Wednesday, April 21, 2010

KICK-ASS review

BRIAN: Here’s the concept of the movie: a kid with no superpowers decides to become a superhero.  Just ‘cause it’s cool and no one in real life has ever done it before.  So it’s a mix of THE DARK KNIGHT and WATCHMEN elements in acknowledging that comics – and the characters that inhabit them – don’t exist in a vacuum (note that I’m pulling from comics that have been made into movies, not the comics themselves, so I could be accused of not knowing what I'm talking about.).  Here’s a fanboy who doesn’t just read comics, but aspires to act them out in the real world, promising real world consequences.

Problem is: this dude’s boring.  I thought it was the acting at first.  They were clearly trying to cast someone like Chuck, who could be believably geeky one moment, but charming and good-looking when the scene called for it.  Instead, they cast some kid who failed at both, and therefore made every scene a wash.  But it’s not just the acting – I feel the character was really underwritten.  I know the whole hook is to have a character with no superpowers, but they gave us a character with no identity.  I mean, right?  What were they going for?  You’re a nerd.  Tell me.

GOLAN: First of all, the revelation that I’m a nerd comes as a great shock.

As for me, I liked the concept of someone in a world grounded in reality saying, “Hey, I read comics and I can afford a skin tight suit and mask… why don’t I just go out and fight crime?” then realizing that stab wounds hurt worse than they do in comics, crime isn’t as easy to find as it is in comics (hence the cat search) and death isn’t as cute and fun as it is in comics.

But yeah, this guy was boring.  I didn’t know much about this Aaron Johnson guy before this flick came onto my radar.  I am aware he’s British and did a few TV shows back home – that’s about it.  I’d like to say that’s the issue, as sometimes when British actors do American accents (especially regional dialects like Brooklyn), they either come off as super awesome (like Hugh Laurie as Dr. House on “House, MD” - yes, the show actually has an "MD" in the title) or super boring (like Ioan Gruffudd as Mr. Fantastic (irony much?) in FANTASTIC FOUR.  I guess Aaron is one of the super boring ones.

I do disagree with you, though, that they gave him no identity.  I mean, didn’t you see all the clichés they put in place to ensure that we as an audience know who he is?  He can’t talk to girls, he hangs out with geeks, he’s horny, he’s into superheroes, he likes boobs… why, he’s me!  He’s all of us!  He’s everyman!

Oh wait… you were right.  He has no identity.  Throwing a bunch of old chestnuts together does not a fresh summer salad make.  Wow, that metaphor was horrible.  But you know what I mean, right?

BRIAN: You want me to make you a salad?  And you don’t like chestnuts.  We’re saying the same thing. 

And I’m fine with making Dave Lizewski/Kick-Ass a pastiche of every geeky characteristic in the book.  In fact, I would have liked to have seen more of that with the superhero identity.  Since Dave is an avid comic book reader, it may have been fun to see Kick-Ass as a sloppy mash-up of all his favorite superheroes, e.g. he has the gadgets of Batman, the flight of Superman, the ability to climb walls, etc., and then find an identity all his own as those superpowers don’t pan out since they’re not organic to who he is in real life.  And that’s the key.  Superpowers are always an extension of who the non-superhero is.  And since Dave is such a boring character, I don’t see what that superpower could really be. 

As with any superhero, the question is why.  What drives the character?  What compels Bruce Wayne or Peter Parker to put on a silly outfit and risk their life fighting crime?  In the case of Kick-Ass, it’s the fantasy element.  That’s a cool concept because I’m sure many in the audience identify with that.  But they don’t do enough with that.  Dave Lizewski should be a mix of the fat Star Wars lightsaber video kid, the Columbine killers, and a hardcore Batman worshipper.  We don’t get the humor of the Star Wars kid (well, I guess they tried…we see Dave practicing his moves in front of a mirror, but the joke falls flat).  We don’t get the dark detachment/escape from reality that the Columbine killers had – again, there are hints of that, but nothing too removed from what most kids fantasize about.  I mean, if Dave is the first to put on a costume and actually try to be a superhero, he needs to be far more weird and crazy than just your average teenager.  And we don’t even get that he consumes comic books the way some do – he should know every fact and tidbit and obscure trivia informing who he is, but they barely even talk about comic books in the movie. 

GOLAN: You’re dead right.  The problem is that the clichés they did go with were not the ones that truly defined him as a fanboy with a rich fantasy life – simply as a geeky teenager.  For example, the Atomic Comics hangout seemed like a place where everyone went, not just comic book geekazoids.  Even his love interest admits that she doesn’t read comics, doesn’t like superheroes, but still goes there for their tasty beverages.

Honestly, I would have liked to have seen Dave really enjoying himself at the beginning of the Kick-Ass process, before he realizes that consequences are real.  And I mean enjoying himself.  As in, smiling crazy, hardly able to contain his sheer fanboy giggling in between blows as he swings his batons around wildly with utter abandon and zero training.

If this character is meant to be a kid who worships superheroes to the point where he feels like he has to become one himself, then you are right… Kick-Ass (the character) should have been a cobbled together pastiche of all the best (or coolest) elements from existing comic book characters that eventually boils down to the heart of who Dave really is.  I mean, at least have him doing a ridiculous Christian Bale/Batman growly voice when he’s in costume as an homage to how audiences see their superheroes.  Because Dave is, at his core, meant to be one of those audience members, absorbing not the world of crime-fighting, but the world of make-believe.

Maybe I should put on tights and fight crime.  I think that idea is gold.  I’d be almost as adorable as Hit Girl, who I genuinely liked, especially in the doses we got her.  Thoughts?

BRIAN: Hit Girl was awesome.  If the movie was about how comics interact with real life and don’t exist in a vacuum, I like the idea of a character who essentially grew up in a comic book vacuum, completely sheltered from real people and real situations.  When she goes to school for the first time at the end of the movie, her response to the school bullies was perfect.  I want a movie all about her now!  Instead of a high school kid adjusting to new found superpowers, we get a superhero having to adjust to high school.  Awesome.  Someone write that shit!

It kind of creeps me out though that the actress is #1 on the IMDb STARmeter.  Let’s hope the villain in the next movie is a pedophile so we can see Hit Girl castrate him to the tune of “Oh Bondage Up Yours!” or some other yelly girl song.

GOLAN: To clarify – and I think we’re on the same page here – you want a movie about Hit Girl now, right?  Now that she’s done crime fighting and is trying to be a regular kid?  Not before – like an origin story, or a movie version of that comic book that her dad drew?  Because I agree – I’d rather see a movie about a superhero trying to be normal than a movie about a normal kid trying to be a superhero.

Years ago, I was trying to set up this project based on a manga series (and later an animated series) titled FULL METAL PANIC!, which was about this teenaged anti-terrorist special forces soldier superspy that is assigned to protect a high school girl by posing as a student himself.  The interesting thing to me about the main character was that the kid had been raised 100% in a military environment.  From the time he was crawling, he was being trained how to be a killing machine – how to sense and stop threats, how to control a dangerous situation, etc.  You would think, since he was able to master those difficult tasks, going undercover as a high schooler would be easy… but since he doesn’t know how to act his age, nor deal with other normal teenagers, nor handle peacefully the bullshit politics of high school, he ends up screwing things up left and right.  He constantly looks like a nutjob or a social reject as he solves his everyday teen problems with violence or general over-reactions.  When someone launches a spitball at him, he counters by essentially putting the kid into the hospital.  When he misses his stop on the schoolbus, he kicks out a window and leaps from the moving vehicle.  Things like that.  Yeah, I’d watch that.  I think Mandalay just optioned the property so maybe we’ll get to see this one someday.

What the hell was I talking about again?

Oh yeah, KICK-ASS.

Hit Girl was fun.  Really glad she wasn’t in more of the movie, though – too much is as bad as too little.  Too little sugar means you’re missing out – too much will rot your teeth.

I’m re-reading our review here and it makes it seem like we hated this movie.  I don’t think either of us flat-out hated it.  I rather liked certain elements (especially the Hit Girl stuff), and even found myself gasping with sheer exhilaration at times.  That being said, there were a lot of things I didn’t love.

As a huge Matthew Vaughn fan who was excited when he was the director that was supposed to bring THOR to the screen, I was disappointed in the poor direction of Kick-Ass’ fight scenes, which played like outtakes from BATMAN BEGINS or QUANTUM OF SOLACE.  His first full fight in the parking lot had so many cuts in close-up that, instead of displaying Kick-Ass’ ineptitude as a fighter, the scene made it look like he was more than holding his own, and even dominating sometimes.  I would have rather seen these fight sequences in a wide shot to really illustrate just how blundering and ham-fisted Dave really is.  Having had some fight training, I can say with some authority that people are taught how to anticipate punches and kicks by watching body language, but when someone has no clue how to fight and simply flails about willy-nilly while holding something as lethal as billy clubs, even a trained fighter might think twice because there’s no rhyme or reason to it.  That’s the Kick-Ass we should have seen – just happy to be there and full of random idiotic energy.  That’s how someone that has no training and no skill and no coordination wins a fight.  And since they stressed time and again throughout the flick how this was the real world and not a comic book world, I would have appreciated a fight sequence shot and cut in a way that made it realistic in that regard.

Last thing I’ll say, and then I’ll pass the baton back to you to wrap it up: I liked Nicholas Cage in this movie.  I thought he was just the right touch of crazy, just the right touch of Adam West and just the right touch of badass.  This is significant because I hate Nicholas Cage.  I think he and Joel Schumacher and Akiva Goldsman should form a production company called Crappy Films and make movies that inexplicably open at number one until the apocalypse brings sweet death to us all.  And I liked him!

So there you go.  Run with that ball through the end zone.

BRIAN: FULL METAL PANIC! sounds awesome.  But maybe because I’m picturing Justin Bieber in the lead role.  Um…touchdown? 

But no, I liked the movie when the main character wasn’t being too annoying.  And overall, the movie was well-directed.  Some of the fight scenes, like the one you mentioned, needed better staging, but the Hit Girl sequences were fucking awesome.  I like that this was a big-budget, mainstream passion project though.  You generally only see ungreenlightable, self-financed fare coming from the art house.  While I wouldn’t go so far as to call Vaughn an auteur just yet, there is plenty of personal stamp on the movie and it certainly didn’t feel like a hack sellout job.  It’s nice to see something made in the independent mode that has completely mainstream aspirations.  Actually, I’m rooting for the movie to do well if only to make fools out of the dumb, chicken-shit studio execs who balked at the swear words.  So keep independent cinema alive, support your local arthouse movie theater, and go see KICK-ASS!  It has a lot of swearing in it!  And it’s actually showing at the multi-plex if you didn’t realize I was joking! 


Tuesday, April 20, 2010


We know it's been a while, but we've got a good excuse!  The Oscars were so boring, we gave up hope on the industry... and life itself.  We vowed to never write another word or see another movie again.  We contemplated removing our hands at the wrist and poking out our eyes... until we were saved.  Saved by Amanda Sloane Murray and her awesome blog.  This talented screenwriter and former New Line executive mentioned us as a blog that was "chock full of useful information and good dirt that you often won't find in other sources," "upfront and honest," and that we have "great senses of humor."  She went on to say that our "written dialogues about movies and the process of making them is entertaining in and of itself."

Well, thank you, Amanda!  Since then, we've been on a film watching spree - some old and some new.  Our review of KICK-ASS will be coming soon, as will a review of a classic now out on DVD.

But first, we explore the world of GREENBERG.  This review will be chock full of useful information, upfront, honest, and entertaining in and of itself.  Join us, won't you?

[editor's note: man, these guys' shameless self-promotion might be douchier than Nikki Finke's]

BRIAN: Initial reactions to GREENBERG: not as funny as I expected, slight departure in directorial style, my least favorite Baumbach film but still quite good.

But... as with any film in this mold, initial reactions are borderline dismissible.  Insight never comes in the middle of a real-life experience, and here, a viewer needs distance to be able to process this real-life story.  Baumbach’s movies stick with you and reveal themselves the more thought is applied to them. 

Some have mentioned that this is the closest Baumbach has come to doing a genre film, interpreting it as a twisted attempt at a romantic comedy.  I can certainly see those elements – there were moments of surprising tenderness between the two romantic leads (surprising for a filmmaker known for caustic exchanges and thinly veiled insults as greetings), and the climactic rush to the airport is straight out of FOUR WEDDINGS, LOVE ACTUALLY, and every other rom com of the past 20 years.  But the genre it most resembles to me is the Coming of Age tale.  This isn’t immediately apparent because the main character is 40 years old – he should be nearing midlife crisis, not growing up.  But the fact that this is so belated for Greenberg, and those who can identify with him, is one of its key observations.  GREENBERG is not just a coming of age movie, it’s a generational statement.  It should rightfully become a companion piece to Linklater’s SLACKER or Nirvana’s Nevermind as a defining Generation X work of art.

GOLAN: So this is where I review the movie with that guy who did the bad AVATAR parody at the Oscars?  Sweet.

Let me start out by saying that I actually liked this flick more than I thought I would.  I agree with you that it wasn’t as funny as I expected, and was also my least favorite Baumbach film.  You thought I was going to say MARGOT AT THE WEDDING, right?  Nope.  This one takes it.

I rarely like movies where misery is meant as a doorway into what life is all about.  I think it’s an easy in – like trying to make me cry by showing me movies about cancer or the Holocaust.  Sure, I will, but as Woody Allen once brilliantly said, “Well, it ruins it for me if you have grass (clearing his throat) because, you know, I'm, like, a comedian – so if I get a laugh from a person who's high, it doesn't count.  You know?  'Cause they're always laughin'.”  And likewise, I’ll always cry when you give me subjects that are uber-sad.  But with misery, filmmakers think that they can make someone a misanthrope and that’s enough for me to lean closer to the screen and give a shit.

It’s like certain filmmakers are telling us that if we’re miserable, we’re deeper.  That we have some ethereal connection with the world, or that we understand concepts that happy (read: stupid and content) people could never grasp.  I find that to be a bunch of bullshit.  Miserable people aren’t deep.  They aren’t likable for their “quirks” or their observations.  They don’t make me want to delve into their psyche to get a sense as to why they are the way they are.  Often, they are – in contrast to the above – assholes that are unlikable that I don’t want to see triumph over their fucked up worldview.

That being said, Baumbach manages, when he is at his best (the script for FANTASTIC MR. FOX, THE SQUID AND THE WHALE), to present not merely misery or caustic barbs, but some authentic glimpses into real human behavior.  I’m not sure that this one qualifies to be in the same class as the two films mentioned in parentheses above.

While I didn’t hate this film, I did feel that it lacked a character arc that got me excited (despite your protestations that he “comes of age”), lacked a character that I gave a shit about (despite your pronouncements that he represents a “generation”), and lacked character motivations that I believed.  Maybe you’re right that this one will hit me months from now in the middle of the night, but don’t hold your breath.

Before I keep rambling… your thoughts?

BRIAN: Rambling is right – what are you talking about, Grandpa?  It sounds like you’re ranting and raving about the emo movement.  Not only is that so 2000-and-late, it’s neither here nor there.  You’re accusing Noah Baumbach – one of the most unsentimental American filmmakers working today – of being a trendy wrist-cutter?  You saw GREENBERG, right?  When the Arclight guy took your ticket and directed you to Theatre 7 on your right, you didn’t accidently go into Theatre 8 on your left where they were showing THE LAST SONG?  Because what you’re describing is a Nicholas Sparks novel, where indeed, a terminal illness subplot will twist your arm until you say uncle.  As in, “Uncle… don’t die, Uncle Bert... why must you die when I’m trying to fall in love?!”

Watch from 3:10 to 4:45.  It’ll change your life:

Let me reprint the lyrics to the song on the soundtrack after poor Mandy Moore runs:

“Welcome to the planet…welcome to existence…”

It’s so deep.  So deep, put her ass to sleep.

Please don’t mistake Mr. Baumbach for Mr. Sparks.  You’re embarrassing yourself.  The misanthropy seemed honest, not manufactured.  Stiller’s Greenberg is in a long line of Baumbach characters who think themselves morally and intellectually superior: Jeff Daniels in SQUID and Nicole Kidman in MARGOT are two of the most precisely written – and memorable – characters of the past 10 years.  And because Greenberg is just an extension of this, I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to say that Baumbach is going for easy sympathy. 

Moreover, I disagree with your charge that the film isn’t in the same class as his other films in providing glimpses into real human behavior.  Perhaps you’re misreading the film’s imposed distance to its characters.  GREENBERG, like his other films, is a comedy of manners.  Thus, it needs to keep the viewer at a distance, the better view to observe not just Greenberg, but the entire generation he represents.  In other words, the film shouldn’t be viewed with a microscope, zooming in on a character’s hidden life.  Take a clue from the very first shot – a panoramic view of the smog hanging over Los Angeles – it should be viewed with a telescope. 

I wrote above that I see GREENBERG as a belated Generation-X coming of age film.  Let me get into it.  Greenberg is miserable, yes.  But he is part of a generation whose identity is attached to the prefix “anti.”  Anti-establishment, anti-consumerism, anti-etc.  It would be hard not to be miserable.  Greenberg is a former musician.  The pivotal mistake in his life is his rejection of a label offer when he was 25.  He’s 40 now, which would likely place his music in the post-grunge alt-rock scene (the label rejection fits right into the ethos of that scene).  If it seems odd that this is a coming of age movie with a protagonist that’s 40, Greenberg has a bad case of arrested development.  He’s still 25, still grunge rock at heart.  He spends his free time writing angry letters to mega-corporations – a sad, impotent outlet for the angry songs he no longer writes.  And it’s not just Greenberg, it’s Los Angeles plagued by the industry’s youth culture: at a party, the adults dress like kids and the kids dress like superheroes.  “Youth is wasted on the young,” his friend absent-mindedly quotes, and that cliché has never seemed more bitterly jealous than it does here.  You write that the film lacked an arc that excited you.  I find Greenberg’s coming of age moving and compelling, especially because it was 15 years in the making.  Growing up – letting go of all the anger and all the anti-blank – would be admitting that the past 15 years have been a waste.  By the end of the movie, he finally takes baby steps towards embracing a life he never planned on.  One might imagine his entire generation having to similarly reconcile their hard-headed ideals with the practicalities of life when faced with adulthood.  Many argue that Kurt Cobain’s greatest demon was his success. 

Greenberg grows up with the help of a girl who’s his emotional match.  He seems to be stuck at 25, which is Greta Gerwig’s age in the film.  It’s notable that Baumbach cast Gerwig, a mumblecore icon if there is one, in this role (Mark Duplass, another mumblecore alum, is also in it).  The movement is the most recent wave to define a generation, and Baumbach uses Gerwig’s generation – overeducated, coddled, aimless, cripplingly self-aware – as a way to complement and contrast Stiller’s.  In the film’s set piece, Greenberg directs a drug-induced rant to a party of millenials.  It includes the best acting I’ve seen from Mr. Stiller. 

There’s a NY Times article about Greta Gerwig representing a new generation of actors that I’d love to eventually discuss in a future post (and acting trends of the past 10 years), but I should probably hand this off to you for a rebuttal on the movie at hand. 

But hang on, one more thing…your comment about miserable people not being deep?  Fuck YOU! 

Welcome to the planet, buddy.  Welcome to existence.

GOLAN: Huh?  What?  Sorry, I dozed off there for a second.  My favorite part of your response was that you completely missed the point of what I was saying.  I wasn’t saying that GREENBERG was trying to be emo, nor trendy, nor sentimental.  I’m saying that much like a movie such as THE LAST SONG, THE NOTEBOOK or A WALK TO REMEMBER tries to make me feel sad by throwing around concepts like “Cancer” or “Alzheimer’s” or “I do not need a reason to be angry with God,” or movies such as THE BOY IN THE STRIPED PAJAMAS or RADIO or SEVEN POUNDS tries to make me feel moved by throwing around concepts like “Holocaust” or “Mentally Challenged” or “Jellyfish,” movies like GREENBERG try to make me give a shit by throwing around concepts like “misanthrope,” “morally intellectual” and “emotionally stunted.”  I don’t think they’re going for easy sympathy, but they sure are going for easy Gen-X cred (which you, apparently, bought into… so good for them).

And I totally get why Baumbach and Stiller made it!  I think the reasons are similar to why Stephen Daldry and Kate Winslet decided to make THE READER.

I quote Ms. Winslet herself, explaining why she took on the role (for which she won an Oscar): “I don't think we really need another film about the Holocaust, do we?  It's like, how many have there been, you know?  We get it.  It was grim.  Move on.  No, I'm doing it because I've noticed that if you do a film about the Holocaust you're guaranteed an Oscar… That's why I'm doing it.  SCHINDLER’S bloody LIST.  THE PIANIST.  Oscars coming out of their arse.”

In other words, sure, we don’t need another flick like this, but it’s such an easy character to craft and such an easy cred to snag, why not?  Certainly easier than trying to write or direct or bring to life a character that goes deeper than the ones we’ve seen a thousand times before.  Let’s just make another movie about an asshole that doesn’t care about others, and slowly, through the love of a good and patient (and flawed herself, in her own way) woman, learns to care and accept that he’s made mistakes in his past and mend fences and “come of age” and realize his emotional maturity and… fuck, man, I’ve seen it before.  And better.

I will admit this: your diatribe about Generation X’ers and why they were the way they were was more interesting overall than the movie itself.  So kudos.

As for that drug-induced rant at the party, it was – no question – some of the better acting that Stiller has done (compared to what?  NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM?), but it was also too easy… to have drugs be the conduit seems like such a cop-out.  It seems like every time a film needs a character to show their true colors or admit a deep-dark secret or do something they wouldn’t normally do or let down their armor (even their self-imposed douchey Gen-X figurative armor), the lazy path is to get them high or drunk.  Baumbach is better than that.

He’s also better than not doing his research – his portrayal of the “Millenials” is as out of touch as Greenberg’s is.  They are arbitrarily violent and listen to Korn and do coke?  Really?  That’s the best you got?  You, Noah, the master of behavior and manners and observation (even when viewed through a telescope)?  For shame.

That being said, I did like Gerwig quite a bit.  I’d like to read that NY Times article, and I would love to write a post about acting trends of the past 10 years with you.  Hell, despite your predilection towards random Nicholas Sparks references, I’d write anything with you.

As for being welcomed to existence, I’d like to thank you.  But I’m too disconnected and intellectually superior and holier than thou and misanthropic and emotionally stunted and morally untouchable to care.  Sigh.  You see, I myself am a Gen-Xer, and existence is just so millennial.

BRIAN: Well, reading your explanation leads me to believe that I still don’t get what you’re saying.  So you’re not saying that GREENBERG is a Nicholas Sparks movie, you’re saying it’s “much like” a Nicholas Sparks movie?  I still got that wrong?  My bad.  Sometimes when you talk out of both sides of your mouth like that, I mistake it for you just talking out of your ass.  Which one is it? 

You write that the film tried to get you to give a shit by making Greenberg a morally intellectual misanthrope.  Quite the opposite.  Movies get someone to care by making them likable (or by giving them a terminal illness, either one), not by making them an asshole.  If anything, Baumbach is making Greenberg hard to care about, and he and Stiller are forced to earn our emotional investment.  And they do this, I might add, without a cliché redemption formula and without a hint of sentimentality.  Greenberg’s sole expression of sentiment – when he tells Gerwig, “You have value” – is so awkwardly fumbled in its delivery that she takes it as an insult.  I would have noticed my heart strings being pulled if I weren’t laughing at the exchange.

You claim you’ve seen this movie before.  Well, sure, especially when you gut the movie the way you did in your description, leaving only its skeletal outline.  Did you also reject STAR WARS because you read the same story in LORD OF THE RINGS?  Did you yawn at THE MATRIX because you had already read the New Testament?  Yeah, the story may have been done.  Here’s what’s original about it: it’s a late coming of age movie for adults who are only grown-ups in age, and in so doing, it’s a comment on a generation whose identity is based on not selling out to grown-up ideals.  That’s something new.  We’ve seen seminal Generation-X works from artists in their 20’s (Stiller was in his 20’s in REALITY BITES).  GREENBERG observes what happens to this particular bunch of 20-year-olds when they become 40-year-olds.  It is akin to THE GRADUATE, which defined not only the wayward hippie generation, but also Mrs. Robinson’s, whose bored housewife barely missed out on the sexual revolution.  GREENBERG similarly mixes two generations together in order to show the generational divide. 

So I don’t know.  I’m just not suspect of any buried machinations in making Greenberg a misanthrope.  It seemed natural to me, but it might be due to identifying with him.  Maybe it’s that.  Or maybe it’s that you’re wrong and just don’t get it.  Whatever.  I hate you.  But only because you’re a person.

GOLAN: We could go on like this all day – we often do when we disagree on a movie.  I think the best thing would be for us to encourage our readers to decide for themselves.

I should point out though that you still missed my point, which isn’t that GREENBERG is like a Nicholas Sparks movie, but that when a movie (any movie) tries to elicit an easy reaction instead of developing things properly (ie. “she has Cancer – fucking cry!” or “his family was killed in the Holocaust – fucking be moved!” or “he’s an asshole – fucking care about his journey into non-assholiness!”), I hate that movie.

Beyond that, I have to point out that the line, “Sometimes when you talk out of both sides of your mouth like that, I mistake it for you just talking out of your ass” is freaking gold.  It may be your best zinger since the Werther’s Original.

So I don’t know.  It seemed forced to me, but it might be due to having a sunny outlook on life.  Maybe it’s that.  Or maybe it’s that you’re wrong and just don’t get it.  Whatever.  I love you.  But only because you’re you.