Forbidden Love.

Am I the only one who dreams of these two getting back together at some point?
If I am, then ignore my rambling and join me in congratulating Madge and Sean on their birthdays.
The Queen of Pop turned 51 yesterday and the two-time Oscar winner turns 49 today.
So much talent in these two, wouldn't they make the ultimate power couple nowadays?

Left Alone?

romance
–noun

1.	a novel or other prose narrative depicting heroic or marvelous deeds, pageantry, romantic exploits, etc., usually in a historical or imaginary setting.

Watching "Reds" I began to question the notions that have defined romance in cinema.
This movie is often included in "Most Romantic Movies of All Time" lists (including AFI's "100 Years, 100 Passions") and the truth is that if this movie is considered something to shed lovesick tears for, then I really don't see why did people oppose so much to films like "Cold Mountain" in recent years.
My point is that "Reds" in no way delivers the kind of butterflies-in-the-stomach feel we've grown to expect from "romantic" movies.
And that's not precisely a bad thing...actually the movie sticks to the definition of romance in dictionaries-and the only one I do believe in.
I was expecting the movie to be an all out weepy and instead was pleasantly surprised with the realization that it's about love, but not the one we'd imagine, but one that is in fact looked down on by Hollywood most of the time: love for what you do.
Warren Beatty plays John Reed, the famed journalist who wrote "Ten Days That Shook the World" and helped in establishing the Communist party of America.
Diane Keaton plays his wife Louise Bryant and if you're expecting some sort of "Romeo and Juliet" thing with them you'll be seriously disappointed.
It's more of a "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" situation as they fight, scream and throw things at each other, yet stick togteher until the end.
But Beatty makes the acute, even bold, move of revealing that Reed's greatest love was is work. This is his movie, let's not be fooled. It's all about Reed (if you're expecting a history lesson you'll be disappointed as well...).
Remarkably the film never hesitates to show us Reed's hierarchy of priorities and Louise is always left in the back.

Vittorio Storaro's cinematography-perfect in every single way-let's us see the way Louise is alienated by Reed's protagonism.
She is usually shown surrounded by men and rarely occupies the prominent shot, especially not before men.

Except when she must testify before a judge, who is above her (physically and in a power situation) which pretty much makes her lone shot obsolete.

Even in the end when he dies, Reed is more important in the shot than poor Louise.

Not that there's anything wrong with Reed's huge self love, but why is this kind of love so feared by Hollywood?

With a Twist.

One of the most delightful things all summer long has been the posters TCM created for their "Summer Under the Stars" series, giving classic films brand new posters.
The first batch was exquisite, the ones for "High Society" and "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" were design marvels. They have now debuted the whole month's worth and sadly have succumbed to more traditional, up to date (read mediocre) poster designs.
Still a pleasure to see people trying to do new things with classics that don't necessarily involve remakes...

Tragedy.

Read this great, albeit sad, article on the disappearance of classic movies on DVD.
Today on the way to work I was wondering if I should double dip on the upcoming versions of "Gone With the Wind" and "The Wizard of Oz", now seems I should if only to support classics on DVD...

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra **

Director: Stephen Sommers
Cast: Channing Tatum, Marlon Wayans, Sienna Miller
Rachel Nichols, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Lee Byung-hun
Saïd Taghmaoui, Ray Park, Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Jonathan Pryce, Dennis Quaid, Christopher Eccleston

Not since the Bat nipples appeared on George Clooney more than a decade ago has a comic book/cartoon/toy inspired movie had such fetishist potential.
Inspired by the famous Hasbro action figures and the animated series about a group of elite soldiers from all over the world-fighting the evil M.A.R.S corporation-this film features a cast mostly comprised of models and exotically handsome men and women in tight fitting suits.
There isn't much of a plot, at least not one that matters. all you have to know is that the Joes are good and the Cobras-from M.A.R.S-are not.
M.A.R.S is led by James McCullen (Eccleston) a Scottish weapon mogul holding a three hundred year old grudge towards the French and somehow the entire world by default.
His company devices microscopic robots called nano-mites which can destroy people and world monuments and he plans to use them on several capitols to gain who knows what...
His team features a mad scientist called The Doctor (Gordon-Levitt in full Gollum mode), crazy ninja Storm Shadow (Byung-hun) and the Baroness (Miller) a former American socialite married to a French royal, who spends her free time killing people and stealing wmd-s.
That she has history with G.I. Joe Duke (Tatum) only adds to whatever little drama the film wants to introduce. Duke is the newest member of the Joes along with Ripcord (Wayans), the good guys also feature Heavy Duty (Akinnuoye-Abgaje), Breaker (Taghmaoui), silent ninja Snake Eyes (Park), Scarlett (Nichols) and team leader General Hawk (Quaid).
During 118 minutes members from each team fight each other in the midst of enormous action sequences, explosions and surprising weapons that appear out of nowhere.
They also have flashbacks-which are laughable-and constant hints at what the sequel will be about and even if it feels ethically incorrect to say so, it's slightly obvious that nobody comes to such movies seeking enlightenment.
Or do they?
With the state of summer blockbusters which now more than ever are requesting you leave your brain at home, is it then too much to ask for their kind of dumb entertainment to at least be actually entertaining?
If we have come to reduce movies to fulfill such primitive needs then "G.I. Joe" gets the job done. Absolutely nothing in the film makes sense, but most of it is fun.
Sommers' film takes place in the not so distant future where the USA actually cares for Russia and France and terrorism only comes in the shape of utterly deranged beings.
This sort of male fantasia will make sense to those who loved playing with the action figures (in the same way the first "Transformers" movie did).
This is the sort of movie where the heroes claim to be a secret unit, but have no problem destroying half of Paris in broad daylight. Someone else will clean this mess for them...like moms picking up their kids' toys.
In a postmodernist nod Sommers is also able to give the movie a postmodernist feel by structuring it like a cartoon; the cinematography is cheap to say the least, the effects never look or feel real and the quotes are epitomize cheese.
Now the question is, does anyone actually want to see a live version of the cartoon? Luckily by the time you start formulating questions like these you'll be going home and in the process of forgetting this average Joe.

Twisted Crush of the Day.