GIRLS - Season 3 In Review

Well, with the airing of Two Plane Rides, season three of GIRLS comes to an end, and i for one am sad to see it go. It appears that we will have to wait another ten months for any new GIRLS content, but that's the name of the game with HBO, the good news is that VEEP will be starting soon, so we have that to look forward to. This season of GIRLS has really been a high for the series, the show has managed to balance nudity and character development, and for once the nudity feels neither exploitative or unnecessary, and we finally get to know these characters as people.

The main focus of the season has been the relationship between Hannah and Adam, for once they seem to be in a good place, and their relationship is based on mutual respect. Interestingly the amount of sex in their relationship seems to be inversely proportional to how happy they are, in previous seasons Adam treats Hannah almost like an object, and he expects her to be available for sex at any time. Later on in the season the sex is almost non existent from the relationship, and this makes Hannah worried and scared about the state of their relationship. Interestingly, for Adam, he tells her that they don't have sex as much anymore because he actually cares about her, and he actually respects her as a person.

Sex is still almost omnipresent in the show, Marnie seems to have sex more than all the other characters, and although she is nude much less than Hannah, she is much more manipulative in the way she uses sex, sex is how she controls Ray and she the fact that she feels able to judge Hannah and the other characters is astounding. Marnie is easily the least likeable of the leads, she is manipulative and conniving, and she seems to have no respect for either her girlfriends, nor for any of the men in her life. Shoshanna and Jessa are by far the most underused characters this season, Shoshanna became slightly shrill and a little two dimensional. Jessa is also underused, however her storylines feel developed and realistic. Jessa goes through a lot this season, going to rehab and hitting bottom, Jessa is the only character who has a real moral compass, whe has strong opinions and views and she rarely deviates from them, what is interesting about Jessa is that her moral views is that they differ from 'classic' morality, and she has views that seem slightly amoral to the audience.

The season ends with Hannah and Shoshanna reaching real crossroads in their lives, and having to make real decisions about their futures. Jessa and Marnie essentially end up right back when they started, Marnie begins the season heartbroken, and she ends heartbroken. The fact that she feels this with two different men is a testament to the somewhat questionable choices she makes in her life. Jessa also ends up in exactly the same position, she stars the season as a drug addict, and she ends as a drug addict, the fact that these characters don't really change is a testament to how vacuous and naive these girls are. Despite everything they go through in the series, they never really learn from it, and the audience watches them make the same bad choices over and over again.

I give GIRLS huge credit for a fantastic third season, possibly the best season of the show yet, the show should be lauded for its ability to make the show's main characters truly unlikeable and unpleasant, and yet keeping them compelling. the show doesn't need to find a reason to make these characters even partly understandable or empathetical is risky and interesting, but the gamble pays off, and the characters become highly compelling, because of their flaws. I have high anticipation for the next season of this show, and i laud this season for it's frank portrayal of sex, relationships and female friendship. Rating: A-

It's made me want to find a hole in the world, in the shape of me, and just fill it up.

The Rise and Fall of Glee

A few years ago i got hooked on a little show called Glee. Enchanted by the dancing and the music, the show appealed to some of my more camp sensibilities. The show just celebrated their 100th episode, and with the announcement that the next season would be the last, i though now was as good a time as ever to write about the show, and to compare the latest episodes of the show with the early episodes, that made me fall in love with the show. The show is currently in it's sixth season, and i've been watching it since the second season. Particularly for a high school show, six years is a long time for a show to be on the air, and as such the show has gone through numerous cast changes.

The show as it is today is a mere shadow of what it once was, the show has gone from being fiercely proud of how uncool it was, to desperately trying to be cool. The music performed on the show has gone from being a fun blend of show tunes and 80's pop music, to being so up to date and of the moment that watching back old episodes three weeks later they suddenly feel dated. The show is trying so hard to be current that in some cases by the time the episodes air, they are already dated. For example in one episode they covered 'What Does The Fox Say', about a month after that fad had already ended.

Being a high school themed show, the cast has changed cyclically since the first few seasons. Where the show really started to go downhill for me was when the first class graduated. The class of students that included Rachel, Kurt and Mercedes had so much charisma and charm, and were such a disparate group of misfits that they were somehow endearing. They were believable, because one could truly understand that they would be the outcasts in school and that they would be shunned by the popular kids. The current class of students, however attractive are in no way believable as misfits, because they would all be the popular kids in school. Let's be honest, Marley, obese mum aside, would have lots of friends in school, and as one of the highly unpopular kids in school, i can say that unpopular kids do not look like this.

There is also a sharp difference in talent, Mercedes, Rachel and Kurt are all truly fantastic singers, and although Marley, Jacob, Ryder and Wade are okay singers, none of them is fantastic. Interestingly one episode focused on finding 'the new Rachel', and despite devoting a whole episode to it, the show still hasn't found one, and the show doesn't have a single lead character to anchor the show around.

The other problem is the storylines, the original seasons were lauded for their frank description of sex, teen pregnancy, sexuality and relationships. The pregnancy storyline involving Quinn, Puck and Finn is a particular highlight, as is the romantic storyline between Santana and Brittney. Although i highly praise the current transgender storyline featuring Unique, and it is really the only trans storyline in a mainstream show, but the rest of the storylines feel very pedestrian, the love triangle between Marley, Jake and Ryder is a little overdrawn, and a bit been there done that.

Overall, the new Glee is a shadow of what it once was, i have high hopes for the fest of this season, with the show's focus switching to New York, where many of the show's good cast members lie, and i hope that the show can regain what it once had before the show ends for good. Focusing on the more interesting cast members and shifting focus away from some of the newer cast members (Marley, Jake, Ryder) will aid the show in regaining some of it's old character and personality.

RIP Corey Monteith: 1982-2013

Artistic Capers in Europe

The Monuments Men is a 2014 historical caper film starring and directed by George Clooney. The film follows a group of  art historians, architects and sculptors as they travel around Europe, disguised as soldiers, attempting to reclaim works of art stolen by the nazi's.The film stars an ensemble cast featuring Clooney, Bill Murray, Matt Damon,Bob Balaban, John Goodman, Jean Dujardin and Cate Blanchett. The film features a talented and diverse cast, and the performances are mostly good, Cate Blanchett's performance is standout as Claire, a troubled and conflicted double agent working both for the nazi's and with the resistance, and her grasp of the french accent is impressive. Also strong is John Goodman's performance as Garfield, and he plays this predominantly comic character with real heard and deep emotion.

This film is based on a true story, however that works to it's disadvantage, during the film the main group of characters split up, and thus the chemistry between the group is vastly diminished. The first part of the film sort of works because of the complex links between all the characters and because of the strong chemistry between the group of the whole. Splitting the group up into four groups leads to fast cuts between sets of characters, robbing the film of majesty and charisma. The other big story problem is that we are not given enough history on any of the characters, we don't know enough about their work or their pasts, and we don't fully understand the conflicts that arise between the characters, such as a running rivalry between Bob Balaban and Bill Murray's characters, that is simply never explained. Because of the lack of explanation, we never fully believe in them as art historians or architects, and thus the whole film comes off as a sort of farce.

The Monuments Men is undeniably gorgeous to look at, the cinematography is fantastic and the film looks great as a whole. The film just feels highly pedestrian and unexciting, the plot of the film has the opportunity to be exciting and thrilling, and whilst i was happy to see a fun war caper, i doubt i will much remember the film in a few months, for despite the good performances and beautiful cinematography, the only response i can really give to The Monuments Men, is a resounding 'Meh'. Rating: C-

Frank Stokes: You can wipe out an entire generation, you can burn their homes to the ground and somehow they'll still find their way back. But if you destroy their history, you destroy their achievements and it's as if they never existed.

The Death of the Action Hero

The modern age of cinema really only has one real action hero. Gone are the eighties or nineties where seeing a name like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Bruce Willis was enough to make a movie, and where box office returns could be guaranteed, simply due to the presence of a star. Those days have passed, and it is perhaps a good thing that they have, movie franchises are no longer based around a central charismatic figure, that would be too risky, instead they are based around brand; the Transformers franchise is a good example of this, the first three movies featured Shia LeBoeuf in a central role, but when he announced his reluctance to appear in another film, rather than simply give up on the franchise, in was continued with a different actor, Mark Wahlberg. We live in a world in which Hollywood action heroes are entirely disposable, no-one is irreplaceable, and no actor is instrumental to the success or failure of a movie, the names of actors are relegated to the small print of movie posters, to leave space for the logos and giant robots.

The only action hero left is Dwayne Johnson, he recently referred to himself as franchise steroids, and he was the highest grossing actor of 2013. He successfully revitalized GI Joe, the Fast and the Furious Franchise, and the Journey series. Johnson has, not only the brawn, but also the charisma and charm of action heroes of yore, and his box office draw is unparalleled. The only other possible candidate is Jennifer Lawrence, who really carries the entire Hunger Games franchise on her shoulders, and who is the franchise's greatest asset. Will Smith used to be one of the biggest action heroes of all time, and was consistently one of the industries biggest draws, however in 2013 we were delivered After Earth, a film with not one but two Smith's, and in short the film flopped both commercially and critically. A name is simply not enough to guarantee box office success anymore, and Fox, unwilling to pay Will Smith a ridiculous amount for his participation in Independence Day 2, has replaced him with another actor.

Action heroes are not what they used to, even those that still do matter don't have the charisma or charm that Schwarzenegger or Willis have, all one needs to become an action hero is a decent set of abs. Take the 300 franchise, Gerard Butler refused to return for the sequel, and he was replaced, in an industry beyond the Hollywood studio system, where stars are no longer signed to studios, studios are keen to sign actors up for multiple picture deals, and if they refuse, they're replaced. Movies have changed, and actors are too volatile to hold up a franchise on their own, so studios prefer to base their films around CGI robots and monsters, creating brands rather than characters.

Looking back on Looking

Well, this sunday marked the last episode of the first season of new HBO comedy LOOKING. We recently learned that against all odds, the show was renewed for a second season by HBO. The show follows three gay friends living in San Franciso, the series mainly follows Patrick, played by Jonathon Groff as he attempts to find a boyfriend, as well as the exploits of his friends Dom, played by Murray Bartlett as he tries to progress professionally and find love, and Augustin (played by Frankie J. Alvarez), a struggling artist working as a call boy who moves in with his boyfriend.

The series got off to an auspicious if perhaps a slow start, and the show was strong out of the gate, the first few episodes gave us just the right blend of character development and story arc, and managed to pique our interest with complex and well defined characters, and story-lines that were risque enough to keep audiences watching. The show is fairly slow, and this is typical of Andrew Haigh's work, particularly on his 2011 film Weekend, which laid the groundwork for much of LOOKING's narrative structure and visual style. The first few episodes gave us a quick reason to care for these characters, and thus gave us a reason to watch the show.

The show has had a few standout episodes, episode 5, Looking to the Future features an extended conversation between Patrick and new flame Ritchie, taking place over a whole day the two discuss bottoming, HIV and anal sex. This episode is indicative of the shows willingness to discuss gay sex openly and frankly, many shows in the past, even gay centric shows, have shyed away from talking too graphically about gay sex so as not to alienate a straight audience, but LOOKING takes advantage of HBO's significantly younger audience and discusses these topics in frank and interesting ways. The discussion about bottoming is especially significant, as it is something those not members of the gay community will necessarily understand, the dialogue between Ritchie and Paddy about bottoming represents the internal homophobia inherent in the gay community at the moment, where all that is masculine (and by extension heterosexual) is considered virile and desirable. Patrick's refusal to bottom for Ritchie represents in part his internal self loathing and his discomfort with being gay, and his inability to open up to Ritchie about his needs and desires.

This theme will be revisited in the season finale, Patrick has a flirtation with his boss throughout the series, which culminates in a brief kiss at the wedding, and which is finally realized in the finale when Kevin (Patrick's boss) lures him to the office late at night, where they have sex, with Patrick assuming the role of the bottom. Again this encounter represents some of the internal homophobia of the gay community, Patrick finally agreeing to bottom represents not only the inherent difference between his relationship with Ritchie and his relationship with Kevin, but also the fact that as his boss, Kevin is in a position of power, is thus stronger and more typically masculine, and thus he assumes the role of the top. The series uses sex a huge amount, in order to show the connections between the characters. The sex between Ritchie and Patrick is sweet, and loving, but lacks passion, and the sex between Patrick and Kevin is passionate and graphic. Augustin and his boyfriend have trouble connecting, and always feel the need to bring someone else into the bedroom, and Dom looks for fleeting encounters with young twinks from Grindr, as an attempt to feel young and free.

The show deserves to be lauded for its use of sex, and sex is used intelligently as a tool in order to show us how the relationships between the characters progress, the use of sex in the show is creative and doesn't feel gratuitous. The concept of the show is that everyone is looking for something, a boyfriend, an apartment or a relationship, a job or a promotion, however rather than showing us how they got them, the show uses the concept of constantly looking for something to show us that in a sense we are always looking, and that even if we do occasionally find what we are looking for, mostly, life is just a perpetual cycle of looking, and rarely finding. The show is visually interesting, smartly written and surely acted, and the characters are interesting enough to carry us through into season two. Rating: A-

Patrick: So now what?
Kevin: I don't know Patrick

It Was The Oscars!

In case no-one knows, two weeks ago were the 86th Academy Awards, marking the end of Awards Season (my favorite holiday), making this the last post i will be writing about the Oscars, even i realize that it has gotten out of hand, and i must quit, some addictions need to be tackled cold turkey. The 86th Academy Awards were held at the Dolby Theater on Sunday night, hosted by Ellen Degeneres for the second time. This was only the second time that the awards have been publicly referred to as The Oscars, and not as The Academy Awards, as part of the Academy's continued attempt to market themselves to younger viewers. The gamble paid off to an extent, with the telecast being the highest rated in many years, and being the highest rated American entertainment broadcast since the 2004 Friends finale. The Academy have claimed for many years that a billion people watch the telecast, and this year it was almost accurate.

The broadcast was hosted by Ellen Degeneres, who previously hosted in 2007. She brought her typically breezy, likeable persona to the ceremony, and was generally relaxed and friendly. The ceremony took a sharp detour from last years formula of carefully orchestrated gags and sketches, to a more relaxed format, with Ellen liberally wandering the aisles of the Dolby Theater chatting with members of the audience. The success of Ellen's hosting gig relies on her ability  to make fun of members of the audience without offending them à la Seth McFarlane. One of the fantastic things about Ellen Degeneres is that she is just inherently likeable, and that was apparent on Sunday, i am a huge fan of Ellen, particularly of her standup work, and the ceremony used her skills as a standup comedian well.

The telecast felt slick and well orchestrated, and went off with very few hitches. Yes, it was incredibly long, clocking in at over three hours, and yes there were a couple of dead moments, particularly during the presentation of the technical and short categories, but the producers made sure to stagger the more important categories to retain viewers interest all throughout the ceremony. As far as recipients go, there were almost no unexpected wins, and most of the frontrunners won their categories, perhaps the only surprising omission was Get A Horse!, a short film by The Walt Disney Studios. The live musical performances were generally appropriate and interesting, and it was nice to see all of the nominees for Best Original Song performed. Standout performances came from Idina Menzel (AKA Adele Dazeem), P!nk, who performed Over The Rainbow in a tribute to The Wizard of Oz, and Bette Midler, who performed Wind Beneath My Wings as part of the In Memorium segment.

Unlike at the Golden Globes, no-one was cut off by the awkward playing off music, and although the speeches were often long, noone cried and no-one thanked god, so that was a relief, in fact all four of the acting winners gave suitably rousing speeches. Last year, the music from Jaws was used to play people off, and the Academy even managed to incur the sympathy of Nicole Kidman. As with last year, the Oscars had a theme, celebrating Heroes in Hollywood. The Academy celebrated heroes using multiple video montages featuring animated heroes, everyday heroes and superheroes. The montages generally felt well placed. The only negative blemish on the whole ceremony was that in some cases, the scripted speeches before each category felt rather stilted and a little unrehearsed, these need to either be rewritten or better rehearsed. This years Oscar ceremony was the best for many years, and this was possibly the only year in which the Oscars were actually a little cooler than the Globes, boosted by a well produced, slick ceremony, and a great host in Ellen Degeneres.

Jared Leto and the Transgender Question

Well, i don't know if any of you have been living under a rock for the past few days, i assume if you are reading this blog you do at least have a limited interest in cinema, and of course internet access so i would hope that you now know that on sunday night, Jared Leto took home a much deserved Oscar for his role in Dallas Buyers Club. I'll review the ceremony later, but now i would like to talk about the prominence (or lack thereof) of transgender actors and characters in film and television. Leto's win generated a slight backlash from members of the LGBT and trans communities who felt that the role should have gone to a transgender actor.

Leto is a cisgender actor, who, in Dallas Buyers Club, plays Rayon, a pre-op transsexual struggling to fight AID's and import drugs, whilst being shunned by her family and community. Jared Leto's performance in this film is spectacular, it feels visceral and real, and we feel Rayon's pain just as much as she does. The reason Jared Leto deserves the Oscar is that when i watched this film, i couldn't help but root for Rayon, and after a certain point i stopped seeing Jared Leto, as he fell deeper and deeper into his character, getting lost under the layers of makeup and wigs. His performance is so powerful, that it would have been inconceivable to give anyone else the golden statuette.

I do however understand the arguments given by transgender activists, simply put, there are not enough transgender actors working in hollywood today, in fact there is really only one, Laverne Cox, who plays the sassy Sophia Burset, in Netflix's Orange Is The New Black, carries the weight of representing the entire trans community, which is unacceptable. A trans actor has never been nominated for either an Oscar or and Emmy, and this needs to be changed. The real problem is that it's not Leto's fault, and he shouldn't be condemned for his performance or rebuked for taking on this role, as he pulled it of with subtlety and dignity. Other films featuring cisgender actors playing transgender characters such as Transamerica featuring Felicity Huffman or Boys Don't Cry starring Hilary Swank also attempt to deal with this complex issue, and manage to pull it off successfully.

It is not Jared Leto's fault that there aren't enough trans actors working, but it is Hollywood's fault, minorities are very poorly represented by the academy, it is not just the trans community that is underrepresented, only around ten black actors have ever won Oscars for acting, and the academy is over eighty percent caucasian. If Jared Leto is shunned for playing a transsexual character, then Tom Hanks should be criticized for his role in Philadelphia, Sean Penn should never have played Harvey Milk, and Neil Patrick Harris would be criticized for playing a straight character on How I Met Your Mother. I don't really care about an actors back history, for instance i have no issue with Kevin McHale playing a disabled character on Glee, because i support art, and i support performance, and if actors were simply content to play themselves onscreen the film industry would be far less exciting.

The Academy loves transformation, and so do i, Leto's transformation into Rayon is astounding, as was Felicity Huffman's. I agree that something needs to be done about the prevalence of transgender actors, and this vital community needs to be given more opportunities within the film industry. However the issue of the transgender community being underrepresented is for the whole of Hollywood to bear, and not exclusively the responsibility of Jared Leto.

Popcorm@Movies - A Year In Review

Well, i don't suppose anyone but me noticed, but today is the first anniversary of Popcorn@Movies. And over the past year i have loved sharing recommendations, lists, essays, editorials and of course reviews, which have sort of become this blogs tent-pole franchise. This blog has gone from being an extension of my obsession with cinema to being an obsession all by itself, and i have enjoyed being able to share my passion and love of cinema with all of you. Writing a blog can feel like a very insular process and at first it feels a little like throwing pasta at the wall, and just hoping some of it sticks, and luckily for me my review of Argo ended up being the spark plug of this blog convincing me that this blog was a reliable option.

When i started this blog i was suffering from a relatively deep depression, and i found that writing, and going to see movies was one of the few things in my life that i was able to enjoy, i found that having a rhythm and a regular activity allowed me to see a light at the end of the tunnel. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to the impetus for this project, my best friend and brother, Paul. I do suspect that his suggestion was based more on him tiring of hearing me talk about the Oscars than from any altruism, but i was grateful nonetheless. Fear not Popcorn@Movies readers, there is a point to this post, i thought i would share some of my favorite reviews from the past year, some that were perhaps overlooked by readers!

STOKER: (http://josseonmovies.blogspot.fr/2013/05/stoker-thriller.html) I went to see this film not knowing what to expect, and was hugely impressed, Stoker is atmospheric, tense and suspenseful, and provides fantastic performances from its leads

SOARING OVER THE UNCANNY VALLEY: (http://josseonmovies.blogspot.fr/2013/06/soaring-over-uncanny-valley.html) This essay attempts to analyze the uncanny valley, and explores why it is such an interesting phenomenon and why so many motion capture animated films seem to fall into it.

THE PARADIGM SHIFT - PART 2: (http://josseonmovies.blogspot.fr/2013/07/the-paradigm-shift-part-2.html) This essay analyzes the story and concepts of Cloud Atlas (otherwise known as the greatest film ever made!) and looks at the adaptation of the book to the big screen.

COMPUTER GENERATED VS HAND DRAWN: (http://josseonmovies.blogspot.fr/2013/10/computer-generated-vs-hand-drawn.html) This is an essay which looks at the similarities between CGI animation and traditional hand drawn films of which i am a huge proponent.

THE BACKLASH AND AGAINST BLACKFISH: (http://josseonmovies.blogspot.fr/2014/01/the-backlash-against-blackfish.html) This was Popcorn@Movies first ever current affairs article, analyzing the backlash against SeaWorld as a result of documentary Blackfish.

So there we have it, my favorite articles from the past year, here's to the past year and to the next. I'm still here almost forty thousand views later and i hope to keep growing and developing this website.Thank you for reading and keep up the good work!

A Summer In Osage County

August Osage County is a 2013 American black comedy film directed by John Wells and adapted by Tracy Letts from his own play which premiered in 2008. The film features an ensemble cast starring Meryl Streep and Julia Roberts in leading roles. The film was nominated for two Oscars, Julia Roberts for Best Supporting Actress and Meryl Streep for Best Actress

The film follows a few weeks at the home of family matriarch Violet Weston as she attempts to deal with the disappearance and later death of her husband, whilst her family convenes at her home in Osage County Oklahoma. Over the course of the film the relationships between various family members are uncovered, analyzed and eventually destroyed.The film was adapted from Lett's Pulitzer winning 2008 play of the same name. Letts adapted the film from the play himself, and the film remains reasonably faithful to the plot of the source material.

I was more impressed with this film than i intended to be, i will admit that i went into this film with a largely preformed opinion, something i may not be proud of but oh well, i always try to be as open minded as possible going into these films but i had heard rather a lot about this movie before going in, and not much of it was good. But is has surprised by how thought provoking, subtle and interesting this film was. The film features some pretty fantastic performances, however the film can feel a little heavy handed at times, the sheer quantity of acting happening is so great that it occasionally reaches a crescendo for the audience to somehow come out unscathed.

Despite the power of the performances, the film suffers from a slight touch of overacting. This is most likely due to the inexperience of the director. This is only John Wells second picture, and working with such juggernauts is difficult and the director needs to learn how to tone down their performances. Meryl Streep gives a powerful performance as Violet Weston, the family's cruel and vindictive matriarch. She is very good in her performance, however she doses occasionally veer into Mommie Dearest territory, becoming so cruel and tyrannical that it becomes slightly comical, and on more than one occasion did i find myself bursting out with laughter, thankfully none was sat near me at the movie theater.

This films MVP is really Julie Roberts, she gives a stunning performance as a young woman who has become callous, bitter and jilted. Roberts surprises with her ability to be so nasty and cruel, and i give her huge credit for managing to maintain a sense of dignity and allowing her character not to become two dimensional or camp, in some ways she succeeds better that Meryl Streep, which is no mean feat, and her character is more real, has more gravitas, and is less two dimensional. After seeing this film, i feel that Julia Roberts is actually the most deserving of all the Best Supporting Actress nominees, she doesn't have a high hope in hell of winning, but she has by far the most screen time of all the nominees, and has almost as much screen time as Meryl Streep.

I was pleasantly surprised by this film, and i found it to be thought provoking and interesting, and it raised some interesting questions about family, relationships and taboos. The film questions why we stay in relationships with people that we have no real connection with, and in many cases whom we don't even like. The characters in this story are vile, and they seem to hate each other intensely, yet they keep coming back for more, and this film dares to question why, are they simply masochists, as one of my favorite Sex And The City episodes asked, do they truly love each other, or are they just addicted to the pain? Rating: B+

Barbara Weston: Eat the fucking fish! 
Violet Weston: I'm not hungry! 
Barbara Weston: Eat the fish, Bitch!