Holiday and it’s bastard cousins convince people how to relate romantically to each other. Ask anyone what they’re idea of romance is and I can guarantee it’ll sound exactly like a scene from a shitty movie with Sandra Bullock and/or Hugh Grant in it. When you have this image in your mind of a Prince or Princess Charming and you convince yourself that you are going to find that one perfect person you will perpetually be disappointed because no one who fits your ideal actually exists. Love is about compromise, not compromise in the bad sense, but it is about realizing that not everyone is perfect, including yourself, and loving them for those imperfections. Imperfections are what make us unique, not all of us can be the great dad that Jude Law is, or the wonderfully random film composer that Jack Black is. We’re all who we are and the sooner you realize that, the sooner you’ll find someone you can love.

Romantic Comedies don’t allow room for the truth, they are built upon lie after lie after lie. I’m not talking about the Hollywood “Truth” either, where in you discuss taboo topics or sweat a lot, I’m talking about the honest to goodness for real truth. There are all kinds of things wrong with The Holiday, I could devote a book to deconstructing its fallacies and ill-performed inaccuracies. If you’re going to be meta, commit to it, don’t fall into the same traps that you’re attempting to destroy.