In Defense of Megan Fox

A major part of contemporary American culture is deconstructing people in the spotlight, whether they are politicians, musicians, actors or even those who are having their fifteen minutes of fame (i.e. Susan Boyle, Jon & Kate, ad infinitum). The list of reasons that we do this is undoubtedly as long and varied as the people who enjoy this pastime so much; there’s curiosity, animosity, jealousy, boredom and countless other reasons. What rarely ever happens is a regular person defending one of these people.

That’s what I am endeavoring to do with Megan Fox, because being in the spotlight as much as she has recently, the woman’s taken a lot of flack, and I’m not quite sure how much of it is deserved.

To get it right out of the way, I’m not going to lie and say that, as a heterosexual male, Megan Fox didn’t first come to my attention because of her looks. Of course she did. The way the first Transformers film was made, that was exactly the point, and let’s be honest: it worked. Myself and countless other males around the country were hooked from scene one. This fact makes me biased, of that I have no doubt, but this discussion could only be started by someone who is biased.

The first thing I’d like to address is the many people online and in the critical circles who claim that Fox is only “pretending to act,” and who completely disregard any acting abilities she has. Let’s be honest: she’s no Meryl Streep, yet. Yet is the key word of that phrase, because I’ve watched her films several times, and I see a definite potential for some serious acting chops. I think most of the basis for these condemnations come from the fact that she’s only been in big-budget summer films (with the exception of How to Lose Friends and Alienate People but there she was basically typecast as a exaggerated version of the person the press thinks she is) which, let’s face it, are hardly the kind of films that really hone actors’ skills. I think that once she gets offered some meatier roles – ones that aren’t just about spectacle – that people will see a different side to her. I’d love to see her in some kind of quirky comedy or drama, because I think she has the talent to do something real and visceral with these kinds of roles.

Of course, one must consider the fact that Fox enjoys the bigger movies better, and who’s to argue with that? If those are the films that she enjoys making, why should she be railroaded for it? “Big” movies like The Dark Knight and The Lord of the Rings have shown that just because a film has a big budget, that doesn’t mean that it can’t be powerful and moving, despite its massive scope. There’s no reason to discredit somebody’s abilities just because they don’t do an occasional indie film here or there. They just aren’t some people’s style.

All the criticism I hear about Fox’s acting – how shallow it is, and is based solely on her looks – calls to mind Marilyn Monroe. She too was considered less of an actor and more eye candy, something she battled her whole career. Yet looking back, who could have brought more humor to Some Like it Hot or heartbreak to The Misfits? Fox has only been in three movies so far – which is a fact that people seem to forget when they’re attacking her – so I would hardly say she’s had a decent chance to develop her skills as an actor yet. There’s some kind of grace period for an actor to really develop their skills that we just don’t allow anymore. Give her time, and the right roles, and I remain confident she’ll surprise a great many people.

The attacks on her personality in my mind are tied together with her image as a sex symbol, so I’ll examine these two things together. Our country is very confused when it comes to sexuality. We condemn those who are too expressive with their sensuality, while at the same time, making fun of those who are more introverted when it comes to that aspect. The fact that Fox is not only completely comfortable with her sexuality, but appears to embrace it and all the connotations – both positive and negative – that go along with it turns a lot of people off. Somebody that comfortable with themselves becomes intimidating to people who aren’t, but perhaps wish they could be. She gets the labeled as a man-eater, or as a stuck-up person just because she is aware of the fact that she is attractive, and goes along with it. It takes a huge amount of confidence to accept a label the way she has, and I’ve admired her from the start for her ability to do this so naturally. Yet in all the interviews, stories (from people who have spent real time with her, not just a minute) and discussions, she has always come across to me as a very confident, funny and sweet person. She has a very dry, sarcastic sense of humor, and as somebody who is the same way, if people aren’t used to that, it can really alienate or offend them until they get it.

Hollywood and our culture on the whole have a nasty habit of making beautiful women out to either be mean or stupid, something that has been a part of our male-dominated society for ages. That’s why they broadcast during those pre-movie trivia games – like its some kind of shocking news – that Natalie Portman went to Harvard, or that its such a big deal that Emma Watson would rather go to university than act. Megan Fox is just one of countless actresses who gets pegged with this prejudice.

You can throw that whole “boy with the rose,” thing out there – which anyone will admit was an honest mistake (some of these people should try having their picture taken 100 times in two minutes and see how much they are able to notice) – but she handled it very well, apologizing right off and hoping that she could maybe find the boy and apologize personally. That maybe doesn’t fit with how some people view her, since she’s evidentially so conceited, but I see the situation as a glimpse of how she really is, not how people want her to be.

I won’t apologize for being a Megan Fox fan any more than I would apologize for being an Audrey Hepburn fan. I hope eventually people stop talking about what she can’t do, and everyone gives her a chance to show us what she can.

"You Won't Have This Much Fun Again Until You Discover Oral Pleasure!"

For anyone tired of all the big-budget blockbusters of the summer, Away We Go will be a breath of cool air. Who knew that Maya Rudolph (from SNL) and John Krasinksi (from The Office) could take this little idea of a movie and turn it into a comic gem in the style of The Graduate and Garden State?

This is the pop-indie movie people have been waiting for all summer (this and (500) Days of Summer) and boy, does it deliver on all fronts. You’ll leave the theatre smiling, just to turn around and watch it again.

The plot of Away We Go is pretty simple. Verona (Rudolph) and Burt (Krasinksi) - an un-married couple, by Verona's choice - decide they need to find a new place to raise their coming baby, and go on a kind of cross country journey in search for the perfect place.

They make stops in cities where they have family or friends, starting in Phoenix, then on to Madison, Montreal and Miami. The characters that populate each place are in turns hilarious, odd, and heart-breaking, but always well-developed, and appropriately human.

All these secondary characters are brought to life by first-rate acting, but the two winners have to be Maggie Gyllenhaal as LN- a Madison professor who has taken family life to a frightening level – and The West Wing’s Allison Janney, (who makes every picture she’s in better) Verona’s old colleague Lily, who is as vulgar and crass as she is hysterical.

Let’s be honest though; this is Rudolph and Krasinski’s picture. They make you believe in their quirky love the way Charlie Chaplin and Virginia Cherrill did in City Lights, the way Audrey Hepburn and Gregory Peck did in Roman Holiday and the way Zach Braff and Natalie Portman did in Garden State.

Rudolph is all kinds of sweet, sarcastic and sexy, totally underplaying a character that could have easily been destroyed by too much talk, too many tears…just too much. Watching her face as she battles her emotions shows the viewer exactly what she is experiencing.

I can only use superlatives for Krasinksi’s performance. He is flat-out fantastic in a role that calls for odd-ball humor, tender emotion and everything in between. This is the nail in the coffin for the handful of women out there who haven’t already fallen for Krasinski on The Office. The way he blends his trademark wit and humor with feeling and melancholy (and always managing to make it either hysterical or touching, as the situation calls for) is a wonder. Oscar take note – this is the kind of performance those little gold statues were made for.

Of course, three cheers go to real-life married couple Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida for their wonderfully written screenplay and Sam Mendes for his compassionate direction. Eggers and Vida deserve an Oscar nod for Original Screenplay, as well.

And props for tapping folk singer/songwriter Alexi Murdoch for the film’s main musical voice. He got left behind after The O.C. crowd forgot about him, but this should bring him to the wider audience he deserves.

Before they decide to go on their trip, Verona asks Burt if he thinks they’re fuck-ups. He replies in the negative, but she remains unconvinced. As the magic of Away We Go proves, the answer is an unequivocal “hell no.”

Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen

Everything about Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen is the very definition of “sequel” in the strictest sense of the word. There’s nothing particularly inventive in this sequel: it’s basically the same plot, the same characters, the same themes – only bigger, louder and longer.

Now, the most important question is, does that matter? If you’re someone who is looking just for entertainment for entertaiment’s sake, or if you’re an intelligent viewer who has the capability to turn their brain off for several hours and just immerse yourself in some eye-popping visuals, than this is summer blockbuster manna.

Like previously stated, the gang from 2007’s hit are all back. This time Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBeouf) is about to start college, two years after the Autobots (the good robots) first landed on earth. He’s excited about starting a new stage in his life, one that’s normal and alien-robot free. Mikaela (Megan Fox) is majorly in love with Sam – as he is with her - though the main conflict between the two of them throughout the film is that neither of them can actually bring themselves to say the “l word.”

As he’s packing up to go, a sliver of the All-Spark from the first film, catches Sam’s eye, and makes a major imprint on his brain, causing him to see the Cybertron’s language everywhere. It turns out the symbols he sees are a map that both the Decepticons and Autobots need to find a source of energy that will take the earth’s sun for it’s energy.

So, the race is on to find where this source is before a resurrected Megatron and a whole list of new baddies can locate it.

Like I said, same plot, just bigger. Way bigger; the movie clocks in at right around two-and-a-half hours, when it could have easily been far shorter.

The acting is nothing spectacular. LeBeouf is hilarious in those awkward moments he always seems to find himself in, and there’s momentary glimmers of some real leadership power, but it gets buried under an avalanche of clichés. Fox is as gorgeous as ever, but she gets stuck playing the role of girlfriend/piece of luggage. Despite these facts, the two have genuine chemistry and I’d be lying if I didn’t say I thoroughly enjoyed their scenes together. There’s a genuine wit and sexiness present there and I blame their performances on the lack of material and characters written in such a one-dimensional way, that there’s not much they can do with it.

Of course, the real reason most will be going to this is for the action sequences, and those don’t disappoint. Just like in the previous film, the sound and visuals of the Transformers as they do their thing will pop your eyes. If only the scenes didn’t get bogged down so much with lame new “comedic” characters, they’d flow a lot better.

For all of this, I found myself enjoying Transformers 2. I guess I have the ability to turn my brain off and just float along with the movie. If that’s your idea of a good flick, or if you want to seem some major visuals, this is the movie for you.

A New Twist on an old Con

Listen up, all you yegs: Rian Johnson, the writer/director who brought film noir back into style with 2005’s Brick is back, this time adding his magic touch to the con film. If Brick was his Maltese Falcon, than The Brothers Bloom is his The Sting.

Johnson has a knack for snappy dialogue and wonderful characterization, and is an extremely literal director, a phrase that here means he’s obsessed with storytelling. There’s a touch of Wes Anderson’s style is Johnson’s second picture, but the sheer cinematic joy is all his. Besides, there’s something to be said for a film whose two main characters’ names are Stephen and Bloom, the centerpieces of James Joyce’s Ulysses.

The best thing about The Brothers Bloom is the characters; no doubt about it. The plot is a fantastic ride of twists and turns, but it’s the actors and the unique characters they play that are the real money in this con caper.

Mad props to Mark Ruffalo and Adrien Brody as Stephen and Bloom, respectively, for bringing devilish wit and humanity to the titular characters. Stephen is all action and smarts, an author of “dead Russian writer” proportions who uses real life to spin his stories into cons. Bloom just follows his brother’s lead, immersing himself in whatever character his brother has written for him, which leaves him feeling like a man without a life.

That is, until Stephen sets his sights on Penelope (Rachel Weisz) – a rich orphan who collects hobbies in her massive New Jersey mansion – as their final con, setting into play a rich tapestry of events culminating in a conclusion at once witty, shocking and heartbreaking. That’s all I’ll give as far as the plot goes – it’s a ride one has to go on for themselves.

The leading ladies are the real thieves in this one, stealing practically every scene they’re in. Weisz is a sweet, sexy wonder full of mischief and childlike excitement that leaps right off the screen as has you jumping up and down for joy. The scene where she describes how best to not get cheated will performing a series of elaborate card tricks will knock you down flat.

Save an explosion of applause for Rinko Kikuchi, who plays a nearly silent Japenese wonder criminal named Bang Bang. Kikuchi already proved she could act in Babel, but her comic turn here, which is at times as melancholy as it is erotic, better land her some more starring roles, pronto. She’s the spice that makes Bloom really sizzle.

For a break from all the summer blockbusters, The Brothers Bloom is just the ticket. It’s like running through the sprinklers after days of going to the pool: fun, fast and full of moving life. What else is summer all about?

"What's That in the Sky?"

Not only is Pixar’s latest film, Up, a magnificent piece of art, but the title lends itself to all manner of fantastic puns that describing soaring, flying, and the sky’s the limit. Fortunately for the viewer – and unfortunately for the reviewer – these turns of phrase don’t do the film justice by a long shot. It wasn’t quite as good as Wall-E for me (blame that on being a sucker for romance) but it comes within a hair’s breadth of matching it.

In the hands of any other studio, a film about an old man – Carl Fredricksen (Ed Asner) – who ties a bunch of balloons to his house so he can float down to South American to fulfill a promise to his dead wife, could have easily turned into a farce or just plain schmaltz. In this studio’s able hands, it instead becomes the wonder film of the summer. No other picture will dazzle your senses, pop out your eyes visually and still manage to be uproariously funny and moving at the same time.

The plot is pretty simple, as stated above. I should mention that Carl picks up a passenger on his journey, one pudgy wilderness-camper named Russell, who provides much of the film’s more obvious humour. Add in a delightfully adorable talking dog named Dug, and you’ve got a live one on your hands. There are plenty of laughs and thrills to delight both children and adults – and how many so-called “family films” can actually achieve that?

The real power of Up is its focus on the realities of life. Pixar’s films have never talked down to kids, and have often handed down pretty heavy subjects to those in the single-digits. In that regard, Up may be Pixar’s darkest film to date (the opening of the film – a dialoguess story of a married couple’s life - is one for the time capsule, despite its darkness), but by showing viewers that life can be cold and hard sometimes, the filmmakers only increase the power of the love and life that carries the movie along. This isn’t just film making for children – it’s a movie for people, in the grandest tradition of the term.

In a summer full of movies that promise wonders galore (Terminator, Harry Potter, Transformers), Up is the real wonder; a film that never lets its magic get in the way of the human story. Tie a balloon to it and let it fly you away.

The Edge of Love Review

Let’s get one thing straight: Keira Knightley has it all. She’s a damn fine actress, she’s got the pretty in spades, she can sing and she can quite literally light up the screen – as she does in the opening scene of her latest film, The Edge of Love, based on the life of Dylan Thomas. I submit that if Scarlett Johansson is this generation’s more intellectual Marilyn Monroe, than Knightley is our more sensual Audrey Hepburn (if you think that’s crazy, consider that Kinghtley is slated to play the lead in a new version of My Fair Lady). Just like Hepburn, even if the material isn’t all it should be, she still manages to shine.

Alas, sub-par material is the case in Edge. Being billed as the “next Atonement” – it isn’t – is setting the bar pretty high, and the movie doesn’t quite make it. I place less blame on the actors - Sienna Miller, Cillian Murphy and Matthew Rhys – and more on the writer and director.

The main hang-up is that the movie never gets a strong foothold on what the story is, which causes the same problem for the audience. I felt like the director John Maybury couldn’t quite decide if he wanted to tell the story of Welsh poet Thomas, or the women who loved him, and so instead he tried to do both, without pulling either off. The film felt directionless and meandering, which is okay when you have such pretty images to look at – not just the actors, but the beautiful cinematography – but it holds a movie back from having any lasting impact. Personally, I was more interested in the women who loved him than Thomas himself (that may be because I don’t know much about him, and the fact that out four, Rhys’ performance was the most lackluster), but just picking a story to tell and running with it would have grounded the movie. Its like they were trying to make a more serious Shakespeare in Love, but couldn’t decide on what to focus on – the man or the love.

As for the acting, there was a lot that was glossed over, or just not conveyed. I couldn’t for the life of me figure out what would make Rhys’ callous, uncharming Thomas so irresistible to Miller’s Caitlin and Knightley’s Vera. It couldn’t have just been that he was a poet, but I never saw what it was. Miller’s acting was fine as Thomas’ lose canon of a wife, but a glimpse into her more vulnerable side would have done a lot in the way of creating empathy. Despite the shady character build up, I was still surprised by Thomas’ sudden turn into utter douche-baggery near the film’s end, which seemed to me out of left field.

Murphy as William, a WWII “hero” does an admirable job, even if it’s odd seeing him in a not so creepy role, and he and Knightley play well together, but there wasn’t enough of them to really sell it for me. Blame that on the film’s lack of focus.

To be honest, though, this is totally Knightley’s show, and while the performance certainly isn’t flawless (her Welsh accent comes and goes and we never see the moment where she really falls for Williams) she’s got the fire that keeps the film burning, even if it’s a slow burn.

Just like falling in love, its not enough to just go to the edge, but you have to commit and jump. The Edge of Love does just what it says: gets to the edge, but can’t quite make that final leap.

"I'm Working on A Dream"

Less than two years since Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band released Magic, a lush new collection of songs that hearkened back to their boisterous past of The Wild, The Innocent and The E Street Shuffle, the Boss and band got together and put together Working on a Dream, the most sonically diverse album since Born to Run. And damned if it doesn’t offer up a host of surprises along the way.

Springsteen, who has proved himself the most literate rock writer since Dylan, is a master-smith when it comes to recording albums that ably balance epic storytelling with numbers that encapsulate entire feelings and moments in one song. His subjects are as wide ranging as the music on Dream, whether he’s tackling the old west, having a major jones for the check-out girl at the grocery store, or laboring in this fading world to create something meaningful. If all this sounds a bit heady, don’t worry – Springsteen is having too much fun to get dragged down by anything. If the album had an overarching theme, it is hope, which blazes forth from even the darkest subjects.

As far as opening numbers go, good luck finding any this year more immediately arresting or dramatic than “Outlaw Pete,” a Guthrie/Williams/Dylan-esque story of a cowboy cursed by bad luck since before he was born. The song is eight minutes long, and starts quiet but crashes like a storm by the end, with a fantastic guitar solo and Springsteen’s voice overpowering everything as the voice of God or the thunder, wailing “Outlaw Pete, can you hear me?” The Boss hasn’t sounded this big coming out of the gate since “Thunder Road.”

From there he gets into some of the most upbeat songs he’s written in a while, with “My Lucky Day” and “What Love Can Do.” “Surprise, Surprise” sounds like a forgotten British Invasion hit that Springsteen dusted off and added his own touch to.

“Queen of the Supermarket” displays why he was aptly called the “next Dylan” when he first arrived on the music scene, with this gem of a story about a lonely man who finds love – or just lust – with a girl who works at a supermarket, but can’t say anything about it. The lyrics read like something John Updike would be proud of but the music has the dramatic sweep of Phil Spector’s wall of sound.

Always a realist, the album’s “darker” numbers tackle the uncertainty of the future, and the acceptance of death. The bouncy “Tomorrow Never Knows” bleeds into “Life Itself,” which sounds like what many would call “classic Bruce.” It’s an admission that life will ultimately lose to time no matter what, and all one can do is find someone to help make it through the day.

Of course, the title track could have been Obama’s theme song just as easily as “The Rising,” and is as genuine a song about the longing for hope and what it takes to bring it about as anyone could ask for. While Springsteen is clearly aware that all’s not well in the country, there’s nothing to stop it from getting better.

The album’s closer, a gorgeous elegy for organ player Danny Federici, is the follow up to “Wild Billy’s Circus Story,” and paints a lonesome picture of the carnival closing for the last time as the sun sinks behind the horizon. Federici, and fans, couldn’t ask for a better song to tie together an album that shows for Springsteen and the E Street Band, the show is still going on.

“The Wrestler,” for which Springsteen won a Golden Globe for, is a nice bonus cut, and fits well with the rest of the album, but Dream would have been just as stellar without it. The only thing really missed is more of Clarence Clemons wailing saxophone, but otherwise there’s little to bitch about.

Two stellar Springsteen albums within two years, and one his best in years; as he sings in “The Wrestler,” “tell me friend/can you ask for anything more?”