Dear John

"You, are the dumbest smart person I have ever met in my life!"

Two teens meet and have a whirlwind romance, but a summer fling ends up affecting the rest of their lives.

I must admit that I haven't had the best history with Nicholas Sparks novels, and that that history is even worse with their adaptations. From the atrociously sentimental A Walk To Remember, to the purely un-effecting Nights in Rodanthe, I'd found that as far as I was concerned all the doors to Sparks' fantasies were marked expressly with the sign: "Enter at your own risk"; with that risk usually being quite grave.

And then I saw Dear John. Of all the Sparks inspired films I've seen (Between knowing a lot of girls and seeing a lot movies that's all of them by the way) Dear John is the only one that seems to have a sense of things more important than romance. And yes, there are things more important than romance. Not only does this movie contain story lines that exist outside the lovebirds in question, they are the more poignant plot points (and I'm not just talking about 9/11).

In a very real -though not all encompassing- way, Dear John seems to explore how two separate lives brought together can interact. How people can affect each others lives- not just their moods; though don't get me wrong, there's plenty of that too. Plenty of sentimental, romance novel fodder (like female characters named Savanna for instance) to satisfy the die-hards who came to smile and cry. So know that I'm not calling this movie a bar elevator, I'm just giving it points for taking the risk of alienating those who hate all that pesky self-awareness ruining their romance movie.

In terms of performances, Dear John offers little to any roles outside that of the title character and the aforementioned heroine- though in general the supporting roles are decently filled. As for the leads, Amanda Seyfried offers a cute but unremarkable performance as the young innocent Savannah, only to return with a much more convincing show in the third act. Overall I say she does the best with what she's given- which really isn't much. And then there's Channing Tatum... I never really imagined myself saying this, but in Dear John I'd say he does enough to a least open discussion on him maybe being more than just a pretty face and muscular shoulders. There are moments (and I emphasize the use of the word moments) where his performance is convincing- even enjoyable. Offset of course by everything around those moments, which is mostly bearable and only occasionally horrid; such as the "Tell me what to do" scene audiences have been subjected to with every cut of the trailer.

Even with its flaws, Tatum's performance comes through in a way he'd yet to achieve before. I don't know where credit for the change is due. Maybe it was direction from Lasse Hallstrom (sorry Lasse, I don't know how to make an Umlaut) who's certainly no stranger to drama with titles like What's Eating Gilbert Grape and An Unfinished Life under his belt. Or maybe he just realized that this was the kind of name and money backed vehicle that could really progress his career. I don't know. One thing it certainly wasn't was the often ham-fisted writing. Though the movie survives despite it, not unlike We Are Marshall -also penned by scribe Jamie Linden, who's over the top approach was also saved from itself by the strength of it's performances.

By far, Dear John's strongest on screen attribute is Richard Jenkins, who nails his role as John's father with the kind of thorough-ease that I've come to expect from him. They say the best players aren't just good, they make the rest of the team better. Could this acting juggernaut (bitch!) have been the element that elevated the entire movie? OK well, even if that seems like a stretch- his performance as this pivotal character anchors the piece, adding all that poignancy mentioned before. He may not have elevated the cast, but his performance and his characters storyline elevate the movie as a whole.

So there you have it. Dear John was, to sum up, not terrible. Which is a huge compliment considering it's brethren and the man writing this review. Anything more is debatable. To say Dear John transcends it's genre would be light years more than a bit much. In truth, I'd say it takes steps towards doing what every romance really should have been doing already- telling more of a story than the purists require to get their tears and run. It's a movie with definite flaws, and it lays far from the best and the brightest of the day- even of it's market. Though I will say, that it is easily the best of the Sparks series. Though being the best Sparks' adaptation is kind of like being the best dressed bag-lady: your title doesn't really say much for the big picture, and the competition really wasn't all that stiff.

Watcher X says: "Loved it."

Reel Deal Recommends:

Jennifer's Body: I know what your thinking, but give it a shot. I bet it surprises you.

Stop-Loss: I guess if I have to pick one for Channing Tatum this would be it...

Burn After Reading: So hard to choose. See also the series Six Feet Under.

Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

I had hoped to have more to offer before this day came but life, of course, had other plans. And so, it's time for me to say goodbye for now. California hastily awaits my arrival it, seems with the impatience of a child, and I am happy to oblige.
I promise to return to you next weekend with posts a plenty, both to catch you up on what we watch this coming week and because I've been running rather silent these last two weeks. Besides, Wolfman on Friday means we're going to have a lot to talk about. So until then, I hope all is well. See you soon friends.

The Reel Deal

Pearls Before Swine

The Boondock Saints

Spoiler Warning!

As the run of The Boondock Saints 2: All Saints Day comes to a close at my local theaters, I found myself wondering why in it's weeks available, I found myself with little more than a fleeting interesting in seeing it. Now, the way I see it there are three main reasons to have no interest in a sequel...assuming your a movie addict like me and need a reason not to go to the movies. 1.) It's a second installment of a property that never really caught your attention in the first place. 2.) You are bitter that the sequel got made in the first place for personal reasons i.e. it undermines the original movie (Like if they made Reservoir dogs 2: Vengence). And then there's the third reason which I quickly determined applies: You hated the first movie.
"Hate" is a strong word. I know; that's why I used it. I'm hoping that it's sparing use throughout this blog will bolster it's monosyllabic might and lend it just that much more chance of impressing on you, dear reader, how much I really don't like The Boondock Saints. You might think a movie with Willem Dafoe, Sean Patrick Flanery, and Billy Connolly (ahem, Mr. MacGregor) would be right up my alley. But in truth it's not the performances that put me off... Well, other than Norman Reedus' atrocious approximation of an Irish accent. No, my friend, it runs much deeper than that.
Where to begin? Simply put, I'm not one who's impressed by religious references. I know in pop culture, especially among my generation it seems, being irreverent is a sure fire way to gain popularity but the ways it's done in TBS it's entirely forced to me. We get it, your religious killers- how many times do we have to watch (swirling in a 360 degree whirlwind I might add) as you pray over a soon to be dead man?
Sure it worked for Jules in Pulp Fiction, but it worked because: 1.) We only hear it twice. 2.) The second time it's said with little pomp, during a monologue in which his entire story arc comes to a head. 3.) It's the only "spiritual" (note the quotation marks) content in the whole movie. 4.) ...Actually we'll come back to four.
The Boondock Saints screams over and over: "Look, we're religious and we shoot stuff!" It's like Troy Duffy saw the one scene from Pulp Fiction and set about writing an entire movie based on it, throwing in a few of his other favorite scenes from it along the way (Ahem, the cat scene) And poof! Five years later, TBS is born. Unfortunately, where one scene like this can be memorable, an entire movie of pseudo-religious nonsense does nothing but tell me that's all the production was banking on. Well, that and bore me.
Now let's go back for number four. 4.) It occurs within a movie that has a tongue in cheek sense about it. This is another problem I have with TBS. Duffy seems to have pulled a Lucas and fallen much to hard for his heroes. The MacManus brothers, played by Flanery and Reedus are portrayed as pure and just, righteous killers who's only fault is that they can't cleanse the world. The movie starts off portraying them with a sense of mirth, but quickly seems to forget how ridiculous it is. With that line blurred, the truly over the top moments that might be really enjoyable if I knew it wasn't serious quickly become "You gotta be kidding me" moments that serve only to take me out of the story.
I think this loss of sense is summed up perfectly in the "Man on the street" reactions the play behind the credits. Their filmed in a "media" style that's far to close to reality for my taste, further deposing the thought that it's all in good fun. Watching them, I see Duffy's realization that he's done exactly what I accuse him of. He uses them to try and make it seem like he's leaving you to your own conclusions, but I am not fooled. He's spent the entire movie whispering in my ear.
And then there's the racial implications, and no- I'm not just talking about the "Coke" joke. To be honest, that scene did little to offend me. If I couldn't stand the N-word (even as unnecessarily as it's used here) I'd have to hate movies like the afore mentioned Reservoir Dogs, but I don't because the word exists and the fact is there are people who still use it, as unfortunate as that might be. And even beyond that the joke told is a universal one. One of those one-size-fits-all jokes where all of the names can be switched with any of them getting the punch-line: "A Jedi, a Sith, and an Imperial officer find a magic lamp..."
No, what I mean by the racial implications is the Irish-centric fervor that permeates the entire movie. Throughout it's length, veritably every character that's not of Irish decent is made out to be a complete moron, and ends up dead by the time the credits role. The only exception being Detective Smecker, who may be portrayed as smart (and allowed to survive) but is also shown to be a cross-dressing, self-hating homosexual- something that's obviously meant to be an insult. You have a character like Rocco who proves to be a bit lovable, but he's also a bumbling idiot and doesn't live to see the credits. And then there's the finale with the red-haired witness (dressed in white I might add) at the courthouse...
Now, it's not like TBS is alone in this. We see the same thing with white characters in movies like Dances with Wolves. We see the same thing with non-Italian characters in a movie like GoodFellas. I mean let's get real, the only black character in that movie is a crackhead who's eventually executed for being a moron. So why love one but fault the other? Well, that brings us back to something we talked about earlier. With Goodfellas, Italian may be the decent of choice, but those characters who are of it aren't portrayed like cape wearing super heroes. Henry Hill isn't our savior, he's just the guy telling the story. And that's the difference for, between good story telling and propaganda. Take it or leave it.
According to Boxofficemojo.com, TBS grossed a little over $30,400 domestically. That's from a $6 million dollar budget. Now, I know this movie is said to have a "cult" following, and I'll back that a bit, as the sequel has grossed more than $10.1 million dollars from an $8 million dollar budget, as of the beginning of the week (it's still in theaters). So the improvement is there, I would say that it's obvious some of those fans returned. But, let's compare it to some of the other movies we've mentioned in this article. Goodfellas grossed upwords of $46.8 million dollars, but I couldn't find a budget for it. Pulp Fiction, a movie that also claims a cult following, grossed $107.9 million dollars from a budget of $8 million. So I think we can all agree that $30,400 is a bit underwhelming, yes?
That I'm swine- well, that's debatable. The Boondock Saints being pearls however, is an easy call on my end: It's not. However, truth be told, this movie is one of those that seems to be very divisive. When asked for their thoughts on it people tend to either hail it as the best thing since fruit in Jell-o, or beat around the bush before condemning it as a waste of their time. Though I guess there is a the third, rather common option: people who have no idea what your talking about.

What do you think?

The Book of Eli

"Are you listening to me son? I'm giving ya pearls here!"

In a scorched world Eli walks alone, carrying a book countless people have died for- including the ones one man has killed trying to get it.

It's no secret that nine out of ten post apocalypse story lines are more or less westerns. Or, that many of them blur together. It is into this world the The Book of Eli is born, fighting to scratch a place for itself among it's kind. For the most part it achieves this, but not for lack of familiar plot points.

After an intriguing view into his life, we follow the mysterious wanderer into a new town where he attempts to mind his own buisiness but winds up killing a hand full of underlings (a common mistake). This inevitably catches the attention of the resident despot. Being the mysterious wanderer that he is, he inevitably pisses Mr. Despot off and escapes back into the wild west where upon Mr. D, in a world where barely anything works and nothing works well, goes after him in a fleet of not only functioning but armored vehicles.

I'm over simplifying of course but my point is clear. That the meat of The Book of Eli is something you've tasted before is not necessarily a death sentence; in truth it may be what makes it work. For the most part you can spend the entire movie pointing at scenes and calling out titles that came before, but on each piece there's a new spin which, when you put it all together, is a decent amount of new along with the recycled. This is the trick to amalgamation movies such as this: re-use is fine if you keep it fresh. I can think of more than one movie that could learn a thing or two from Eli.... You know who you are.

Denzel Washington's performance is less than his best but more than enough to carry the role. Top notch or not, Washington finds a way to endear the title character to you: an expected result given it's one of his three character archetypes: "the stoic hero" (see also the "smooth talking cop" and the "torn military officer"). Gary Oldman follows a rather similar path as the man in charge, Carnegie (a name that hints writer Gary Whitta is well aware of the western tones the movie carries). He gives only half the layered performance we've come to expect- but more than the role needs to stay afloat. Mila Kunis's performance hit or miss, in the end I say she gives the best for what she got, as her character seems a bit underwritten.

This is Whitta's first script to see production, an impressive feat considering it is much more nuanced than any of the performances. That the story rises above it's parts is a testament to his talent, and I'm interested to see what else he can do. His well written script, however, seems a bit off kilter with the Hughes Brothers offerings of action. The action sequences are extremely well done, but seem a little over the top for the mood set by the rest of the piece. The good news is they are kept in check in terms of length (some going by blindingly fast for all the pomp they're ushered in with), which along with the fact that they're limited in number keeps them far away from drowning the story.

On a more personal note, I must say that the hardcore feminist may want to avoid this movie as it really has nothing to offer them. For the glimpses of empowerment we see on the part of the female characters, we spend much more time watching them be ordered, owned, saved or manipulated. In the Eli's defense however the same could be said for most of the men. And at least we don't see the women acting like feral soulless animals. That the world the characters inhabit is a savage one is a message captured in the typical ways: Wanton rape and murder; this is borrowed set piece that no one bother to freshen.

The Book of Eli is a respectable if not down right enjoyable entry into a genre that can so often come out perfectly bland. It's mis-steps are forgivable, which is more than I can say for a lot of it's peers. At some points it doesn't seem to know what kind of movie it wants to be, but the story powers through for the win in the end. This is Eli's strongest attribute, and what makes it worth a viewing.

The Reel Deal Recommends:

Virtuosity: Washington in a wonderful action flick.

The Fifth Element: An awesomely over the top villain from Oldman.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall: A hilarious rom-com with Kunis feeling a bit more natural.

The Lovely Bones

"I'm someone you can trust, I'm a movie producer."

A young girl watches the lives of her family and her killer continue after she's raped and murdered, trying to balance her own attachments and want for revenge against wanting her family to heal.

The Lovely Bones is an adaptation of Alice Sebold's best selling novel about grief and healing. The screenplay, penned by Phillipa Boyens, Fran Walsh, and director Peter Jackson, is one that for all that cannot make the translation to cinema makes clear it's endeavor to be faithful to most of the main points and themes of the book, which unfortunately include the ending. That endevour, however, is not a complete success, and one cannot help but feel like some important points were missed.
A relative unknown when she was offered the part, the native born (Ireland raised) Saoirse Ronan leads the cast as Susie Salmon. Ronan's strongest virtue in the film is her ability to offer a bit of grounding to predominantly virtual after-life world she spends most of the movie in. She handles her scenes without ever letting on that the computers had yet to do their magic when they were filmed. An impressive feat for such a young actress (Ronan turns 16 this April).
The scenes are visually affecting but often refuse to gel with the rest of the production, making for what can often feel like two separate movies. I would make the argument that that is not a wholly flawed feature however, given the parallel worlds the film inhabits, often simultaneously. The imaginative sequences swirl and transform, often shifting pallets fluidly and quickly to match Salmon's moods. More conventional audiences will fault the movie for what I call a cinematic gamble that payed off well. But beautiful as the may be the question lingers, is it really what was needed for the story?
The real-world counterpoints don't deliver nearly as much in the way of satisfaction. The supporting cast, led by Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz, and those two especially as Jack and Abigail Salmon, often miss their marks. I felt as though I never really got a chance to see them as Susie saw them, characters worthy of more than just my surface sympathy for their tragedy, as their characters individual ways of coping are more explained than embodied. Wahlberg and Weisz just can't seem to nail down their performances, while Grandma Lynn is well performed but often seems out of place.
Rising above all this however is Stanley Tucci as George Harvey, Susie's killer. Tucci is simply spell binding as the dark loner. He finds ways of getting the simplest movements to make the the audience feel uncomfortable, but does so as though it's second nature. He plays the predator with a sort of refinement, never offered the flamboyance of Hannibal Lector but putting across just as much menace.
The willingness to linger over places other adapters might have over looked -Harvey's past, Susie's sisters vigilantism- speaks to Peter Jackson's dedication. The choices made in altering the books storyline for the sake of the film are, fo rthe most part, smart ones. Certain moments that speak to the heart of the story are front and center, like Susie witnessing her sister's first kiss. Other screenwriters or Directors might have left this scene to the literary world, but this is a film about life- and overt attempts to treat it as such are all around.
That The Lovely Bones climax seems, at points, completely out of whack speaks to the accuracy the adaptation- as this is exactly how I felt about some of the novel's conclusions as well. Both seem to trip over sentiment on their way to a more reality based fair, as unsatisfying at that sometimes is. Certain scenes work for the stories metaphor for what rape does to the lives of victims, but not for the story itself.
The Lovely Bones is an ambitious undertaking in terms of production, and in those terms it succeeds. It's taught with emotional set pieces and reproduces thick tension over an over again- but can't capture the piece as a whole. It's biggest fault lays in the performances. Ronan and Tucci deliver, but the supporting cast can't seem to keep up. Peter Jackson's name has become a rather dependable one of late- but The Lovely Bones is not quite a shining example of his successes.


Reel Deal Recommends:
Atonement: Saoirse Ronan was nominated for an academy award for this wrenching drama.
Julie & Julia: Tucci gives a beautiful performance as the supportive Paul Child.
The Departed: A great movie and easily Mark Wahlberg's most enjoyable performance.
The Fountain: Rachel Weisz in another FX driven tale of mourning.

Youth In Revolt

"Maybe I should write something first, then reward myself with coffee."

An adaptation of C.D. Paynes novel, which follows Nick Twisp - a less than confident boy- who upon meeting a girl vows to do any and everything in his power to have her... Even become someone else.

In reviewing this movie I am reminded of seven words that plagued me as a child, and even more as a younger man: "Good things come to those who wait."
Youth In Revolt stumbles out of the gate, leaving the audience to believe it's just another "awkward teen" titillation piece bent on showing anyone under 25 as as an intercourse obsessed psychopath driven only by the need to orgasm... Ok, well it kind of is exactly that, but in a way that strangely works. I think most who've made it out the other side can remember that awkward way that sex and love can become tangled up together. Half the time we couldn't tell which thought was which (a problem some adults still suffer from).
In a rather self aware way, Youth In Revolt captures that- and does so in, what is eventually, a hilarious way. Unfortunately you'll have to wait a bit to get there. Even more unfortunately, a few moments of that "bit" are the horribly off-putting opening scene of the film, and one of two jarringly out of place animated sequences.
Michael Cera, as the graceless Nick Twisp brings a tiny bit of new to a mack truck load of old. Conversely, he takes full advantage of his first opportunity to break his typecast as the unendingly clean and cold Francois Dillinger. The interplay between the two is always entertaining, and though I could have gone for more I think it's better I'm left wanting then wishing I had stopped a half hour ago. Also full of chemistry is Portia Doubleday as Sheeni Saunders, who plays the manipulative tease more accurately then anyone wants to admit they know. That you spend the entire movie trying pin whether she really is interested in Nick is a testimony to her performance- as it seems even Sheeni doesn't quite know for certain until the third act.
The beauty of both Twisp and Saunders (as well as characters like Vijay and Trent) is their fundamental satire. Almost all of the teenage characters are written in the most classically dramatic way possible, their dialogue presenting more like characters from Great Expectations than high school freshmen. This sets them beautifully at odds with their immature actions and the plain speaking parental/adult figures (who are all playe dby faces you'll know, though sadly they are underwhelming roles). That the movie is aware of this is made clear by the ending, as it begins cracking jokes at it's own expense and to my personal delight.
With all that said, there are some odd choices writer Gustin Nash made with Cera's character. I mentioned earlier he plays a dual role, Twisp and Francois Dillinger, a "supplementary" personality he creates because he feels he is not devious enough on his own to achieve his goals. However, both before and after this is done, there are scenes where Twisp- seemingly without the aid of his alternate self- rattles off witty retorts or spur of the moment manipulations that seem like they should belong to Dillinger. This of course is a relatively minor detail within Nash's otherwise well written adaptation, and wasn't nearly enough to spoil the rest.
That there's plenty of coarse (read:sexual) humor is without argument, but there are only a couple of times (one being that wretched opening) that it seems wholly uncalled for. There is enough clever scripting to warrant a few dick and fart jokes without the movie feeling like it's circling the bowl. If your sensitive to that sort of material however, I would suggest you start paying attention to the ratings system- as you probably shouldn't be seeing rated R movie in the first place.
Miguel Arteta's feature film follow up to The Good Girl is most definitely a departure in story, but not in it's quality. I'm sure that some of the humor will put viewers off, and anyone who goes in looking for another Superbad will leave sorely disappointed. Though Youth In Revolt lacks that movies uproariously funny nature, it gains in it's subtlety and tongue in cheek presentation. To say that Youth In Revolt is not for everyone is to offer neither praise nor demerit, but despite it's flaws Youth In Revolt most certainly was for me.

(That this is a sad under-use of Fred Willards talents could go without saying... but won't.)


The Reel Deal Recommends:
Juno: For Michael Cera in another movie that offers a bit more depth out of the high school comedy.
This is my first run-in with Portia Doubleday. Let me know if you have any recommendations.

Five!!

Quality Romantic Comedies

Spoiler Warning!

Believe it or not I'm actually a fan of good romantic comedy. I know many people would laugh upon hearing me say that but honestly, how could I claim any interest in American cinema and then unabashedly despise one of it's most stable fixtures? No, I believe in the romantic comedy, I just think it's a genre that's suffering.

This is one genre in particular that's relatively bankable. Hollywood knows "the formula", and they know that as long as they choose two decently known names to plug into it they'll make some money. This can make for some unfortunate moments when standards are less than upheld... and even more where good storytelling is sacrificed for that warm fuzzy ending.

So in defense of the romantic comedy I offer this list full of movies that sailed clear of the bar. Now, it would be easy for me to fill this Five!! with all the delightfully "off-beat" entries I've seen over the years- but I think that would take away from the point. So instead I've limited it to only movies that follow the formula, as proof that that doesn't mean they can't still be interesting. My apologies to 500 Days of Summer, your just to inventive for this list.

In no particular order:

When Harry Met Sally...

In one of the few movies me and genre junkies agree on, Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan lead us through scene after scene of material that would be copied nearly to death, even after more than twenty years. But unlike many of the "me too" films to follow, this is quality cinema from start to finish. The beauty of Nora Ephron's screenplay is that it's just as much about the world of relationships as it is specifically the title character's, and along with their story we are exposed to numerous other relationship successes and failures.

The comedy is strong, and rarely sexual (which makes the sexual comedy hit even harder), deciding instead to thrive off observational relationship humor. Most importantly, at the end of the movie you feel as though this couple and the events that brought them together really could have happened. These are believable characters in believable situations (well ok, other than the deli scene), and because the two main characters actually get to know each other their love rings with a bit more truth by the time we hear it said out loud.

Imagine Me and You

Monogamy is a funny thing in romantic comedies. It (or rather the lack there of) is just as often used to amplify the "romance" as it is to paint a character as repugnant. I personally am almost immediately put off by "cheater" story lines as they're usually used to create conflict where honesty would have solved the conflict days ago. I find myself saying: "Just leave them if you don't want them," but sadly the characters never listen.

Enter Ol Parker's Imagine Me and you. What makes this movie work for me is the conscience the characters display. Do they do the wrong things at times? Absolutely. Do they let that stop them from doing the right thing? No they do not. I love this movie because it shows a side of love this genre isn't always happy to bring out: loving someone enough to let them go.

Lena Headey and Piper Perabo lead the cast (which includes Giles...er... Anthony Head!), but I would like to take this moment to recognize Matthew Goode. If I'm going to take the time to bash movies like the sleep inducing Leap Year, it's only fair that I point out the beautiful performance Goode offers in Imagine Me and You. It's only fitting that this handsome Englishmen be in one of my favorite romantic comedies of all time, considering he now appears on my list of most hated as well.

The American President

Rob Reiner (That's two for those counting) directs a movie that deserves praise if only for providing a role in which Michael Douglas doesn't come across as utterly creepy. Another reason it gets my vote is that it's about more than just the relationships within it. It's certainly no Micheal Moore pundit-fest, but for a movie of it's genre it offers a great deal of political insight, subtle as it may be (it was written by Aaron Sorkin, who would go on to create the critically acclaimed series The West Wing).

As if Annete Bening as a lead isn't enough; Martin Sheen, Michael J. fox, and Richard Dreyfuss are the highlights among an electric supporting cast. And when it comes time for conflict, the "boy royally pisses off girl" fight is not only over a believable reason, it's actually relevant to the story in it's entirety with the entire cast in conflict along with our two lovers. This shifts the emotional weight of the film onto the bigger story which serves not only to elevate the romance but the entire movie, and also to make me cheer every time I watch that final press conference.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

I know a lot of people would disagree with this choice but what can I say- it's my list not theirs. outside of being peppered with hilarious musical comedy, I love the way this movie apologetically explores how (illogically) miserable break ups can make us. How we'll do anything for even a few moments of relief- even though the things we try usually blow up in our face.

Not only does the movie capture the often hard to explain but universally known "politics" of breaking up- it also expresses the healing process in true terms. In the end, the conflict between the endearing and relateable Peter (played by Jason Segel who also wrote the film) and Rachael (Mila Kunis, who has apparently done a great deal of blossoming since playing the annoying Jackie on That 70's Show) comes from the fact that Peter has not mourned and moved on from his failed relationship. Instead of Rachael miraculously healing him he has to go home, get his life together, and move on from Sarah Marshall before he can offer a real relationship.

And one more quick point: I love that this movie gives Sarah (Kristen Bell) a chance to point out all the things Peter did to contribute to the relationships demise. To quote Segel: "Anyone can write a diatribe on how horrible their ex is." Marshall is aware of itself enough to say there there is rarely an innocent victim in any break up. Points awarded.

Love Actually
Here's a movie that not only brings us the story of a relationship, it does so eight times over. From the Prime Minister to a poor twenty-something, from unrequited to brotherly- Love Actually takes a look at love from nearly every angle (I still don't get how a movie with such a broad approach managed to dodge any homosexual content). And even with all these angles the movies only contrived point is really one of it's truest. That the separate stories of this movie are eventually revealed to be not so separate, rings true in that throughout our lives relationships intersect and overlap in ways we don't even know about. Despite it's holiday theme, this is a universal story. The time of year means nothing, just like where your coming from means nothing. And with dialogue able to inspire warm feelings without making you feel completely manipulated, this movie is highly accessible. Love Actually has something to offer even the hatiest of genre haters.

Honorable Mentions: Romancing the Stone, 500 Days of Summer, Knocked Up, Shallow Hal, Run Fat Boy Run, Joe Versus the Volcano
Thank you Youtube. Thank you Nninchen91, Americanpresicent , and Yungkelvision for your posts. The Reel Deal, of course, owns the right to nothing.

If you have any you think deserve to be one the list, feel free to leave comments!