From There to Kaneohe

Some time ago, we watched a real classic: From Here to Eternity (1953). This is just one of those movies that you just have to see, right? It's on those list of best movies, has big stars, won lots of Oscars, etc. While we'd seen stills of the iconic rolling-around-in-the-surf scene, neither of us had ever seen the actual movie. But the movie's local-ness intrigued us and it finally drifted to the top of the queue.

And all those lists and awards seem to have it right. It's quite a film. All those doomed romances, the troubled souls, individuals caught in events larger than them, joined with great cinematography and scenery -- hard to go wrong. Not to mention all the fabulously attractive actors -- Lancaster, Kerr, Clift, Reed.

For us, much of the enjoyment of it came from the setting. We loved that it was set and much of it filmed in Hawaii. It was fun to see Honolulu depicted with the Asian-Polynesian kitsch of it all right alongside the inescapable seediness. Watching the movie, we realized we only vaguely knew where these bases are, and afterwards, we promptly got out the map. (Okay, so if Karen Holmes and Sgt Warden are going to Kaneohe to meet, how far out of their way are they really going...?)

I'm intrigued by what I read about the original novel by James Jones (although some of what has recently been discussed is about what got cut from Jones's original manuscript). It's on the Modern Library's list of 100 best novels and was the winner of the National Book Award in 1952.
Have any of you read it?

Good Night, and Good Luck: Good movie.

This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise, it is merely wires and lights in a box.
- Edward R. Murrow, on television, in his 1958 speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Association (RTNDA)



Good Night, and Good Luck (2005), about broadcast journalist Edward R. Murrow and the CBS news room, and their decision to take sides about Senator Joseph McCarthy's tactics, is a mighty good movie.

Of course this is a simplified view of Murrow, a small part of his career, and the role he and his news team played in the reaction against McCarthy. All movies about historical events or figures, because of the constraints of effective storytelling and of cinema, are simplified. But taking it just as a movie, I had no complaints.

You see that? Yup, I said "no complaints."

The performances were great, I loved the black and white, and I was completely into the story and characters. And using existing footage of McCarthy to play himself was brilliant -- to have an actor play him, no matter how faithfully, would never have created the same visceral response in viewers who recognize or remember the actual footage.

Whether this movie is a realistic representation of events is not my topic here. Good Night, and Good Luck is a great story, well packaged. Additionally, any movie that might inspire people to look more closely at history, and as a result critically consider the present and future, more than deserves it's space on the shelf.

Another true story

One of the film critics I listen to says the sure way to know if a movie is pure fiction is if the poster says "based on a true story."

Bottle Shock (2008), "Based on a true story of love, victory, and fermentation," is enjoyable enough, but nothing of great weight.

The true story upon which it is based is fabulous. The movie was inspired by the 1976 blind wine tasting arranged by British wine dealer Steven Spurrier (played by Alan Rickman in the film) that pitted French wines against wines from California. It was a complete upset as the French experts judged the California wines as not only competitive, but actually superior to the French in two categories: the chardonnay from Chateau Montelena (featured in the film) and a cabernet sauvingnon from Stag's Leap.

Alan Rickman's character, no surprise, shines as the most intriguing of the bunch. And his American ex-pat friend Maurice (Dennis Farina) is a hilarious foil. The Californian-storyline and characters, however, feel contrived and never ring true. There is this father-son tension that you never quite care about as neither is likable (and the surfer-dude son's wig was a constant distraction for me), an alleged love triangle with no love or sizzle, and a hint of race/class issues that is never fleshed out (but left me wishing for more about Gustavo Brambilla and other Mexican-American winemakers in California).

Interested in the historical event? All indications are that you would be best served by reading George Taber's 2005 book Judgment of Paris. (I'm putting it on my "to read" list.)

Love Alan Rickman and gorgeous scenery of California vinyards? See this movie. It's enjoyable enough.

Oh yes, and the title/term "bottle shock" is what happens to wine when it is transported. You know, like when you move your ficus tree across the room. It just needs some time to recover.

Trailer
Movie website

A Mini review of the Mini movie

Always on the cutting edge of cinema (ha ha), we just watched The Italian Job (2003).

My twitter-length review:
There are good bad guys, and there are bad bad guys. The good bad guys win, and how. Great fun!

To elaborate a bit, this 2003 movie -- starring big names like Donald Sutherland, Mark Wahlberg, Ed Norton, Seth Green, Charlize Theron, Mos Def, and Jason Statham -- is actually a remake of a 1969 movie of the same name starring Michael Caine. And apparently the original also starred three Mini Coopers.

We watched it over two evenings. The first evening, over frozen pizza. The second, grilled eggplant with feta and mint. If we were to draw an analogy (or a simile or whatever) here, The Italian Job is more like the frozen pizza. Conveniently packaged, quick, and tasty. Not a deep movie, but it is quite fun. A bit Ocean's Eleven-esque, in a good way.

I think we may just have to put the 1969 original in the queue. We'll let you know.

I'd like some of that 'Canadian Super Hero Pie'

NYTimes movie critic A. O. Scott said, "If 'Waitress' were more strenuously uplifting, it might be labeled a feel-good movie, but it isn’t that. It’s just a movie that leaves you feeling good."

Waitress (2007) is centered on Jenna (Keri Russell), a very unhappily married woman who works as a waitress at Joe's Pie Diner, making creative and delightful pies with quirky names. A theme throughout the movie is that she invents pie recipes with names that reflect things happening in her life, like "I Hate My Husband Pie" and "I Don't Want Earl's Baby Pie." Another running theme is her composition of letters to her unborn baby that reflect the anxiety and ambivalence about her pregnancy and her life.

It seems that Jenna only can really connect people who are moved by her pies. True appreciation of her pies = true appreciation of Jenna. Both Dr. Pomatter (with whom she has an affair) and Old Joe (in whom she finds an unlikely ally) have an almost spiritual connection to her baked goods. Since so much of Jenna's own emotions are tied into these creations--in fact, it is the only thing that brings her pleasure and it serves as an escape--they serve as a bridge from one person to the other. Seeing that something she loves is also loved by someone else makes her feel valued. And I think that really goes pretty far in describing what does connect people--shared joys, shared interests, an admiration for the work and creations of another.

As is often true, there are some things I take issue with in Waitress, but I'm not in the mood to go into them here. Because I want to convey that we both just really enjoyed this movie. It is a sad, funny, sweet, movie that really, really makes me want to have pie.

(There is one bizarre point I simply can't ignore, however. What the hell is going on with those atomic pies we see at the end of the movie!? How could that possibly happen? I was perfectly willing to roll with any other unlikely point in this movie, but I simply cannot accept that this same woman who made all these beautiful and brilliant pies we see up until that point would ever turn out concoctions that look like something from Marge Simpson's kitchen!)

Waitress movie site
Adrienne Shelley Foundation


Tangentially related, but no less interesting (to me):
Nathan Fillion, the Canadian which this blog title refers and the actor who plays Dr. Pomatter in Waitress, is also famous in geeky circles for playing Dr. Hammer, Dr. Horrible's nemesis on Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. Neil Patrick Harris stars as Dr. Horrible.

And someone who has regular TV can tell me if this new show with Fillion is any good: Castle, premieres March 9, ABC. It's the new "Moonlighting," or so ABC would have us believe. (They may, indeed have something there. Like Bruce Willis, Fillion has also played an action hero. See Dr. Hammer reference immediately above.)

Bacchus, Sanctus, and Ferragamo(?)

I always remember hearing . . . No, not hearing, knowing that Silvia Pinal was a very famous Mexican actor and was also very cute.

I don't quite remember, however, seeing her as young as she is in Viridiana (1961). Directed by Luis Buñuel, Pinal plays the novice Viridiana who is about to take her vows and become a cloistered nun. Her uncle (Fernando Rey) and financial supporter requests that she visit him before taking the habit. Viridiana, pushed by her Mother Superior, reluctantly agrees to go.

She spends a few days at his home, during which the sexual and religious tension between them is furthered by the camera's almost obsessive focus on feet, shoes, and religious icons.

Oh, did I mention that this is avant-garde cinema, by the way?

But don't get weirded out. This is no Un chien andalou eyeball-slashing, ant-crawling cinema. Buñuel manages to compose Viridiana's sanctity and sensuality and her uncle's desire for her (she resembles his late wife) in provocative ways without the obscurity typical of other avant-garde pieces.

At the same time, the simplicity of the framing and the dialogue belie the depth of the religious themes and criticism. Buñuel managed to get this past Franco era Spanish censors while he was making it, but after its debut at Cannes (where it won the Palme d'Or) it was banned all the way to the seventies.

The extras on the Criterion Collection Series DVD we got from Netflix are definitely worth watching. The interview with Silvia Pinal is quite informative about the history of the film (Is it a Spanish or a Mexican film?), a long special in French helps to understand Buñuel as a person (Did he or did he not punch Salvador Dali?), and a modern, if a bit nerdy, critic who manages to miss-pronounce Viridiana several different ways also helps to fill in some of the gaps (Did Buñuel have a fetish for shoes?).

Good film. Put it in your queue. Watch it. (If you dare....mwah ah ah ah..)

Movie review: Iron Giant

I somehow missed hearing anything about Iron Giant, an animated film directed by Brad Bird (The Incredibles, Ratatouille), when it first came out in 1999. (Oh wait, I was in grad school in '99, so that explains how I missed it.) But in the years since, I had heard references to it in Bird interviews and also from film critics (as in, "well, this is no Iron Giant, but it's a reasonably entertaining animated film"). So into the queue it went.

The basic story is that a 100-foot, metal-eating robot lands on earth from outer space (specific origin unknown) that lands off the coast of Maine during a storm and is found and befriended by a nine-year-old boy.It's unclear what the robot's purpose for being here is -- and the robot himself doesn't seem to know, his apparent amnesia perhaps a result of the dent on his head. Forgive me for not telling you more, but I don't want to introduce any plot spoilers here because I definitely think that this is worth discovering for yourself. It's an interesting observation of a period of American history (post-Sputnik paranoia), but it's also a funny, sweet story with a pretty typical Disney-esque message ("you are what you want to be") delivered with charm and nuance.

The movie is loosely based on a book, The Iron Man, by British writer Ted Hughes (1930-1998). Hughes is listed as a consultant on the film, but he did pass away before it was finished.

If you want a complete review, you might check out the New York Times review, "The Attack of the Human Paranoids."

Cutest. Robot. Ever.

We finally made it to see Wall-E (2008). I'd heard reviews raving about it, but frankly this was even more enjoyable than I had anticipated.

Wall-E is a sweet and totally unexpected love story between Wall-E, a Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class who is the last robot functioning on Earth, and EVE (Extra-terrestrial Vegetation Examiner), a probe sent to see if the Earth is recovering from its complete and total environmental collapse. (The movie is set a few hundred years after humans have had to abandon Earth to live on a big star cruiser.)

Despite the quietly persistent environmental doomsday message, this isn't a completely dystopian take on the future. Rather, it is chock full of love, hope, and dreams. Sure, some of these dreams are totally unrealistic -- Wall-E's notion of romantic love comes from a Hello, Dolly video tape and the starship captain's idea of Earth that he has gleaned from the ship's computer includes the notion that you can grow such things as pizza plants -- but they are heart-warming, nonetheless. There is an undercurrent and backstory that is horrifying, yet in the foreground there is so much fun and optimism, its quite digestable without being diluted.

Pixar fans, we are, and Wall-E did not disappoint. And I say without reservation that this is a notch up from Ratatouille.

While of course there are all kinds of great gadgets in this, I was particularly charmed by little M-O (Microbe Obliterator), who rolls around following foreign contaminant Wall-E, cleaning his tracks up with his "mono-rotational scrubbing roller." I've got to find me one of those...

And then the teeny, tiny camels went across the desert...

Last week we watched the Academy award winning epic Lawrence of Arabia (1962). And yes, it took us a few days. This bugger is like, 3 1/2 hours long!

We thought we'd try a different format for our review this time, and we sent each other questions about the movie. We'll give you our Q&A here (with minimal rebuttals).

LK's questions to B:

LK: Did you know anything about this movie or the historical events referred to before you watched it? How did that affect your viewing experience?
B: I did not have the foggiest idea about anything.
LK: Me either.

LK: Did you used to think your tv was plenty large?
B: Yup. Boy, those epic desert scenes make the camels look puny.

LK: What did you enjoy the most? What was the most moving?
B: The movie as a whole was good, but I don't think I have any particular scene that was most enjoyable or moving. More like a flat feeling throughout.

LK: What were the Oscar-earning qualities of the movie, at least from your first impression?
B: It won an Oscar? [apparently it did].

LK: There were no individual female characters in the movie.Did it seem like an omission?
B: Nope. This is a movie about a guy in a war lead by other men, almost all takes place in the desert in a culture that shelters women from the eyes of other males (with whatever implications you might want to read into it with your Western XXI century sensitivities) so women are sheltered thus.
LK: In fact, women appear three times: the Harith women -- no faces -- watching a dinner behind a curtain, and also seeing their men off to war (with uluations), and some women in a ransacked village (dead), but there are dead men too. In context, significant female characters would have been way too Hollywood. Plus, there's much discussion that women weren't terribly important in Lawrence's life... (See Hidalgo)

LK: What did this make you want to know more about?
B: What was really going on in WWI in Arabia. How instrumental was he really in the war? As an aside, it is a great perspective on how Europe and the U.S. have had such political and economic interest in controlling the region to this day and how disgusting it is that the politics of the hegemonic countries have been unable to leave other cultures alone (and made me want to re-read E. Said's Orientalism).

LK: If your wife hadn't cheated and looked at IMDB, do you think you would have ever placed Alec Guinness?
B: Nope.

LK: This disk had no extras, but if there were any extras, what would you want to watch?
B: Was it shot on location? How hot was it really? Things of that nature.

LK: And most important: Sharif or O'Toole?
B: Sharif, for sure. O'Toole is just a bit bland and over-dramatic about his own personal importance in the world (which might reflect the real Lawrence, hmm...)

B's questions to LK:

B: Who was your favorite character in the film?
LK: Sharif Ali. He seemed the most...rational. (And he was the biggest babe.)

B: Is there a particular scene that you found particularly appealing (or unnecessary)?
LK: In general -- any scene with camels running across desert landscapes was really, really cool. Maybe if I saw it more than once, I would notice things that seemed unnecessary, but despite the fact that it was 3 1/2 hours long, nothing struck me as unnecessary (of course I hated the attack on the Turk troops and I covered my eyes, but the point seems to be the ugliness of war, etc., so I get that.)

B: After watching this film, would you like to know about the real T. E. Lawrence?
LK: Hell, yes. And more than just the Wikipedia entry. There is a 2008 book out on him, but I haven't found a review of it. You can get most of his own writings online, but I think I'd prefer more of a biography and historical context. I don't know a lot about the Arab Revolt. I think it would be really, really interesting and I'm sure it has a lot to do with contemporary issues in the region.

B: What did you think of the music? Will you buy the sound track?
LK: Maybe I already have...
B: What!?
LK: Kidding. But yes, I was into it. It was so interesting that on the DVD there is this explanation at the beginning that you aren't supposed to be seeing anything while the overture plays. It's a blank screen so that you are just listening to the music. It gives it a much higher level of importance as a result -- and when the same themes occur later in the movie, they have more power.

B: What prompted you to see this film in the first place anyway?
LK: Because it's famous. And epic. (I thought you put it in the queue.)
B: No. No. YOU put it in the queue.
LK: I'm pretty sure it was you...

5 minutes on craigslist

Sometimes a classified ad tells you much more than what is for sale. (Which reminds me, I should check where 24 Hours on Craigslist is in our queue. I'd heard good things about it.)

Anyway, I hesitate to imagine the story behind this recent entry that appeared on Honolulu Craiglist:

Great Deal For Anyone Getting Married - $1000

Brand new wedding dress. I only ever tried it on at the store and then again at home for these pictures. It needs a new home where it can make it down the aisle. My loss is your gain! $1200 dress. ...

I have a full wedding ring set for sale. The full set is worth $1875 and in excellent condition. The mens ring is 14kt yellow gold with a comfort fit band. Size 9. Purchased for $175. The womans wedding ring is very unique and one of a kind. It is a mix of yellow and white gold to form a "lovers knot". Diamonds are set all across the knot to total 5/8 of a karat. It is a size 7. Purchased for $1000

The engagement ring is also yellow gold with a 1/4 karat diamond set in the middle. This ring is also a size 7. Purchased for $700.

Beyond charming

Surprisingly enough, we again are posting a review of a movie we watched on an airplane. Both LK and B saw Enchanted (2007) during our separate trips last week (me to San Francisco and B to NC).

And you know what? I'd watch it again.

I never would have picked this up on my own, and if I hadn't heard such good reviews of it ("It's enchanting!") I wouldn't have made it through the first 5 minutes, assuming it was something inane and saccharine. Well, it had elements of inanity and saccharinity (that could totally be a word!), but it was all part of the gag.

The basic premise is that Giselle -- a soon-to-be princess and resident of a Disney animated princessy universe (yes, 'princessy' is also totally a word) gets pushed (by the prince's wicked stepmother) out into the 3D world of New York City. It's terribly -- and surprisingly -- charming.

And it wasn't just me. The early-twenties young man next to me on the plane also laughed all the way through.

So it's great for adults, but I wonder what kids would think. And I'll warn you that the whole thing goes about 15 minutes beyond where it should with a ridiculous CG episode with a giant dragon climbing up a building that is wholly unnecessary, but just get up and start doing something else once Giselle has been saved by true love's kiss. (What? I'm not giving anything away. It's a Disney princess story!) But that last bit isn't enough to ruin the charm of the rest of it. Go forth and enjoy.

And who doesn't love the color red?!

I really had no idea what this was about, but had heard great things about it and it has some of Pedro Almodovar's regulars (including Penélope Cruz).

It is gorgeous, of course, being Almodovar. (The NYTimes review by A.O. Scott was, in fact, titled "The Darkest of Troubles in the Brightest of Colors"!) But more than that, it is complicated, unresolved, and in many ways totally incredible (as in, not credible). But it was totally charming and sympathetic at the same time.

As always, Almodovar's film is all about women and their relationships with each other -- and men seem sort of peripheral. A catalyst for events, frequently, but somehow still not all that significant. B the Observant noticed that the identity of these women as self-contained has been carried through in the names of the characters we hear spoken in the opening scene: Raimunda, Augustina, and Paula are all feminized versions of men's names. (How better to convey these women's independent natures than nominally granting them elements of both sexes.)

The basic plot is....is...well,...it's not very basic. There are a few women, some of them are relatives (mothers, sisters, aunts), but some are neighbors (which is like family), and there are a couple of, to put it bluntly, murders, some significant deceptions, and quite a bit of confusion, but it's all good!

But as is always true when he is at his best, Almodovar's film can be enjoyed at many levels. It's visually stunning, very smart, very funny, very dramatic, very sentimental, very irreverent, and many other "very"s all wrapped up in one entertaining package. A fabulous movie and well worth two hours.

The Flying Scotsman

The Flying Scotsman (2006) is based on the autobiography of Graeme Obree, a Scottish cyclist who is famous for designing his own bike and introducing a new riding position. Most memorable for the press and non-cyclists, he is known for having incorporated part of his washing machine in the bike that he built.

I had heard an interview with Billy Boyd (you may know him as Pippin from The Lord of the Rings triology), who plays Obree's friend/manager, and I put the movie in the queue. I'd previously never heard of this person, but when I told B I'd heard about this new movie about a guy who built a bike with a part from his washing machine, he knew exactly who it was (of course).

We really enjoyed the film. You don't have to be a bike lover, but it doesn't hurt.
I give it 4 1/2 chainrings.

Best. Movie. Ever.

Okay, well at least it's the best movie we've seen in a very long time.

Last night, we watched Brick. The movie came out around or shortly after the time I'd been reading all those Raymond Chandler mysteries. So of course I put this one in the queue, as I was all primed for a little film noir detective schtuff.

(Besides, who doesn't love Joseph Gordon-Levitt?)

The basic premise is that high school student Brendan gets a call from his ex-girlfriend who is clearly in distress. The disjointed conversation drops a few clues that he eventually follows to their source (although she, meanwhile, has been killed). It's very hard-boiled detective-esque. There's the authority he must work around (the assistant vice principal), femme fatales (in drama club, among other places), and there is even a reference to an "old guy" -- around 26 years old. And yet despite the inherent comedy of much of this set-up, the plot is deadly earnest, and you don't doubt it or the characters for a moment.

Regular readers may remember that I've frequently said something along the lines of, well this movie is quite good or this is quite enjoyable, but it is "not without flaws." In Brick, we noticed no flaws. And while I will grant that it's quite possible not everyone will like this movie, we certainly thought it was exceptionally well executed and we enjoyed it immensely.

Here's lookin' at you, kid.

We were in the mood for a classic, and so we pulled out one of our 'recycled' dvds - Casablanca. I'd seen it once, ages ago. B had never seen it.

The "good" guys are all charismatic and smart. All the men are good looking (ok, maybe not Peter Lorre...). The ending is the perfect balance of tying up loose ends but leaving things a bit unsettled...

Sigh...

Movie review gem

NYT reviewer Manohla Dargis describes the main characters of newly released monster movie Cloverfield as:

"Smart as Tater Tots and just as differentiated."

Love it.

Not so funny, actually

For some reason, I'd put A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum in our queue. Perhaps it was because it is inspired by the ancient Roman comedies of Plautus. (Interestingly, Miles Gloriosus is, in fact, a play attributed to Plautus and is the origin of the stock character in Roman comedies.) Perhaps I had the lyrics of a song caught in my head one day. I no longer recall why, but I figured we'd enjoy it anyway.

We didn't.

With more than half the songs cut, so, too, was most of the wit. Overall, it was very disappointing. I mean, how do you know how important Psuedolus's freedom is to him without him and Hero singing "Free"? And how do you understand the complexity of Domina's feelings for Senex without her conflicted yet impassioned "That Dirty Old Man"?

The best thing I can say for it is that it is, at least, mercifully short.

P.S. I should add, although it is probably obvious, that I love the stage version. It's only this movie that I am critiquing. I think the musical is great fun and horribly politically incorrect. My father played in the orchestra of a community theater's production (in the 70s, I assume) and my sister and I were raised knowing the words of the entire musical.

PSA: The importance of monitoring your queue

Like most Netflix users, we just add things to the queue as we are inspired. We always intend to finesse the top of the queue so as not to get, say, three French dramas with subtitles or two war documentaries in a row. So when we mail in our movies, we try to remember to check the queue before our new films are sent out in case we aren't in the mood for something, etc.

But sometimes we forget.

This week we received the well-considered pairing of Black Orpheus (1959) and A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum (1966).

So, anyone want to come over on Saturday?

One protagonist in search of an author

In Stranger Than Fiction (2006), Will Farrell plays it straight as Harold Crick, an obsessive-compulsive IRS auditor who one morning hears a narrator in his head. I thought it to be a very fresh and clever premise and, despite being fully aware of it, I still found it surprising when the conventional voice-over is acknowledged by the character. Crick is understandably disturbed and annoyed by the voice. What impels Crick to seek the narrator, however, is hearing the voice say these ominous words: "Little did he know that this simple, seemingly innocuous act would result in his imminent death."

Crick is desperate to find out what is happening to him and so seeks the only person he can think of to help with a literary affliction: an English professor. As Crick explains his problem, Dr. Jules Hilbert (Dustin Hoffman) recognizes "Little did he know..." as a characteristic phrase in the work of literary novelist Karen Eiffel (Emma Thompson). It would appear that Crick is actually the main character in her current manuscript-in-progress. Another element shared by her novels is that they typically end with the protagonist's death. Thus, having identified the author, he sets out to try to persuade her not to kill him.

Crick learns about himself through the eyes of the narrator as well as from recent experiences in his own life -- or what may be his own life -- including his romance with baker Ana (Maggie Gyllenhaal). While I suspect that some things might be especially amusing for us lit-geeks (the professor tells Crick that entire dissertations have been written on "little did he know"), I don't think it is limited in its appeal. This is a movie that manages to be great fun, yet deeply serious all at once. And the unanswered questions aren't frustrating, but interesting. It is quite satisfying, overall.

The movie also has really cool graphics.

And according to IMDB, the credits include a special thanks to the ubiquitous Jacques Perrin.

A little frivolous fun

Bend It Like Beckham (2002) was very popular, I understand, in the UK. And I think here, too. And in India. And no wonder -- it is terribly cute. It's definitely flawed, but it is nonetheless charming. So charming, in fact, I think it would be just plain mean spirited to cut it down.

First things first: should I explain what the title means? Footballer David Beckham is famous for being able to somehow kick a ball in such a way that it curves around the goalie to score. This, of course, refers to more than soccer and is a metaphor for how the characters need to "bend it" to work around their own obstacles.

The basic premise of the movie is that young British Indian Jess (Parminder Nagra) is a great soccer/football talent, but she gets resistance from her family, who would rather see her in a more traditional role (mind you, "traditional" expectations include her studying to be a barrister and she doesn't have an arranged marriage waiting for her). Another young woman and soccer player, Jules (Keira Knightley) approaches Jess at the park, like some kind of clean teen stalker (oops, I said I wouldn't poke at it, didn't I?), and scouts Jess for the local women's team. Jess and Jules become instant best friends who have a falling out over a boy but real friendship and sports[chick]ship ultimately wins the day (drat, I can't help making a bit of fun). And while there is much talk of football, we see very little. This could be accounted for by the fact that these are actors, not athletes (this may be typical for movies about team sports, I don't know).

Okay, I give up. I can't let it lie completely. But although it appears that I cannot write about it without my inner critic rearing its not-so-pretty head, I did just relax and watch the movie and it was great fun. There are some very funny bits we both enjoyed.

One thing in the movies favor, on an intellectual level, is that these girls may have posters of David Beckham on their walls, but not just because he's a babe. No, they want to be him. They are shown as having serious goals and are intrinsically motivated to reach them. They aren't doing this for a guy, for parents, or anyone but themselves.

So I recommend stuffing your inner critic with some crispy spring rolls and giving it some sake and it'll just sit back and let you enjoy yourself. Life is good.