Movies!

This past week I saw two current release movies. That's right, two movies. In theaters now. I know, it's shocking. In the unlikely event that you too find yourself headed for a movie theater, maybe my thoughts on these films will help you choose what to see (or not to see, depending on your tastes).

The Hangover
Caveat #1: I watched this at the drive-in, with a mostly sleeping infant and a spouse who didn't feel well. Read this review through whatever color lenses helps your own "truth" filter through to you.

Caveat #2: Before this movie even came out, I had a strong desire to see it (based on the amusing trailers) which then turned to hesitation (based on previous experience with funny trailers that ended up being associated with disappointing or downright terribly unfunny films) which then turned to renewed high hopes (based on a series of positive reviews from newspapers and friends). So by the time I saw it, I had a fair amount invested, emotionally. End caveat.

"You'd be forgiven for thinking this is a documentary. After all, who hasn't woken up in a trashed Las Vegas hotel suite with a missing tooth, a tiger in the bathroom, a baby in the closet and little or no memory of what happened the night before?" -- AP reviewer's take on The Hangover

The Hangover is indeed about three guys, in Vegas for a bachelor party, who must piece together the events of an increasingly bizarre evening, one that they all have forgotten. Starring Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms, this R-rated comedy is clever in places, mostly well paced, and funny without going over the top (though it comes close with the inexplicably flamboyant Asian gangster).

The full story behind their night is presented almost as an afterthought, and the conclusion was sort of forgettable, but a goodly number of the gags along the way are thankfully not. I particularly liked the casting, which matched likable actors to potentially unsympathetic roles; there's the cavalier risk taker (Cooper), the submissive rule follower (Helms), and the questionably stable future brother-in-law (Galifianakis, who is hilarious in this). The R-rating falls on the mild side, although the humor is certainly adult oriented (I don't think kids would be as titillated by marital jokes and references to Rain Man or Mike Tyson). Recommended for a laugh.

The Proposal
Continuing with my marriage comedy movie theme, I took the grandpa-in-law and the baby to see The Proposal, which stars the engaging duo of Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds as a boss-assistant pair who attempt to fool his family and the INS into believing their engagement is for real.

Caveat #3: My choice of The Proposal was tied to the fact that it was the "diaper day" movie offering for the week. Referred to elsewhere as "crybaby cinema", this film was viewed with the lights only partly dimmed and in a theater full of babies, toddlers, and their get-me-out-of-the-house parents. I was eager to get out, the grandpa-in-law was eager to get out, and so we went. There were several times during the movie when the toddlers and parents in pursuit captured more of our attention than the film. Thankfully for us (but maybe not for you, if you were to see this movie in a dark, relatively distraction free setting) the dialogue and plot did not lose much to the secondary program in the theater. End caveat.

Bullock plays the tough as nails boss and Reynolds is her loyal assistant, hopeful of one day earning recognition for the breadth of his talents. But his loyalty is tested when she claims him as her fiance in order to avoid deportation. He reluctantly agrees in exchange for a promotion and, needing to get the INS off their backs, the two embark on a long weekend trip to his native Alaskan hometown where she meets the folks, the ex girlfriend, and his wacky grandmother (played with usual verve by Betty White).

I thoroughly enjoyed the first four-fifths of this cliched, harmlessly amusing movie. It was cute, the lead actors were charming, the setting was quaint and easy on the eyes. Sure, there were a few overdone jokes, the story is fairly predictable, and the scene where Bullock and Reynolds run into each other is a bit too drawn out, but it was all charmingly done and without taking itself too seriously. If it was left at that, I'd recommend this movie without hesitation. Unfortunately, the screenwriters, director and editor seem to have disagreed on how to end the thing. The last 10 minutes felt rushed and oddly incoherent. Even predictable endings deserve to be shown, and in this case where the lead up was engaging, the absence of a satisfying conclusion left me particularly disappointed. I was sorry to miss out on the ending an otherwise cute movie deserved. Recommended for lighthearted romantics capable of imagining alternate endings. And if you're distracted while watching, the experience might even be improved. :)

On DVD
In the event you do not find yourself drawn to a movie theater, may I recommend a few things available on dvd? Without doubt my top recommendation would be Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. It's funny, dark, romantic, clever, and a musical. And lest you think, "Singing? Blech!" let me tell you--the music is nearly the best part (subtitles help). It stars Neil Patrick Harris as a wannabe supervillain (Dr. Horrible) with a crush on do-gooder Penny. But Dr. Horrible is no good at love, and his archnemesis, the dimbulb Captain Hammer, makes a move on Penny before he can. The story is creative, the casting spot-on, the songs Broadway-worthy, and it's all just a wonderful surprise. (I know, I'm gushing.) This originally aired as a series of "webisodes" (sort of like a Web-based miniseries) during the writer's strike, but is now available on a single dvd. Look for it.

My second recommendation is better known, but still its quality came as a surprise to me. I'd read and somewhat enjoyed Stephenie Meyer's teen vampire romance novel Twilight. Interested as I always am about a book's transition to film, I followed the hype surrounding casting (Robert Pattinson didn't seem to fit my vision of the sparkling romantic lead, and many others shared my skepticism) and tales of director disgruntlement (Catherine Hardwick either turned down directing the second film or was not asked to continue, depending on the source). By the time the movie hit theaters, the whole Twilight phenomenon was making me gag a little. I was in no hurry to see the movie (or read the second book, but that's a topic for another post), but added it to my netflix queue because I knew I would feel compelled eventually. When the dvd showed up I hesitated. It sat unwatched for a few weeks. Low expectations probably came into play, but by the time I did watch it, I quite enjoyed it. The film style is creative, the setting perfectly matches that created in the book, and the casting worked much better than expected. They chopped bits of the story for ease of filming but did it well enough that people who hadn't read the book could follow along. Because I was pleasantly surprised, I thought maybe others would be too. A decent moody teen romance.

(Un)Safety in numbers

Because I refer you elsewhere a lot and maybe you don't actually go because it's too hard to tear yourself from my blog, I present to you here, in its entirety, a recent Freakonomics posting on the subject of transportation accidents, media coverage, and irrational fears (that last bit is my perspective, maybe yours too?).

The Danger of Safety
by Eric A. Morris

In case you haven’t heard, an accident on the Washington metro claimed nine lives last week. But then again, chances are you have heard, as the crash got wide coverage over the airwaves, on the net, and in the papers (by my count, at least five articles appeared in The Times). This is usually the case when trains or planes are involved in deadly disasters.

But what the media very rarely mention is that the carnage on our roads makes these much-hyped accidents look almost trivial. Nine lives is nine too many, but there were 39,800 motor vehicle traffic fatalities in 2008 alone (and that was a good year). At that rate, between the time of the accident, June 22, and the time you are reading this, on average about 1,000 Americans died on our roadways. Yet this rarely merits a mention by the press.

Why the disparity in coverage? I don’t think it has anything to do with any particular animus toward transit; on the contrary, I personally think the press has a pretty strong pro-transit slant.

Instead, a number of factors are probably at play. A flood of simultaneous deaths seems to titillate us more than a steady drip (and let’s not forget that we are being titillated here, or the media wouldn’t be serving these stories up). There’s probably a threshold effect at work, as a certain plateau of deaths triggers the dispatch of reporters. Perhaps crashes involving larger vehicles are more “photogenic.”

And I think there is one more key dynamic. Heavy rail (the mode in the Washington crash) is a lot safer than car travel; in 2006 (the last year for which I have data) autos were responsible for five times more fatalities per passenger mile. (See here for auto fatalities per year, here for transit fatalities, and here for passenger miles traveled by mode.

In 2007 and 2008 there was not a single fatal accident associated with a major commercial airline. This year has seen 60 deaths (most from a single crash), but that still makes commercial air travel vastly safer than driving. Even in 2001, the year of a (hopefully) freak disaster on 9/11, commercial air travel had a per-passenger mile fatality rate about one eighth that of driving (see here for air fatalities).

The relative rarity of air and rail disasters makes them novel, and hence news. Car crashes bite man, and rail and air crashes bite dog. Intensive coverage of the few air and rail accidents that do occur in turn promotes the widespread — and erroneous — inference that planes and trains are unsafe. In an unfair irony, in transportation perhaps too much safety can be a dangerous thing.

Now go visit my favorite part of the blog, the reader comments. I have to agree with the people who argue that one's lack of control over the airplane or train goes a long way toward generating fear of something bad happening. I also support the notion that one's lessened fear of car accidents due to this same sense of control is largely misguided--accidents happen to the most careful drivers, too. Decreased risk is not the same as no-risk.

God grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And the wisdom to know the difference.

And by the way, my response to commenter #23 is, "Hello, you're reading a blog on the NY Times website. Let's just assume it might be a bit US-focused." No, I didn't submit that comment, because I'm pretty sure my snide remark would not meet the blog's comments standards. And if it did, then I'd not want my first contribution to the Freakonomics site to be a sarcastic one. I like to maintain the image of openness and compassion, even when I'm not feeling it. :)