Living in two cultures isn’t easy.  Neither is making a romantic comedy that will appeal to both cultures.  But writer/director Alice Wu has done it with Saving Face.

Wilhelmina is first generation Chinese-American.  She is single, living on her own, and on her way to becoming an accomplished surgeon in New York City.  She’s also a mostly-in-the-closet lesbian.  A fact only a few friends know.

Wil is also the daughter and granddaughter of very traditional Chinese immigrants.  Her grandfather is a Professor and respected elder in the Chinese community of Flushing, NY.  Her long widowed mother is a beautician who lives with and cares for her parents, and is determined to find Wil a husband.

Rather than come out to her family, Wil plays the role of the good daughter, dutifully attending the weekly social mixers at the Chinese social club where her mother introduces her to a variety of appropriate suitors each week.

All seems to be going along well, until the evening Wil’s mother shows up on her door step in tears and with luggage.  She has been banished by her father.  Turns out Ma is pregnant.  And unwed.  And 48.  She has no intention of naming or marrying the father of her baby.  Ma is determined to set up house with Wil and won’t discuss the baby at all.

Then Wil meets Vivian, a beautiful Chinese ballet dancer who pursues Wil openly.  They being dating in secret – both because of Wil’s family and because Vivian’s father just happens to be Wil’s boss.

The more entrenched Ma becomes in her apartment the more Wil realizes she has to do something.  She has to help her mother find someone to marry, so both her mother and grandfather can save face, and so Wil can get her own life back.

If Stephen King horror is your kind of horror, then you probably read his short story collection Nightmares & Dreamscapes.  If you did, you might want to check out the movie version of  Dolan’s Cadillac (one of the stories in N&D).  Although be warned – there’s probably a reason this went straight to DVD.

Starring Christian Slater and Wes Bentley,  Dolan’s Cadillac is a story of murder and revenge done Stephen King style.

Tom Robinson (Bentley) is a middle school science teacher in Las Vegas.  One afternoon his wife Elizabeth decides to go for a horseback ride into the desert and accidentally witnesses a mob hit by Vegas gangster Jimmy Dolan (Slater). Robinson and his wife go to the FBI and are taken into protective custody.   Before the trial date arrives,  his wife sneaks out of the safe house and promptly gets blown to bits a-la-car-bomb.

With no witness left, Dolan goes free.  And slowly Robinson’s need for revenge takes over his life.  He buys a gun with plans to just walk up and shoot Dolan.  But he discovers he doesn’t have the stomach for that.   His thirst for revenge won’t let him stop, and a complicated, drawn out plan begins to take shape.  One that will take Dolan down for good.

Now I have to admit, I got way too creeped out by this movie to actually watch the entire thing.  Stephen King scares me.  And  Horror flicks just don’t do it for me.  But Christian Slater I like, so I gave it a shot.

Somebody please watch this one all the way through and tell me what you think of the ending.   Who’s creepier – Christian Slater or Wes Bently?  For me it was a toss up.

Just because a big name film critic likes or dislikes a movie, it doesn’t mean I will.  I usually don’t agree with critics.  But in the case of last winter’s Did you hear about the Morgans? They weren’t far wrong to call it a forgettable fish-out-of-water comedy.  It is pretty much that… forgettable.   But it was fun.  (Although I’m not sure the director wanted it to be a comedy).

I wish I could say that Hugh Grant and Sarah Jessica Parker played these characters in fresh new ways – but they didn’t.   While it’s true  that Carrie Bradshaw was nowhere to be found,  and it was nice to see Shara Jessica Parker NOT trying to be funny, Hugh Grant played his character so close to everything else he’s done recently I sometimes wonder if he’s not even acting.

The plot is your basic fish out of water story:  Two big city soon-to-be-divorced spouses witness a murder, end up stuck together in the Federal witness protection program.  They get sent off to the wilds of nowhere to hide.  In this case, to the itty bitty map dot of Ray, Wyoming.

And yes, it’s kind of a Western – so you expect there to be a Sheriff in town, and casting Sam Elliott as the Sheriff  was perfect.  It just wouldn’t have been a semi-western without that voice or that mustache.  On horseback even!   (if you’re a fan of that mustache, check out this web site ).

Casting Mary Steenburgen as Elliott’s gun-toting,  sharp shooting wife and was inspired!   I just never expected to see Mary Steenburgen carrying  a thirty-ought- six.

But the fish out of water plot might not be the point of the movie.  The movie seems to be more about the relationship between SJP and HG.   And Elliot and Steenburgen too, to some extent.  What makes a marriage fail?  What makes another marriage work?  What do you learn about each other when you stop and listen for a change?

But there are lots of fun moments too.  Like what happens when two New Yorkers experience a Bargain Barn for the first time.

Award winning filmmakeing this isn’t.   A fun way to spend 103 minute?  Sure.

After my last less than satisfying animation adventure (see my blog post about “Monsters vs. Aliens”)  I needed a Pixar fix in a bad way.   Up to the rescue!

Written and Directed by Pixar vunderkin Pete Doctor, the man behind Monsters Inc. , Toy Story,  Mike’s new car, and Wall-E, Up is classic Pixar.  With  real characters, and a real story with all the twists, turns, and fantastic animation we’ve all come to love from a Pixar film.  And the animation itself was amazing.

Up is the story of Carl Fredricksen.  A shy young boy with dreams of becoming a famous explorer like his idol Charles Muntz.  Carl meets his match in Ellie, a young girl determined to see the world.  In a dialogless  sequence we see Carl and Ellie grow up, marry, and build a life together.  A life with all sorts of ups, downs, and adventures.  We see them grow old together, and see Ellie pass away.

Now Carl is left a lone, an elderly man, set in his ways.  Determined to spend his days in the house he and Ellie built, as the world changes around him.   When he’s forced out of his home and into a retirement home, Carl comes up with a way to have one last great adventure – and take his house with him.

As he’s plotting his escape, Russell appears on his doorstep.   Russell is a young boy trying to earn his “assist the elderly” badge for Adventure Scouts, and has decided to help Carl, even though Carl neither wants or needs help.

When Carl sets off on his great adventure to find the Lost Paradise Falls,  Russell accidentally  comes along.  Together they make their way to  South America, where they meet a giant bird Russel names Kevin.  They are befriended by a large dog who, thanks to his amazing collar,  is able to talk to humans.  His name is Dug, and it turns out his evil owner is none other than missing adventurer Charles Muntz.

Muntz has spent his lifetime trying to find a bird like Kevin, and will do anything he can to capture Kevin – dead or alive.  Carl and Russel battle Muntz first to save Kevin and then to save themselves.

Up is a great movie in may ways.  The animation is fantastic, and the adventure will suck you in.  But what I liked best is the relationship that builds between the elderly Carl and the young Russel.  As they are forced to rely on each other, they being to respect and care for each other as well.  And in the end we see how truly close they have become.

NOTE:  as with any other good comedy, stay for the credits.  It’s not really a gag real, but through photographs and post cards, you’ll see that this wasn’t actually the last adventure for Carl, Russell and Dug.

What does it mean when a movie that got all sorts of raves when it came out in 3-D  falls flat when you watch it on regular 2 dimensional DVD?   Does that say a lot about the special effects, or very little about the plot?

I missed seeing Monsters vs. Aliens this summer when it was in theaters.   Boy what a let down. Having heard so much about it, I was expecting great things.   But the story was way too predictable.   Though the animation was nice to look at.

For those of you who missed it,  here’s the plot:   A young woman named Susan is exposed to alien radiation from a meteorite and grows to be 50 feet tall.   She’s whisked away by the government to a super secret facility where “monsters” have been housed since the 1950′s to protect the innocence of all of America.   There she is nicknamed Ginormica by the evil General W.R. Monger, and she meets the other monster inmates:  B.O.B (a blob), the evil genius Dr. Cockroach, The Missing Link (think creature from the black lagoon), and the super-sized Insectosaurus.

When  Earth is invaded by an alien space probe intent on taking over the world, the President and the military try everything they can to defeat the invaders, but they just can’t win.  So as a last resort they turn the “monsters”  loose in hopes that they can save the day.

The casting of this was actually quite funny.  I spent way too much time trying to figure out  who some of the voices were:  Reece Witherspoon as Ginormica was easy.  But the rest took a bit:  Seth Rogan as B.O.B,  Hugh Laurie as Dr. Cockroach, Will Arnett as The Missing Link,  Stephen Colbert as the President and Kiefer Sutherland as the General.

There is very little in the way of character development  for any of the characters other than Susan/Ginormica.  Where was the back story for all the other “monsters”?    The 1950′s-esque  “social misfits hidden from the public who then save the day” plot was way too  predictible, even from the start.  It wasn’t new or amazing at all.   So it must have been the 3D effects that everyone thought were so great.

When you watch this movie in regular old 2-D,  don’t expect to be as wowed as everyone who saw it in the theaters.  Pixar this is not.  A lightly entertaining way to fill an hour and a half instead of shoveling snow?  Ok, that it is.

The first time I watched Duplicity I got totally lost.

The second time I watched it I had the basic plot, but I still missed a bunch.

I love movies that confuse me.   Writer/Director Tony Gilroy, is a master at playing with time lines.  And if you’re not paying attention he’ll just get you lost.  Even though I’ve watched this multiple times, I’m still confused.

Film guru Roger Ebert said it best – it’s like  Spy vs. Spy The Movie.

Duplicity feels like a cross between The Usual Suspects and an old school espionage movie.  Nothing is quite what it seems.  But then again, everything is exactly what it seems – only not.

There’s a cross that you see coming, and a double cross you can predict.   And the one after that we see unfold.  But the one after that – wait.. how many was that again?    We think we know who’s scamming who, and why.   And we think we know who’s who.  But do we really?   And we see the sparks fly between the main characters – but is that a set up too?

Claire (Julia Roberts) and  Ray (Clive Owen) first met 9 years ago in Dubai, when she was working for the CIA and he for MI6.  In true spy v. spy form she sets him up, he takes the fall, and she walks away with the prize.   Years later both have moved into the private sector working high tech security.  Or is it espionage?

Their paths cross again 9 years later when they end up working for rival multinational corporations.   Or are they?   Was it really coincidence that brought them together again?   Is this really only the 2nd time they’ve met?   We know there’s more going on here than meets they eye, and so do Claire and Ray.   The more they don’t trust each other, the more we begin to wonder what we should believe.   Who’s playing who?   And is the audience being played too?

But then, figuring that out is half the fun!

When I sat down to watch The Proposal with Ryan Reynolds and Sandra Bullock, I was all psyched up  to see  Van Wilder vs. Gracie Heart.   And that’s pretty much what I got -  for the first 15 minutes or so.

The plot is pretty much what you expect: Manhattan publishing powerhouse  blackmails her male assistant into marrying her so she can avoid being deported (to Canada).  He blackmails her right back, agreeing only if she’ll publish his manuscript.   She hardly knows he’s alive.  But she can’t function without him.  He despises her, but she controls his career.

To convince the Immigration officials they this isn’t a green card marriage – which of course it is – they head off to Andrew’s hometown, Sitka, Alaska,  to introduce Margaret to Andrew’s family.  And what a family it is!  Craig T. Nelson as a disapproving father, Mary Steenburgen as an overly doting mother, and Betty White as Grandma Annie – who takes eccentric to new levels.

The Proposal is a comedy, and in that way it’s perfectly cast.   But there’s more to it then just a your usual fish out of water story, although Bullock is great in that role.   There’s more to these characters than just what they want each other to see.  A lot more.

They each have their own baggage.  Tough-as-nails Margaret  isn’t really as hard as she’s pretending to be.  And Andrew knows way too much about Margaret to simply be her assistant.  He knows her inside and out – and is fascinated by her.  Only he doesn’t see it.

As with most “not what I thought it was going to be” movies, this one was even better the second time I watched it.   I didn’t miss as much of the subtleties the second time through.

One of the newer additions to the ICPL Movie/Television collection is the short lived ABC series Sports Night, which originally aired in 1998-2000.  Sports Night is a behind the scenes look at what it takes to produce a nightly sports news program, coincidentally called Sports Night.

Staring Felicity Huffman, Josh Charles, Peter Kraus, and Joshua Malina, Sports Night isn’t actually about sports.  It’s about sports-journalism.  About what it’s like to produce a nightly sports news show.  The focus is actually on the people it takes to make a nightly TV show work.  The writers, producers, researchers and interview subjects.  It’s sports, it’s television and it’s comedy too.

Unfortunately, Sports Night received little support from its parent network ABC, and thus only ran for two years.  But it was beloved by a strange hard core audience of sports fans and journalism geeks.  (I can say that because I was one of those geeks!)  And we have eagerly awaited it’s release on DVD.

I have to admit, it’s easier to watch on DVD than it was when it was originally broadcast.  Each episode is fast paced and plot dense.  They covered a lot of ground in 30 minutes each week, and I now find myself backing up and watching some scenes a second time to catch it all.

And there’s another reason Sports Night is easier to watch in 2009 then it was 10 years ago – we’ve all gotten used to that fast pace and style of television.

Why would I say that?

Sports Night was created by Aaron Sorkin, and the next series he created (during the final season of Sports Night) will go down in history as one of the most watched series of all times.  You may have seen it.. it was called The West Wing.

If you liked the pace and depth of The West Wing, and are a fan of late night sports news shows, give Sports Night a try.  You’ll really be glad you did.