Archive for September, 2011

The Beaver (2011) Jodie Foster

Posted in B on September 30, 2011 by moviemoses

Production Budget: $21 million

Worldwide Gross: $6 million

Walter Black (Mel Gibson) is a man with many troubles.  Walter can’t connect with his family, he is a lousy boss, and most importantly he doesn’t have any enthusiasm for life anymore.  One night he gets drunk and plans on killing himself when a beaver puppet he finds connects to his hand and starts speaking to him (doing a rather Ray Winstone-ish type impression).  The Beaver convinces Walter to do whatever he says in order to fix whatever is broken in his life.

You do have to wonder how many attempts at comebacks poor ole Mel has left.  First he has his anti-Semetic tirade prompting him out of movies for a bit and coming back with Edge of Darkness.  Then he has his embarassing yet hilarious phone calls with his wife which brought the focus back on crazy Mel and finally to The Beaver.  I don’t think it strange that I have two opinions of him based on his home life and professional life.  The man has A LOT of issues and a lot of bad things going on in his head.  But at the same time, the man is very talented at what he does.  This leads me to today’s movie.

The Beaver is a strange movie although probably not in the way you figure.  I figured the movie would be rather wacky or at the very least light-hearted with its goofy premise.  Harvey was light-hearted and (for a more recent example) Lars and the Real Girl, despite having some drama in it, was still fun.  I just didn’t figure seeing Jodie Foster’s Beaver would be so dark and depressing.  It is as if the movie took seriously the concept of Mel sticking a beaver on his hand would be and how sad it would be he lost his marbles.  Sure there is the initial hilarity of Mel running around talking to his imaginary Ray Winstone and his life somewhat turns around.  But then after a few weeks things get more and more awkward and people start moving away from the crazy man.  Next thing you know you are a * lonely * crazy man with a beaver on his hand and it is back to depression.  Intermingled with this you have a son who absolutely loathes his father, a wife who feels trapped in a ridiculous situation, and references there was a serious trauma earlier in Walter’s life.  Even near the end we are given a scenes done with a straight tone which deal with more thoughts of suicide and of physical mutilation.  I mean this is some seriously depressing shit.  I felt like I needed a Xanax after this movie was done.

It’s cause this movie, even though is about a beaver, was partially made about Gibson’s own media circus.  To the movie’s credit, Gibson is acting his ass off as if he really was working out his own personal issues with this.  You really see how good he is as he turns from wacky comedic in one second to slit your wrists depressing in another.  Gibson carries this movie which is both a positive and a negative.  The supporting cast and their storylines are bland and they aren’t given the same amount of screen time they probably deserve.  You have Jodie Foster, Anton Yelchin, and Jennifer Lawrence sitting around with nothing to do.

The Beaver tries as it is plain to see they weren’t trying to make some generic comedy.  Mel Gibson gives a great performance and Foster was trying to make the story more heartfelt than its wacky original concept.  The problem is I could not get into it at all.  Despite some funny scenes, the characters are all mired in a deep depression which permeates the whole production.  The supporting characters are not given the attention they deserved and by the end Gibson’s character goes so far it is hard to really side with him anymore.  While this is a noble failure and maybe some can be entertained by it, I never want to see it again.

Drive (Nicholas Winding Refn) 2011

Posted in D on September 29, 2011 by moviemoses

Ryan Gosling is the Driver, a Hollywood stunt man who moonlights as a getaway driver for anyone who is willing to pay his fee.  He gets involved with a woman who lives on the same floor of his apartment (played by Carey Mulligan).  Driver tries to help Irene (Mulligan) and by driving her boyfriend on a job.  This is because he is stuck paying a debt for a local mobster.  The job goes bad and the mobsters are hunting for the Driver.

I recently did a review for Contagion in which I stated my biggest positive remark was the fact the director did not fuck the movie up.  By that I mean there was no crappy dialog, there was no stupid twist ending (which in Hollywood is now a standard ending) and no contrived plot devices.  Sometimes the best twist is no twist at all, and sometimes a simple but well cooked burger is more appealing than an overly complicated dish at a fancy restaurant.  The same sort of thinking applies to Drive.  Drive is a simple story/concept but it is done so well that you don’t care.

What do I mean by not screwing things up?  For starters let’s talk about the driving. You have no idea how freaking happy it makes me that there are actual cars and actual driving in this movie.  Compare this to the awful Fast and the Furious franchise which has CGI cars which look so cheap and awful it feels like I am watching a PS2 game.  Nothing takes me out of those movies faster than seeing the actors and knowing they are surrounded by green screens.

Another thing which sells the movie is bringing in good actors.  I feel stupid for typing it because it should be one of those DUH things but I guess I have to bring it up.  In a movie where characters and plot are kind of put on the back burner, it is nice to have people with personality instead of cardboard stand ups like Paul Walker and Jessica Alba.  It is something when Gosling can say more with a few subtle looks than someone else could with some fakey badass lines fed to him.  You also have good character actors rounding out the supporting cast like Bryan Cranston and Ron Perlman.  The big surprise is Albert Brooks who is usually a comic actor but here gives a great villain you gives a real sense of menace.  Now I will say the dialog is sparse in this movie which can sometimes make scenes a little awkward; especially the romantic scenes between Gosling and Mulligan.  But again, I would rather have too few words spoken well rather than extremly cliche and hammy dialog coming from crap actors.

There are a few films this reminds me of.  First is of a movie last year called The American starring George Clooney but the style of the film more resembles an 80’s movie called To Live and Die in LA.  And if you haven’t seen that movie; do it.  This is not a film which has wall to wall action but builds things up and has some shocking flashes here and there.  The opening scene does a very good job of setting up the tone of the movie for the audience.  Here Driver is on one of his jobs as a getaway driver.  At first he is trying to elude them by being in a common vehicle and trying to outmaneuver the cops by hearing them on a police scanner.  There are times when he has to go fast and do some fancy driving when a police helicopter spots them or a police car gets a possible sighting but the tension comes from the cat and mouse game and not necessarily the car chases.  You feel more tension by the fact he is trying to sneak past several squad cars rather than in car crashes and whatnot.

Refn does a great job with the tone of the movie.  He can lull you into an enjoyable romance and at a moments notice snap you back with an extremely graphic scene.  The music and the 80’s feel of it recalls those recolections of To Live and Die in LA or a less than great comparison by saying its GTA Vice City if you made it into an art house film.  Refn establishes the characters and makes you care about them which in turn makes you care more about the action which happens later on in the film.

Drive is not a perfect film.  As I mentioned sometimes the dialog is too sparse which makes some scenes‘ pacing stunted and awkward and sometimes the pacing is a tad slow.  But that being said, I found Drive very enjoyable.  The acting is very good, the action is well done, and the direction is great is establishing a good tone and crafting a solid story throughout.  It does everything so well it moves beyond a simple genre piece into a thoroughly enjoyable film.


Moneyball (Bennett Miller) 2011

Posted in M on September 28, 2011 by moviemoses

Moneyball is based on the book which deals with real life Oakland Athletics General Manager Billy Beane (here played by Brad Pitt).  Beane’s Athletics are one of the lowest payroll teams in baseball and things get bad when Johnny Damon, Jason Giambi, and Jason Isringhausen (three all stars) are bought out for way more money by the bigger teams.  Faced with the impossible task of rebuilding he is interested by the ideas of a nerdish assistant Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) who believes he can manipulate the system using statistics and not money.  By getting players with good on base percentages and ignoring any other irrelevant issues which drive down their prices, they can make a winning team without spending as much as the Yankees.


I wish trailers flat out told me Aaron Sorkin (WestWing, Social Network, Few Good Men) wrote this movie.  That to me is a bigger selling point than anything else.  I’m being serious here.  The man has done such great work his name means more to me than Brad Pitt or millions of dollars in special effects.  I am getting ahead of myself though.


I went into more detail my feelings about sports movies in my Warrior review so I won’t really harp on it too much again right now.  Suffice it to say, you don’t need to be a baseball fan in order to see Moneyball.  True this is based on what some call a nerd book about fantasy baseball and outlines a historic moment in the game of baseball, but that is not the only thing in this movie.  At the heart of the story it is an inspirational story about an underdog, about innovation, and about a personal story.  The first two kind of go together in that Beane was essentially fighting the ‘old guard‘ who had their preconceived notion of how to build baseball teams and that there was no other possible way to do it.  It took a lot of effort and, well, balls on the part of Beane to go all in with his plan.  He was fighting with just about everyone’s philosophy on what baseball is and was putting his career on the line.


This also rolls into the ending which I was discussing with friends after we finished seeing it.  I guess I will warn spoilers although I don’t feel I’m spoiling anything with history.  After all, do I need to say SPOILER ALERT: the Titanic sinks at the end of Titanic.  We were discussing about how the ending does not slap any false sentimentality or try to manufacture some big win to end on a high note.  Beane’s Athletic’s lose in the playoffs, and he is the first one to shit on the idea he broke some record or something because winning a ring matters.  But this is tempered by the fact Beane really wins in the big picture.  His way of doing business has changed the game and others have used the model successfully.


What really sells this movie are the writing, the characters, and the actors.  Brad Pitt does a fantastic job as Beane as he has to do some rather difficult work.  Watching the movie it seems like Beane is a charming guy but if you think about it, a lot of other actors could really screw it up.  Beane is an emotional guy who is a cutthroat businessman and doesn’t care who he steps on in order to see things through.  One scene (ANOTHER SPOILER ALERT) is when the manager won’t field the players he wants and Beane trades away all those players (all stars included) until the manager relents.  In another actor’s hands, he could really be seen as a megolomaniacal dick but with Pitt and the writing it takes on a better tone.  Even Jonah Hill, who I pretty much hate in any other movie, is fun in this movie too.  This is due to the face he isn’t playing Jonah Hill and has a toned down performance.  He and Pitt have great chemistry as they can throw subtle one liners at one another instead of Hill usually hamming it up.


But as alluded to earlier, my real love of this movie is with the writing.  This movie is funnier than the majority of comedies out there today, which is even more embarassing since Moneyball isn’t a comedy.  The dialog is so witty and charming and unlike say Diablo Cody or Kevin Smith, doesn’t call attention to itself.  Everyone is their own unique character and they just feel like people you would want to hang out with instead of long monologues with pop culture references.  I don’t know why I’m hatin on Smith or even Cody since I, for the most part, like their stuff.  I guess it is to highlight how much Sorkin does it better.


I’ve read some reviews which bring up the fact this movie was originally to be directed by Steven Soderbergh.  This is used as a negative to imply that with Soderbergh this would have been a classic.  For that matter you might as well compare The Social Network (also penned by Sorkin) to compare since they have similarities in story.  In a way I can see where they are coming from.  There isn’t much in the way of flashy direction to spice things up and most of the scenes are talky scenes.  There are also some…less than necessary stuff such as Beane’s relationship with his ex (played by Robin Wright).  But that being said, I don’t see it as that big of a criticism.  Director Miller knew what the strengths of this movie were which is the writing and the acting and he highlights those.  Pitt and Hill are fun as hell as their characters and they deliver wonderful dialog and that is where the charm of the movie is.  While he may have done a little more, I’m not really going to fault him for trying too hard and screwing up something already great.  Moneyball is one of my favorites of this year so far and I recommend to baseball fans and not baseball fans alike.

Invictus (Clint Eastwood) 2009

Posted in I on September 28, 2011 by moviemoses

I guess to get right to the point; Invictus is just like any standard inspirational sports movie of the past few years.  If you have seen Miracle, Remember the Titans, We are Marshall, Invincible, etc. then you’ve seen this movie.  Now I will say the scope of this movie is a little bigger than the other movies.  Invictus is about Nelson Mandela who is just becoming President and having to deal with strong lingering race issues.  Mandela became personally involved with getting the country’s Rugby team to the World Cup to kind of rally everyone under a common goal and to bridge the gap between the races.  The captain of the team Pierre is played by Matt Damon.

There are several issues with this story though.  The rugby scenes aren’t all that interesting and they make no attempt at explaining it.  In fact, there is a running joke that even Mandela’s personal guard have no f*cking idea what is going on in the game or if what is happening is a good thing.  There is no attempt at even explaining any of the rules which makes the climactic game almost a confusing mess.  I’ll admit my rugby ignorance brought on by my American upbringing but even I was watching the last game and saw them kicking what seemed to be field goals and thinking to myself “Wait, they can do that!?  They didn’t tell me they could kick the ball and score it.”  And no, this is not a request for people to tell me the rules of rugby or say its better than baseball or football or whatever.  I’m really not all that interested.  But even the playing scenes which should be very action oriented are not well shot and not all that interesting.  I think even for Rugby fans the final game would be rather underwhelming cinematically speaking.

The story, for being a Clint Eastwood movie, is surprisingly stock and bland.  As I said this is every stock inspirational sports movie.  A bad news bear like team of losers unite under an inspirational leader and make the impossible journey to the finals against the eeeeeevvil bad ass team (in this case New Zealand).  Along the way, the team learns that judging people by their skin color is not really a good thing and be better people.  We don’t really learn about Mandela’s presidency or his decisions.  In fact, another joke is that people will come to Mandela with issues and he will be like “Uh huh, who do they play next in the World Cup?”  And maybe it’s my personal grinchiness coming through, but it takes away from all the feel good message when you realize South Africa basically swapped political aparteid for economic apartied.  While the black majority may have won some small battles, the white minority still owns all the wealth and jobs and the blacks are even more destitute than before.

And NO, I do not want to discuss international politics or economics in relation to South Africa or the rest of the world and if you do you shall be banished to the Blaghole!  I’m just saying the situation is not as rose colored as the movie paints.

What ultimately kills this movie is there are no real characters to follow.  Mandela is played well by Freeman, but he is such a saintly figure we really don’t see him as a person.  We just see him as a guy who gives inspirational tidbits to people and a quote machine.  Even though we follow Pierre around for the majority of the movie (and Damon also does a great job, especially with the accent) we don’t learn much about him either.  His role is also to give inspirational speeches and to talk about how brave Mandela was for surviving over 20 years in prison.  We don’t learn about him as a person and he does not grow at all during the course of the movie.

Invictus is not a BAD movie.  If you do go in for all these inspirational “real life” sports movies then you will get some enjoyment out of it.  It is just very by the numbers.  And I actually won’t flip all the blame on Eastwood for this one.  From what I heard, Freeman had this as a passion project for several years and basically asked Clint to do this as a favor.  So I can understand Clint not having his A game for a movie he didn’t originally intend to do.

Never Back Down 2: The Beatdown (Michael Jai White) 2011

Posted in N on September 15, 2011 by moviemoses

Yes, this movie exists.

I thought movies had to be somewhat popular in order to get a sequel.  I saw the original but, then again, I somehow got saddled with the role of crappy MMA movie reviewer.  The first Never Back Down was the cinematic equivalent of an upper decker which was pretty much panned by everyone.  It was pretty much a CW version of Karate Kid where a beefy high school student was getting picked on at school by bullies.  Beefy kid befriends an MMA trainer with a “mysterious dark past“ who takes him under his wing.  Djimon Hounsou teaches his young pupil that violence is never the answer and to prove that point he has his student take him on in an underground fighting tournament called the Beatdown.  Yeah, the moral of the story didn’t quite fit now that I think about it for a whole second.  Now, even though NBD was shit, I could actually find it somewhat entertaining in the fact it was so bad it was funny.  The bad guy is so over the top he might as well be sweeping the leg while wearing a Darth Vader helmet over his handlebar mustache which he twirls.  Seeing Never Back Down 2 in my rental store, I just had to see if it was even worse than the original.

Now how do they continue the story from the original?  What characters do they bring back?  The answers are they don’t and none.  Like many direct to DVD sequels, it is not so much about continuing the storyline but about making a movie with a similar plot and slapping on the sequel title of what you are ripping off.  This sequel though is starring and directed by Michael Jai White (Black Dynamite).  It is about four high school students who all come to be taught by MMA trainer with a mysterious dark past Case (White).  Stuff happens involving the students which leads them to sorting out their differences in another Beatdown tournament.

So does The Beatdown live up to the high potential set up by the original NBD?  Well…yeah.  I guess that’s one way to put it.  This movie is freaking stupid.  Now maybe my brain has atrophied by seeing all these shitty MMA movies.  But like the first NBD, this movie is so freaking stupid that I actually think it’s funny.  One of the reasons I like it is Michael Jai White who I swear was still somewhat channeling Black Dynamite.  In the movie this guy beats up six honky racist cops on the way to the Beatdown and he only has to spend a few hours in jail.  There is another scene where someone insults one of his student’s mothers.  His advice you would think would be something along the lines of “Words are meaningless and you shouldn’t be provoked to violence by such an ignorant person.“  No his response is “You gonna let him talk about your mamma like that?  Punch him in the face!“

This movie is completely divorced from any kind of reality and the characters act as if they are aliens with no idea of what tact or manners are.  There is one of the characters who’s personal problem is his father left his mother to be with his gay lover.  What is the response from one of his close friends?  “Wow that sucks dick…kind of like your father.“  Also to make a villain in this movie, one of Case’s students goes all Private Pyle and goes on a homicidal rampage killing all the people who talked bad about him.  In addition to killing people with his MMA skills, he is trying to frame Case for the murders.  You see, I couldn’t make this shit up.  I’m too smart to think so dumb about a movie.  My only natural response is to laugh cause otherwise I would have had to cry myself to sleep.

The action in this movie is actually well done.  This could be due to the fact director/star White has done this stuff all his life so he can choreograph decent enough fight scenes.  Plus this sort of this actually works well with the micro budget of these direct to DVD movies.  There are also plenty of scenes of Case dominating people to show he has balls the size of beach balls.

Now I don’t know if I would recommend it to bad movie aficionados.  Even though I was able to laugh at it, it’s not as insane as say a Troll 2 or The Room.  I was able to find the silver lining in being stuck watching a direct to DVD sequel to NBD.  But who knows?  If you were able to enjoy the original for being so shit-tastic maybe you can enjoy a Black Dynamited sequel.

Warrior (Gavin O’Connor) 2011

Posted in W on September 15, 2011 by moviemoses

Warrior follows a family consisting of brothers Brendan (Joel Edgerton), Tommy (Tom Hardy) and father Paddy (Nick Nolte).  Brendan is a physics teacher who is upside down on his house and enters in an MMA tournament to keep his family from being out on the street.  Tommy is back from the war in Iraq and also enters the tournament (with the help of his trainer father) to send the money to the family of a soldier who died.  All three of them though, are trying to work through the damage Paddy (now a recovering alcoholic) did earlier on in their lives.

I don’t know if I am immediately going off on a tangent or jumping ahead in the review.  That being said, I don’t know if there is some standard of reviews so I suppose you’ll have to indulge me.  Before going to see this movie I discussed this with a few other people and their reactions kind of went in the same direction.  That being “Eh, I’m not too big into MMA“ or “Oh, I didn’t know you were that big into MMA“.  I have (on a similar note) heard reviewers talking about how much this movie will sell people on MMA or how accurate it is in its depiction of the sport.  I suppose I am speaking for myself when I say I don’t really go to sports movies necessarily because I love a sport, nor have I ever been sold on a sport by seeing a movie.  I can fairly confidently say there is not a sports movie that is both completely accurate in its depiction of the sport and sold me on it.  For example, Rocky is a great movie but I know it is both a poor representation of boxing and works because it is a great story and not because of the sport.  Same goes for other great sports themed movies ranging from such sports as golf, baseball, and even poker.  Now the reason the mvoies are not accurate representations of the sport is because it is impossible to take long (or what others classify as boring) sports and turn them into action packed 90 minute films without taking some dramatic license with them.  That is completely reasonable and it is not why I necessarily get bent out of shape over how the sport is because in a way it doesn’t matter.  To me, I care about the story and the characters and if you do that well I am happy.  With that very long tangent out of the way, I will go on to say Warrior for the most part succeeds in presenting a good story and compelling characters.

I think the reason most of Warrior works is because the writing and directing does enough to get effective tension and drama without crossing the line into ridiculous melodrama.  We are given very simple (but also compelling) reasons to follow our two leads.  Brendan wants to make sure his family doesn’t go homeless and Tommy wants to help out one of his comrades from Iraq by giving money to his widow.  There is family drama but its not shoved down our throats because it is a side effect of the main plot and it in itself is not driving the action.  These characters are effectively stuck together for a short time and are trying to deal with the biggest issues just to maintain some semblance of sanity.  This may be a spoiler so if you don’t want to know anything just skip ahead to the next paragraph.  The finale of this movie isn’t some schaltzy “we now love and forgive one another and live happily ever after“ type of ending.  I get more the feeling of “Well…I kind of tolerate your presence now.  We’ll start with that.“ type of reconciliation.

The movie also does enough to effectively build the underdog storyline of the movie.  Our protagonist doesn’t have an easy road as he has to go through the unbeatable Koba (our Fedor stand in for the movie) and his brother.  When we near the end the writers make the rivalry between the brothers very interesting.  Once again, the wins while improbable are not unbelievable as anyone familiar with MMA can tell you than on any given day someone can be upset in a match.  The action for the fights are very good.  As I mentioned before, there is always some element of theatricality in sports movies.  In this case there are no judges decisions and there are some decidedly pro-wrestling moves thrown in to make it look more intense.  But none of it is so over the top that it takes you out of the movie.  If I were going to judge this movie on how well it sells the sport I would have my reservations.  I don’t like the fact that for the most part they portray it as some illegal underground fight thing or the fact they really push these fights could kill people.  I understand it is for dramatic effect, but even that was too ridiculous.

The acting in the movie is very good.  I have not heard of Joel Edgerton but he is given the lead role and he does a good job.  Nick Nolte also does a good job in selling some of the weaker writing.  Tom Hardy actually does not get a lot to do but that is due to his character and the writing than on him.

Warrior is not a film that does anything new, nor is it some new benchmark standard of the genre.  I actually laughed when on a commercial some reviewer called it better than Rocky.  But while Warrior doesn’t do anything new, what it does it does very well.  The writing sets up a compelling underdog story and gives us interesting characters to root for.  The action is exciting and the actors do a good job in pulling off the material.  If I had a negative, it would be that the first half of the movie was a little sluggish for me, but things balanced out in the second half when the tournament began.  This isn’t a review that has to be qualified for people that like MMA or not.  If you like inspirational sports movies or movies about underdogs then you will like it.  While not groundbreaking, Warrior is a very good film.

Annie Hall (Woody Allen) 1977

Posted in A, Woody Allen Retrospective on September 12, 2011 by moviemoses

What can I really say about Annie Hall that probably hasn’t already been said? It encapsulates the very best of Allen and is an all time classic. This is the movie that beat out Star Wars at the Academy Awards for Best Picture (one of the few comedies to win Best Picture), and unlike Ordinary People beating Raging Bull, I don’t hear people bitching about that. I’m sure though I immediately damned myself to endless bitching now about how Star Wars was robbed but I’m not here to debate that. The point is Allen moved past being a great comedy writer to making a truly classic film.

Annie Hall is partially about Woody’s real life relationship (as many later works are pseudo autobiographical works) but it was always surprising to me how much they resonated with me. I’m not saying I’m like Woody’s character or that I have done anything in the movie but how the same feelings resonate. We go through the life and death of Alvy’s relationship with Annie Hall through all the good, bad, and all the weird moments in between. Even though I’ve never done the wacky things Alvy does, it doesn’t mean I don’t feel the same things he did during some of my relationships. For example, when Alvy and Annie break up (what they think is mutually) because they think there are greener pastures only for Alvy to practically immediately regret his decision. There is that broad sway of emotions to being excited around one another to being pissed off at all the little things. In the end you look back at the whole thing with a wistful perspective. I realize that my relationship would never have worked and memory has a way of making you diminish the bad parts while having you recall more fondly the good parts. In the end, you realize it was fun while it lasted, close that particular chapter in your life, and move onto the rest of your life.

Of course all that introspective crap is made hilarious by Woody’s great writing. Whether it is about couples arguing, or existential drama, or those petty everyday annoyances, Woody has a great gag about it. One of my favorite scenes is when he gets in an argument with someone in line at a theater and to prove the person has no idea what Marshal McLuhan was saying, he brings out the real person to tell him he is full of it. Recently I’m seeing someone who asked if I could come over and kill a spider to which I replied “Is it the size of a Buick?” and was met with a lengthy silence reserved only for those who make a reference which flies directly over the person’s head. Anyway…

If you need no other reason than it is funny, you should watch this movie. Allen was on top form as he delivers one liner after one liner; all that are memorable. Of course, how could I not mention Diane Keaton? She was in previous Allen movies and I always thought she was a great foil for Allen’s manic routine. Here she delivers a wonderful performance and is a truly memorable character.

I hope this review was alright but I always have trouble spelling out why a classic is great. I also hate further hyping up a classic as I know expectations can be a bitch. That being said, if you haven’t seen Annie Hall, just go out and do it. I don’t know how a Woody Allen fan (or even a non-fan) can go this long without at least checking it out. In addition to being extremely funny, it is also a sweet and thoughtful romantic comedy. Up next on the Woody retrospective is Interiors.