At Home By Myself... With you

YEAR: 2009

WRITER: Ramona Barckert, Kris Booth

DIRECTOR: Kris Booth

BUDGET: $CAD40,000 (estimated)

GROSS: ?

clicking away through netflix suggestions based on my ratings and previously viewed films and randomly browsing through genres i came across a bunch of titles that caught my eye, the first one of which was At Home By Myself... With You. i saw that it was a canadian film and feeling all patriotic i clicked play, streamed it to my tv and sat back on the couch...

now, don't let the "quirky" "romantic" netflix qualifiers scare you off. we all know that romantic comedies - quirky or not - are generally predictable by nature, not always that interesting and often not really that funny." but, it doesn't have to be that way, as At Home By Myself... With You proves.

also, i clicked the "quirky" link and saw that netflix had also tagged And Justice For All, Adaptation and Young Frankenstein with said tag. so, who really knows what "quirky" means to them?

romy is a women who, as we learn from the opening voiced-over animation, has many phobias. from opening boxes to going outside. and by "going outside" i mean literally taking one step out of her apartment - something she hasn't done for six years. then a guy moves in next door... okay, so you know where this is going. but, as predictable as the destination may be, the ride is enjoyable.

the filming style, the voice-overs, that opening animation, the score and the supporting characters all created a feel to the film that is like a children's story - or some kind of fairy tale? a story about the girl stuck in her apartment who falls for the charming and sweet always-on-the-go guy across the hall.

kristin booth (who you may have seen on a really good film i talked about a couple years ago, Young People Fucking) is great as romy. she is sweet and quirky (ya, i said it), but without becoming a caricature. it's interesting: romy is the "oddest" character in the film and yet she, and the guy across the hall, are what keep the film grounded in reality and make the emotional moments valid for the audience.

also, in case you were interested in the quirky-factor, but wasn't sure how it compared. it is a little quirkier than Easy Rider (another film that, for some ridiculous reason, was listed under my netflix "quirky" suggestions).

Hesher

YEAR: 2010

WRITER: Spencer Susser & David Michôd, Brian Charles Frank (story)

DIRECTOR: Spencer Susser

BUDGET: 7 million (estimated)

GROSS: $382,946

 

t.j. and his dad have recently suffered a tragic loss. then one day hesher comes into their lives. actually, he does more than come in to their lives. he literally moves in - without asking.

hesher is a loner with long hair, who lives in his van, listens to heavy metal, smokes cigarettes and pot, likes to set things on fire has a tattoo on his back of a hand giving the finger and one on his chest of a stick man blowing his brains out.

"Hesher is a "feel good" movie that doesn't want to be a "feel good" movie - and that's what makes it so good. it makes the drama and the pain and the laughter genuine and ergo our reactions to it all.

hesher isn't a bad guy with a heart of gold. you can look for the character clichés here, but for the most part hesher doesn't fit them (or at least not the "feel good" movie ones).

he is selfish and pleasure driven and basically, as the tattoo on his back indicates, he doesn't give a fuck! he just needs a place to stay and do laundry and eat.

so, in classic "feel good" movie form, how does he make everything better you ask? well, he doesn't. but he gets things started though. because "getting things started," that's really all anyone can do. you can't fix everything after a tragic loss like this. one person can't come in and make everything better in a week or two. but those that are suffering can have better days and can start to have moments when they see past the sorrow and that's often the hardest step to take. and in the case of t.j. and his dad, one they hadn't been ready to take or even know how to take it.  even if sometimes it is like taking one step forward and two steps back. at least it's steps taken.

it's interesting, because you want to like him. as an audience we like the kid and feel sad for him and his dad and we want to like hesher. we want to relate to him and see him do what we would if we were in that position. we want him to be a jerk with a heart of gold who helps the family. but for much of the movie he is just a jerk.

there is scene after scene where moments are available for him to be a good guy and help out. but he doesn't. sure, there are times when he isn't a total ass and it's obvious that he does grow to like the family. but in a very nice piece of writing, the big cathartic moment he initiates with the family near the end of the film comes from a selfish act on his part dealing with his own pain in the situation. t.j. and his dad just come along in the moment.

the final shot of the film is a great visual representation of all of it. on one side you have a meaningful gift that hesher has left for t.j. and his dad, and on the other side you have a large, self-indulgent sign that hesher has literally left his mark their home.

The Trip

YEAR: 2010

DIRECTOR: Michael Winterbottom

BUDGET: ?

GROSS: $1,090,768 (as of July 17th, 2011)

 

When The Observer asks steve coogan to tour the finest restaurants he asks his girlfriend to go with him. she can't, so he calls a bunch of friends and asks them to go. but none of them are available so he calls rob brydon and asks him.

now, if the names steve coogan and rob brydon mean nothing to you, than i can understand why maybe you haven't been as excited about seeing The Trip as i have. however, that shouldn't stop you from seeing it now.

the film is a very simple road/buddy movie in which steve and rob travel through the north of england while - among other things - eating great food, checking out the countryside and trying to one-up each other with their michael caine impressions.

i will admit that while i have been familiar with steve coogan for many years - since i discovered his brilliant tv show I Am Allen Partridge and then in films like 24 Hour Party People and Hamlet 2 to name a couple - i only became familiar with rob brydon when i saw him and coogan in Tristam Shandy: A Cock & Bull Story. in that film they have some great moments playing off each other and The Trip just lets them take that to the next level.

the film began its life as a series on the bbc which director michael winterbottom took and edited down into a 100 minute film. he took out much of what wouldn't be understood by a north american audience - like references and the like. and i think he did a good job with it.

i haven't seen the tv series, but i think the film stands on its own and the characters are defined enough that any audience, even those with no reference point to coogan and brydon, will get it. although, there are moments that might go by without recognition as they did for me (there was a Flight Of The Concords reference i missed and a couple celebrities mentioned that i had no idea who they were).

so much of the film is the two of them improvising while sitting and eating or sitting in the car. and while the first big laugh comes with the battling michael caines, the funniest scene has to be the two of them riffing on the line "we rise at dawn!"

beyond the laughs, the film is about these two friends who are about the same age, but at two different places in their lives.

brydon has a wife and a kid. coogan has an ex-wife and a kid. he still dates and chases women and is on a break from his girlfriend and lives alone in a lonely apartment. brydon is well-known in the U.K. and is content with his career. coogan is better known internationally but is still looking for more fame and recognition. you get the idea...

for those who are a little more in-the-know about these guys and the history of their work, their careers, etc, their relationship in the film might bring with it even more recognizable layers and understanding. but for the rest of us - like i mentioned earlier - it isn't an issue. you don't sit there thinking you are missing out on anything. the film is put together really well and the ideas are simple and universal.

Midnight In Paris

YEAR: 2011

WRITER/DIRECTOR: Woody Allen

BUDGET: $30 Million (estimated)

GROSS: $33,637,833 (as of July 3rd 2011)

every time i see those classic white title cards, the same ones he uses for every single film, i can't help but be excited with the anticipation of what is to follow. i am a huge woody allen fan and even though he has been hit and miss since the late 90s, he had been pretty much all "hit" in the 20-30 years prior to that that i know there is always the chance of something great. just look at Vicky Christina Barcelona!

his films are like an old friend. you know those friends that you can go years without talking to but the moment you see each other again its as if no time had passed. well, it had been a couple years since i'd seen a woody allen movie, but the minute Midnight In Paris started it was "hello old friend."

the film begins with a lengthy montage of paris images taken over the course of a complete day from light to night with music playing over top. when i say lengthy, i mean it goes on for the whole instrumental tune and probably 30 seconds to a minute longer than most directors, and definitely most studios, would allow. but it is perfect.

like new york in Manhattan and barcelona in Vicky Christina Barcelona, paris is as important to Midnight In Paris as anything else. in those films (and many others of his) the cities are characters. from the way he shoots the films (often framing the characters so as to put the scenery/city as the main focus) to the way the characters talk about the cities and their surroundings.

then there is the talking. there is no way you can listen to a woody allen movie and not know it is a woody allen movie. his style is so wonderful and specific and the instant i heard it in this film i had yet another "hello old friend" moment.

as i have also said in the past, this specific writing style isn't conducive to all actors. the dialogue and style of conversationalism that allen creates just leads to some actors seeming very forced or uncomfortable. thankfully he has usually been good at finding performers that get it and i was very happy to see that owen wilson was one of them. wilson, and everyone else in the film, give very good performance and do justice to a film that feels like it is a movie that woody has been leading up to making for a long time now.

without giving anything away, the film covers people and ideas that his characters in the past have only talked about. whether it was alvy singer in Annie Hall or Isaac in Manhattan to name just a couple, he has often talked about, quoted, argued over and complained about many of the people that make appearances in this film. from gertrude stein to luis buñuel. in Husbands And Wives he plays professor gabriel roth, who says, at one point, that he often thinks about moving to paris.

given all that, i only wish he had made this movie earlier so that he could have acted in it. but, regardless, you can add Midnight In Paris to the "hit" column.

2011 Oscar Predictions

 

WILL WIN are in bold

DID WIN are  big

MY SCORE: 18/24

despite anne hathaway's efforts and enthusiasm, the 2011 academy awards will go down as one of the worst i have ever seen. not because of who won or lost, but i'm talking the show itself.

besides the funny put-the-hosts-in-the-movies opening, there was barely a laugh or moment of excitement to be found (except when i won the pool i was in of course). the remixed songs was fun and the bob hope part was nice (although, seeing billy crystal out there to introduce it just made it more obvious what a great host he was and how anne and james just couldn't match up). but other than that the show was pretty dull.

as for my predictions: i did ok this year. 18/24 isn't bad and i did get 2/3 in the shorts categories which is where many pools are often won or lost. however, there were a few categories that, looking back, i'm not sure what i was thinking. i think i got a little too into the idea that The King's Speech wave would sweep up other categories that i missed, the now-obvious, Alice In Wonderland in art direction and costume design. and those of you who listened to the prediction episode of the podcast know how close i was to going with the winners in editing, documentary feature and foreign film (but, alas i didn't). so 18/24 it is. one better than last year and my second best showing since i started doing the podcast. how did you all do?

 

BEST PICTURE
The King's Speech
127 Hours
Black Swan
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
True Grit
Winter's Bone
Inception
The Kids Are All Right
The Fighter

 

 BEST DIRECTOR
Darren Aronofsky, Black Swan
David Fincher, The Social Network
Tom Hooper, The King's Speech
David O. Russell, The Fighter
Joel and Ethan Coen, True Grit

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Amy Adams , The Fighter
Helena Bonham Carter, The King's Speech
Melissa Leo, The Fighter
Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit
Jacki Weaver, Animal Kingdom

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
John Hawkes, Winter's Bone
Christian Bale , The Fighter
Jeremy Renner, The Town
Mark Ruffalo , The Kids Are All Right
Geoffrey Rush, The King's Speech

BEST ACTRESS
Natalie Portman , Black Swan
Annette Bening, The Kids Are All Right
Jennifer Lawrence, Winter's Bone
Nicole Kidman , Rabbit Hole
Michelle Williams , Blue Valentine

BEST ACTOR
Javier Bardem , Biutiful
Jeff Bridges , True Grit
Jesse Eisenberg, The Social Network
Colin Firth , The King's Speech
James Franco , 127 Hours

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Another Year , Mike Leigh
The Fighter , Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, Eric Johnson, and Keith Dorrington
Inception , Christopher Nolan
The Kids Are All Right , Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg
The King's Speech , David Seidler

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
127 Hours , Danny Boyle and Simon Beaufoy
The Social Network , Aaron Sorkin
Toy Story 3 , Michael Arndt, John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, and Lee Unkrich
True Grit , Joel and Ethan Coen
Winter's Bone , Debra Granik and Anne Rossellini

BEST FOREIGN FILM
Biutiful
Dogtooth
In a Better World
Incendies
Outside the Law

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM
How to Train Your Dragon
The Illusionist
Toy Story 3

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN ART DIRECTION
Alice in Wonderland
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1
Inception
The King's Speech
True Grit

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN CINEMATOGRAPHY
Black Swan
Inception
The King’s Speech
The Social Network
True Grit

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN COSTUME DESIGN
Alice in Wonderland
I Am Love
The King's Speech
The Tempest
True Grit

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
Exit Through the Gift Shop
Gasland
Inside Job
Restrepo
Waste Land

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT
Killing in the Name
Poster Girl
Strangers No More
Sun Come Up
The Warriors of Qiugang

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN FILM EDITING
Andrew Weisblum, Black Swan
Pamela Martin, The Fighter
Tariq Anwar, The King's Speech
Jon Harris, 127 Hours
Angus Wall and Kirk Baxter, The Social Network

ACHIEVEMENT IN MAKEUP
Adrien Morot, Barney's Version
Edouard F. Henriques, Gregory Funk and Yolanda Toussieng, The Way Back
Rick Baker and Dave Elsey, The Wolfman

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
John Powell, How to Train Your Dragon
Hans Zimmer, Inception
Alexandre Desplat, The King's Speech
A.R. Rahman, 127 Hours
Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, The Social Network

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
“Coming Home” from Country Strong, Music and Lyric by Tom Douglas, Troy Verges and Hillary Lindsey
“I See the Light” from Tangled, Music by Alan Menken Lyric by Glenn Slater
“If I Rise” from 127 Hours, Music by A.R. Rahman Lyric by Dido and Rollo Armstrong
“We Belong Together” from Toy Story 3, Music and Lyric by Randy Newman

BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM
Day & Night
The Gruffalo
Let's Pollute
The Lost Thing
Madagascar, carnet de voyage (Madagascar, a Journey Diary)

BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM
The Confession
The Crush
God of Love
Na Wewe
Wish 143

ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUND EDITING
Inception
Toy Story 3
Tron: Legacy
True Grit
Unstoppable

ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUND MIXING
Inception
The King’s Speech
Salt
The Social Network
True Grit

ACHIEVEMENT IN VISUAL EFFECTS
Alice in Wonderland
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1
Hereafter
Inception
Iron Man 2

I Think We're Alone Now/Facing The Habit

YEAR: 2008, WRITER & DIRECTOR: Sean Donnelly, BUDGET: ?, GROSS: ?

YEAR: 2007, WRITER & DIRECTOR: Magnolia Martin, BUDGET: $100,000 (estimated), GROSS: ?

the main characters in both these documentaries have something in their lives that they are obsessed with/addicted to. for jeff turner and kelly mccormick it is 80s pop star tiffany and for dave, it is heroine.

I Think We're Alone Now takes us into the world of jeff and kelly - both obsessed with tiffany. jeff is a 50-year-old man with asperger's syndrome who has been going to tiffany concerts since the late 80s and who feels that he and the singer are meant to be together (this seems to somewhat change during the film as he begins to call her just a friend and seems happy with her marriage to an englishman named ben). kelly is an "intersexual" who claims that tiffany came to her when she was in a coma following a bike crash - thus saving her life.

in Facing The Habit, we meet dave. he used to be a millionaire stock broker. but now he is a heroine addict who steals to pay for is addiction. he has spent years trying to get clean and has tried everything, but nothing has worked. now he is set to try an experimental treatment using ibogaine (a drug made from the west african iboga root).

i had thought there was a chance that the film would be like an episode of Intervention. but, that is not the case. although we do get to see how dave lives these days and how he feels about being an addict and what heroine has done to his life, the film doesn't do a lot of historical analysis as to why dave is in this position. rather it is just as concerned with dave as it is with ibogaine. there are also interviews with others who have used the experimental treatment.

I Think We're Alone Now spends more time with its main characters talking about their lives and what has brought them to this point. there is no analysis from experts on stalking or anything like that. rather by listening to them tell us about themselves and a little insight from their friends, we are left to our own devices in understanding who kelly and jeff are. this may be why some have called the film exploitative. but, i don't see it that way.

sure, both kelly and jeff have some mental issues, but the movie isn't laughing at them or holding them up in some kind of exploitative way. rather the film is just taking us closer to people that maybe we don't understand and any snickering or exploitative thoughts towards them are from the specific viewers themselves and how they feel about these people rather then what the film is telling us what to think.

although, a more philosophical argument could be made that the act of filming these people for the documentary is exploitation in itself. that the documentary form is exploitative by nature and that turning the cameras lens on an individual is exploiting them for the purpose/gain of the film. but i digress...

dave's attempt at recovery and the other stories of recovery and failure that make up Facing The Habit are interesting and uplifting and heartbreaking. but it was also really interesting to see ibogaine at work. the before and after is incredible. although, as great as it appears to work in curbing the addiction, the film also makes it clear that that is only the first step to full recovery.

these are both short documentaries (61 minutes and 49 minutes) so you can go ahead and do what i did and make it a double feature night.

Micmacs (Micmacs A Tire-Larigot)

YEAR: 2009

WRITER: Jean-Pierre Jeunet & Guillaume Laurant

DIRECTOR: Jean-Pierre Jeunet

BUDGET: €27,000,000 (estimated)

GROSS: $1,260,917 (USA)

 

few directors take full advantage of the medium in which they work like jean-pierre jeunet. one of the premier directors around, jeunet is one of those film makers for me, whose name on a film is reason enough to go see it. and Micmacs is yet another example of him at the top of his game.

when he was a boy, bazil's father was killed by a landmine in morocco and years later by a completely random turn of events he himself was shot by a stray bullet. he survived but lost his job and ended up on the street - there are some brilliant scenes during this part of the film that harken back to classic silent film and both the scenes and the performance by dany boon (bazil) would make buster keaton and charlie chaplin proud.

while on the streets he meets an eccentric junk yard dealers who take him into their "family" (you got a contortionist, an ex convict, a math genius, a human cannonball, etc... you get the idea). one day, by complete chance, he stumbles upon the two weapons manufacturers that built the landmines that killed his dad and the bullets that hit him. with the help of his friends he begins an intricate plan to destroy them both...

while there are obviously many ways this story could be told. but, imagine it in the hands of the director of Delicatessen and Amelie. well, it is even better then you imagined. Jeunet is at the top of his game and the film is a brilliantly conceived and accomplished dark comedy/quirky/fable that is more than just a feast for your eyes. i have talked about this idea before, but it bears repeating in the context of this film...

unlike other film makers who can create a great visual experience, jeunet is able to bring all the pieces together to make great films. the characters and the script and the complete originality had me engaged and excited watching this film - it had my eyes and ears glued to the screen.

i was excited by every scene and i was excited to see where the film would take me... and speaking of the visual style: it isn't a gimmick here. it encompasses the characters and the story and the way the story is told. it all works together perfectly.

The Imaginarium Of Dr. Parnassus/Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

YEAR: 2009, WRITER: Terry Gilliam & Charles McKeown, DIRECTOR: Terry Gilliam, BUDGET: $30 million (estimated), GROSS: $7,689,458

YEAR: 2010, WRITER: Edgar Wright & Michael Bacall (screenplay), Bryan Lee O'Malley (graphic novels), DIRECTOR: Edgar Wright, BUDGET: $60 million (estimated), GROSS: $29,267,130 (as of Sept. 5th 2010)

while photography is pretty singularly a visual medium and books are a medium very much completely reliant on the words, film is an art form that spans mediums. the words are just as important a component to the success of a film (i mean artistic success - not commercial) as is how the film looks and what it does visually, both large and small (people who talk about film tend to sometimes forget that a low-budget film, or one that forgoes large sets and special effects, is still making a visual statement).

what is often the case though - and one of the reasons why i think so many pretentious film people tend to look down their nose at big-budget films and movies with lots of special effects - is that many film makers focus their attention on the visual aspect of film making but forget about how important the words/story/script are - which leads to films like The Transformers I and II, Terminator Salvation, Ecks Vs Sever and i could go on, but you get what i'm saying). i bring this up, because i recently watched two films with strong artistic visions that also remembered how important the text was as well: The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World.

no one familiar with terry gilliam's work could ever accuse him of not having a strong vision - but it could be said that sometimes that vision just doesn't always work beyond looking good - yes, i am talking about Tideland (having not seen it, i can't comment on The Brothers Grimm). what about Brazil you ask? well, that is another one of gilliam's visionary works, but it can be a little confusing to some.

however, with Dr. Parnassus, he has created a gorgeous film that is a feast for the eyes and doesn't alienate the audience either. when characters are in the imaginarium it actually makes sense. you understand what is being represented and how it ties into the story. and speaking of the story, it is grand and interesting. gilliam isn't scared of grand story themes and here he takes on the classic deal-with-the devil scenario (in The Fisher King - my favorite of his films - he went with the holy grail).

what struck me about Scott Pilgrim, in regards to the graphic themes and ideas, was how well it used and stuck with the pop-up words and the video-game and comic book visual cues throughout the film.

there are so many movies out there that start strong when it comes to that sort of thing, but as the film progresses it fissiles out like it was just some kind of gimmick. but with Scott Pilgrim it is a core feature of the film and the vision of the film makers and they use it to full effect. and beyond that, the film is very funny, original and really fun.

although Scott Pilgrim and Dr. Parnassus are two very different films without any real connection, i couldn't help but think of them in the same discussion of visual ideas and the good and bad use of said ideas in movies. and these are two cases of good uses in very good films.

She's Out Of My League

YEAR: 2010

WRITER: Sean Anders & John Morris

DIRECTOR: Jim Field Smith

BUDGET: $20 million (estimated)

GROSS: $31,628,317

you know that moment in 97% of all romantic comedies where one of the two recently-fallen-in-love parties admits something to the other one that ends up splitting them apart until the big finale get-back-together gesture that allows the film to end with a kiss as the camera pulls out wider and wider? well i feel like i am about to have one such moment, ironically, with the romantic comedy She's Out Of My League.

i have to admit that the only reason i watched this film in the first place was because i didn't think it was going to be that good. i go to the movies a lot, but even i can't see everything and have to make decisions to see some films over others. however, in an effort to have a more complete view of the year in movies when it comes time, at the end of the year, to make best and worst lists and hand out the FBNF awards i have been playing catch up with movies that hadn't looked worth it. and i have to say that so far i was generally right to have skipped them.

last week alone i "caught up" on three didn't-look-very-good films and 66.66666% of them were ones i was right to have skipped in the theatres. however, then there was the other 33.3333% that was She's Out Of My League which turned out to be one of the funniest films i have seen this year. and it is that "funny" part that is so important.

romantic comedies are generally predictable on many levels. the films are usually bright, the main characters follow a usual arc in their path to eventual happiness (ala the admission/fight that leads to the break-up i mentioned earlier), there is often a best friend or two on both sides of the relationship that bring much of the comedy.... you get the gist.

all that to say that given how "similar" these films are when you really look at them, their success and failure comes down to a few things and one of the biggest is the funny. When Harry Met Sally had all the standard rom-com fair and it was really funny. When In Rome (part of the past weeks 66.66666%) carried the rom-com tropes with pride but, except for the supporting characters played by will arnett and dax shepard, the film wasn't funny. sure, this is a bit of a simplification and there is more to why When Harry Met Sally is a classic and When In Rome is not, but this isn't a thesis on the romantic comedy genre. this is a discussion of She's Out Of My League which, as i mentioned before, is really funny.

often comedies, romantic or otherwise, start off strong with the funny and then slowly peter off as the film goes on. as if the writers used up all their ideas in the first half of the film and had nothing much left for the second half as they got past the initial idea and had to actually figure out the complete story. She's Out Of My League doesn't have that problem. there is funny throughout this one.

from the main character's awkward speech to his ex-girlfriend about how he is getting so much action since they broke up (his friends told him that in order to get her back he had to make her believe that he was doing great without her) to the hysterical discussion about how he is a 5 (he made it up to a six with a half a point each for being funny and a nice guy, but lost a full point for driving a piece of shit car. whereas is friend gave himself an extra point for being in band - although it is a hall and oats cover band) and the girl is a hard 10 and how no one can ever date more then 2 number positions different from themselves. i could go on and tell you about his friend who is always quoting/referencing disney cartoon love stories like Aladdin or the great scene at the dinner table when the 10 meets his family for the first time, or.... add to that the endearing characters, the fun story and you got yourself one surprise of a good romantic comedy.

so, this is the part of the discussion where i hold a boom box over my head, or run as fast as i can to the new years eve party or walk across a sea of people in the subway as they cheer me on in order to let She's Out Of My League know that - although i only watched it because i didn't think it was going to be very good, i was wrong and i fell for it and this feeling of like i have for it is real.... applause... music... smiles... camera pulls out.... cut to black.