In Review: Crazy, Stupid, Love.

The Gist

At glance a typical rom-com, Crazy, Stupid, Love surprises and amazes with its subtle take on love and life; the used up "small-world" plot dangerously treads on predictable with a boring narration, but is nonetheless saved by a good script and good casting.

The Good

• good dialogue
• surprising casting

The Bad

• can be predictable
• lazy narration

Synopsis

Cal Weaver (Carrell) marries young with the girl of his dreams, Emily (Moore). Their comfortable marriage ends up in a divorce when he discovers that her wife is cheating on him with her co-worker, David Lindhagen (Bacon). Cal moves into his apartment and spends every night moping to random strangers in his local bar about how his wife cheated on him with David Lindhagen. Mean time, the resident womanizer of the bar Jacob (Gosling), whose advances has been recently rejected by Hannah (Stone) as she is seriously dating someone, took pity on Cal and groomed him to up his game and help him move on from the mess he is at. Hannah on the other hand just got the upset of her life when her boyfriend did not propose to her as she expects. What happens next is a series of coincidences and "small-world" events that surprises everyone in the end.

Slap Me

First off, let me just get this off my chest: I like the movie, I really do. But what's so blatantly bad about it was the way it unraveled itself. It was just done lazily. As if the director is uninterested with the story himself. Individually, Carell, Stone, Moore, Gosling, Tomei, etc., are all funny. But the editing and narration just didn't piece them altogether nicely. It was only until the end that it all got pieced well. It felt sloppily done and uncohesive, and you know what they say about cohesion, without it, it's like putting a horse in front of a carriage; it looks funny, but wouldn't go far. You know how some movies like, say, Iron Man where it goes Bam! Bam! and Bam! and poof, it's the end and you feel cheated because the way it was pieced together was so good you felt like you just sat 5 minutes and it's already the credits. Fast and gripping storytelling. This one ain't like that. It's the opposite. Dragging, actually. But with sparks of brilliance, and if only those were properly edited, remove the draggy parts that we've seen from other movies anyways, it would have been a nicer movie.

While the end is redeeming of the bad storytelling, the way the movie was told kind of agrees more with Stupid than Crazy.

Surprise Casting

The one who I will not call must pack their belongings and go. Remember that line? If not, then you will not know that the character of Jessica Riley, the Weavers' babysitter was played by Analeigh Tipton of America's Next Top Model Cycle 11. Amazing how she landed that role and really, she played her character well--how did she even look that young. Her turning from blond to brunette upset me, she looks so barbie doll-ish back in 2008, though it does make her look more mature. Along with Jonah Boba, who played Cal Weaver's son and who felt like the actual hero of the story, really, Analeigh was lauded as one of the faces to watch by movie critics.

Ryan Gosling who I last remember from The Notebook appeared as do-no-goodie, womanizing, gym-frequenting, alcohol-worshipping, rich dude which is a complete departure from that goodie image he played in the Notebook worked this one well, too. He sounded though he has a lisp, but it wasn't that distinct. It actually made him feel mafiaso and mature. Emma Stone has few dialogues but her role in the film was one that really surprised me. Should've figured out that red hair of hers actually has to do with it. She is "Easy A" funny as I remember, husky voice and all.

Lastly, at first, I couldn't quite figure out why Steve Carell felt unlikeable to me. Then this: he portrays a pathetic guy, typical Carell, only this time he does turn into awesome and uses the newfound awesomeness to screw around--something not one will empathize to and I didn'y and maybe that's why I didn't fully enjoy this movie. The hero is pathetic and turns into a bad guy in the end and hurts everyone he loves. Then again, that's typical Hollywood hero for you--hurts the people he loves and makes amends in the end, why do we make films about these people again? Is it to rationalize why we cheat? To redeem ourselves because we make wrongs? To show it's completely rational to be a jerk as long as you fix everything in the end?

Anyhoo, I'm getting sidetracked. I've told my gripes with the storytelling. That's my only real gripe. The way the hero is could've been excusable if the storytelling was good and not done lazily. The script is good, the actors did well, it's just really the way it was edited and narrated that hindered me from completely enjoying the movie.

Verdict: 3/5. Passed. 

Jerky Talks #4: City of Bad Art

The photo above is the hotly debated work of Mideo Cruz, displayed at the Cultural Center of the Philippines. Much has been said about this piece of art--or crap. The photo above, if it is not apparent, is a life-size wooden crucifix. That red protruding object affixed below the number 36 on the cross is a... penis. An erected male genitilia made of wood and finished with a red paint. The cross itself seems to be made of worn out doors adorned with various items such as the word "UP" or University of the Philippines, I believe, House address numbers, some religious items like amulets and rosaries, and a piece of linen probably to give it a Shroud-of-Turin feel. On the left side of the cross (not pictured) is a replica of a severed hand inside a glass box that spews red blood-like water. This is the part of the centerpiece that I like most as I find it artistic and macabre. You can almost imagine that Christ is there but you can only see a part of him by peering into that box.

The walls surrounding the centerpiece are littered with religious images mishmashed with various pop culture images. Teletubbies meets Coca-Cola meets Jesus Christ meets Santa Claus meets Mickey Mouse. It was such a colorful mishmash that one would need to take a look closer how all these where mashed together, and I think he did a good job there. On the right side of his part of the exhibit is an old Sacred Heart Jesus statuette fitted with a bunny crown and pierrot nose (pictured below). Hilarious and juvenile. Something a child would do.


How did I feel when I saw this artwork? Mixed. For one, I disliked the erect red penis sticking out, it just felt out of place and is a centerpiece for controversy. I'm a Christian after all, devout no, a Christian, yes. I have my beliefs and that glaring phallic object does not belong there, though I believe it is to symbolize God's being human, that perhaps even Christ felt the human urge when He was alive. If not, then I would stop my belief that we are made in the likeness of God. Surely, Jesus also pooped. So he must have felt that urge one time or another. Part of being a man.
The rest of the exhibit is well-put and creatively done, I can say. Mostly humorous and thought-provoking in a sense that it made me think the process of thought Mideo Cruz went on to put all these pieces together. The effect to me is mostly comedic. if not intriguing. I still have to question the wooden penis, though. Where am I leading this post?
Fact: Senator Tito Sotto has threatened CCP that they will get budget cuts. Fact: Mideo Cruz has received several death threats. Opinion: The Catholic Church is pulling the strings in this. If they can do this to art, the hell they can do it to the RH bill, Divorce bill, and any hopes of same-sex marriage. So we say the art is distasteful and offending, then don't go see it. Good Lord. It's not like they are being required to see it. It's inside a museum in Manila. You have to go to that museum on your own consent. If you look at it and get offended, then it is in your own doing that you get offended.
Apparently, the law forbids exhibition of immoral stuff like this. It says that anything that offends a certain religion is considered unlawful and as the Church is apparently offended, the closing of the exhibit is lawful.
This means we are not liberal enough, a populace, to laugh at such things and find it humorous if not sarcastic. We are still, as a nation, conservative and would stick to our old ways. that's what this whole snafu means. Art is the last thing to develop in any race as everything else must be satiated before it can flourish. It means, since our art is not flourishing enough and our sense of art being in its infancy with our media littered with crap called teleserye and our movies being mostly romantic-dramas and slapstick, just as our sense of art is stuck to the 70s, our progress as a nation is also. It's 2011 but our art is mostly crap and when foreign concepts are introduced we do not accept it because it does not fit with where our artistic perception is currently at.
I am Christian. My family is devout. I may be the apple that fell far from the tree, but I do not see it as an attack to my religion. I do not see a church defaced or a terrorist attack launched on my fellow Christians. These are religious articles, yes, but they are not my God. I was taught in school that this is what my God looks like and I have grown to believe that that is not true. God does not have a face that man has seen and the images of Jesus we have are artistic renditions only made to make the religion appealing. All these are what marketing materials are if the Church is a business. Attacking the Bible is a different story (Hello, Da Vinci Code). This is nothing more than an artwork using religious articles as base materials--with some getting defaced in the process. It's the nation's reaction that is disconcerting, and the power the church is exhibiting over the government.
To close this post, I say, "if you want a summary of a nation's progress, look at the state of their arts. Arts can only flourish when the stomach is fed and the mind nourished." Sadly, our art and our perception is a vast work in progress that don't seem to have a bright future.

Jerky Talks #3: Mean Girls

Here's what: Internet makes people mean. Everywhere you go on the web, there would always be one or two people dishing out nasty comments on the discussion. But why go far when you can just go Twitter and look who's being ridiculed by the netizens by checking on the trending topics. The same may be said about Facebook where FAN PAGES can simply be created to insult people. What lead me to this post?

Yesterday, a UP (University of the Philippines) Law Graduate drove his car through a waist-deep flooded street much to his car's dismay. The angry Christopher Lao, interviewed by the local media, in all his frustration blamed the bystanders for not informing him about how deep the flood is. Good Lord, bless you, Mr. Lao. In a matter of minutes, the video of this interview went viral and Mr. Lao now has a Facebook fan page with (as of last checking) has more than 40,000 likes--this started from 2,000 early the night before. Reading on the posts on the fan page's wall is a chore. It is an endless tirade made by countless people, some of them using even fake accounts for good measure.

I am not writing to express my sympathy with Mr. Lao as his was a mistake anyone could have possibly made--but surely the phrasing of his comments made him an overnight celebrity, which if he can exploit properly and take with a pinch of salt, can send him to Philippine Show Business. Yes, dear, that's how it works here. Perhaps we can say that his comments in the interview was born of frustration and arrogance, but how hard was it to just say, "yeah, I was stupid enough to drive through the flood thinking it wasn't that deep." And granted he was that stupid and arrogant, I just feel that such fan pages warrant nothing but empty entertainment and an emotionally bruised Mr. Lao (again, a person with a more incontrovertible sense of humor would have made out of this unscathed and probably would even have guested in a morning talk show, but Mr. Lao doesn't strike me as one). It's his fault, but why should we go about rubbing it all over his face that not only was it his fault, he is also the biggest arrogant who made it to primetime TV last night?

What makes me sad is not that people are making fun of him: it's how people harshly respond to some things over social media. Reporter Karen Davila has before said that Social Media has made us anti-social (of course she might have just picked it up somewhere, but then again it is something wise to tweet). One does not even need to look at the trending topics. Surely we all have that one friend / follower who does nothing on his/her time but to tweet mean stuff (Guy Kawasaki's definitive 5 types of twitter users lists this type as the b!tch). I have some of these who I cannot unfollow as they are good acquaintances and such would seem curt. Sometimes--on a bad day--I just wanna step up to them and yell on their ear, "Hey, before you go calling people ugly, go check the mirror, buddy," or "Hey, tard, use a real pic of yourself before calling my friend ugly in his profile pic." But I can't as that would just be mean and And besides, this:

 

Arguing with these people just won't change anything. But letting them be saves you time. And also makes you more social-media-friendly, I realize. Your tweets are not tainted with heated arguments.

I've gone off-track. Sadly, this is what the Internet has made of us--mean people ready to rub a witty, if not harsh, salt to the humiliating wound like we are close friends to strangers who just made a bad call on national TV and such banter would not matter. I have had my fill of this, and I'm glad I have my friends to banter with. I do not have to waste my dry wit on people who have made it to today's entertainment column. And while the Internet continues to be mean, I guess the only thing I can do is to filter what I read and click those unfollow buttons.

Have a great day ahead.