Howl

This is a movie about the poem “Howl” by Allen Ginsberg. It’s pretty much a rundown of Allen Ginsberg’s life, (he’s played by the sexy James Franco) with some animated sequences depicting passages from “Howl.” It also has a plotline about an obscenity trial against the poem’s publisher.

The best scenes in the movie are definitely the ones depicting Allen Ginsberg’s life. James Franco totally nails it, of course, and looks pretty good with a beard and hipster glasses. Speaking of hipsters, until I saw this, I didn’t realize hipsters existed in the fifties. I definitely thought this was their first time around. Anyway, I actually didn’t like Allen Ginsberg prior to seeing this film. He seemed pretentious, self-righteous, and a tad judgmental, and I always had a creeping suspicion that he was a douche. However, after learning more about his life, (like that whole ‘mother was killed in a mental asylum’ thing), I have a greater fondness for him. I didn’t even know that he was homosexual, but that’s probably due to a lack of attentiveness during 11th grade English.

On the other hand, the animated parts are not good at all. It’s a lot of stilted, dated looking computer animation, and it’s really distracting. It’s unfortunate that they chose to focus on naked human figures, because they end up looking weird and unrealistic. The first time they came on screen, I was hoping it was a one time experiment by the art department, but it persists for the entire movie. The upside is that these segments provide an ideal opportunity to run to the bathroom.

The final aspect of the movie is the obscenity trial, and while it remains pretty bland, it does point out some interesting questions about literary merit. A key problem with the trial is that it doesn’t maintain any tension – the audience already knows that “Howl” goes on to critical praise. And while you can make the argument that the audience will always know the ending with a historical story, I would like to mention that everyone knows what happened to the Titanic and everyone knows what happened to Facebook, and both inspired excellent movies. The issue never seems compelling – the judge is on Ginsberg’s side from the start, and the opposing lawyer is an absolute idiot. I was never really clear on what the consequences of losing the trial would be. I assumed that the poem would be removed from circulation, but it had already been released prior to the trial, and its not like the police were going to take battering rams to all the San Francisco studio apartments and search for it, so the whole thing seemed kind of moot.

All in all, this is your average good movie. It’s probably worth seeing if you’re an Allen Ginsberg and/or James Franco fan, but if you have no interest in either, then you’re better off with something else.

Hottiez 4/5 Did you see the part where it stars James Franco?
Ability to make me hate Allen Ginsberg less 5/5 I don't hate him at all anymore!
Animation 0/5 I think they were on the same peyote Ginsberg took when they decided to use computer animated corpse monsters to re-enact the poem

No Strings Attached

A tragedy has befallen my apartment. I no longer have internet access. It departed from these lands when my roommate went away for Christmas break, at which time I assumed that when she returned, she would bring the Internet with her. However, that did not happen, so now my only contact with civilization is on my mobile web browser, which is tiny, slow, and has an allergy to frames. I thought all was lost, until I discovered that Wegmans offered free wifi in the “café” area. This left me with two options: call Comcast, argue over the phone for an hour, schedule a day long appointment, and then buy a bunch of new cables, or starting hanging out at Wegmans. Given that Comcast is a black hole of time, money, and the human spirit, while Wegmans has four buffets and serves Miller Lite at the checkout counter, the solution seemed clear. I can even pick up some shampoo!

So here I am, finally able to update my blog. I’ve seen a lot of movies in the past month, but today we’re going to discuss No Strings Attached, because I saw it two days ago and it’s still pissing me off.

This “movie” stars Natalie Portman (who was also the executive producer) and Ashton Kutcher. You may recall that Natalie Portman recently starred in the film “Black Swan,” for which she awarded a Golden Globe, and nominated for an Academy Award, for which she is the favorite to win. Bear this in mind as you read on. Ashton Kutcher, on the other hand, recently appeared in “Valentines Day” and “Killers,” both of which landed him a nomination for Worst Actor in the Razzies. I have seen both of these movies, and I can assure you that “Killers” was the worst movie of 2010. Some might tell you “Jonah Hex,” but what those people fail to tell you is that “Jonah Hex” is almost an hour shorter than “Killers.” This may lead one to wonder, Why would Natalie Portman give the performance of a lifetime in an Oscar worthy film, and then decide not only star in, but executive produce a shitty romcom with Asthon Kutcher?

One reporter wondered enough to ask her himself. Her explanation was that she was tired of seeing romantic comedies about sappy, desperate girls who spend the entire movie pining for a man. While I agree with her on that, the current romcom formula isn’t “pining sappy girl,” it’s “sexy workaholic scurries around the big city in high heels. She’s the motivated, successful girl who’s got everything – but she’s too organized for her own good! UNTIL SHE MEETS A SILLY CAREFREE MAN WHO TEACHES HER HOW TO DANCE LIKE NO ONE’S WATCHING – AND LOVE LIKE NO ONE’S LOOKING.”
Anyway, so Natalie Portman essentially decides to make a feminist romcom, (which is pretty much an oxymoron), about a woman who doesn’t want a relationship, she just wants a fuck buddy. It begins when the protagonist is fifteen at summer camp. Everyone else at camp is hooking up and making out with each other, but she’s sitting on the outs with her friend Ashton Kutcher. She says she’s weird, and asks if that bothers him. He says his parents are getting divorced and starts crying. She tries to comfort him, and he asks if he can finger her. End scene.

I honestly can’t even fathom why this scene is in the movie. The characters never speak again until ten years later – the fact that they met once in adolescence has no bearing on the story whatsoever. They aren’t “lifelong friends,” they don’t even try to use the “but he’s like my brother!” angle. It’s pointless. I have no idea why they chose to show us that she didn’t kiss anyone at summer camp. It would be like if there was a flashback in Titanic where we find out Leonardo DiCaprio didn’t like ice cream when he was seven.

Fast forward through a bunch of scenes of Natalie’s character in college that also make no sense whatsoever, and somehow we end up with Natalie tricking Ashton into going to her father’s funeral. He shows up wearing cargo shorts and a Michigan hoodie, thinking it was a date, and ends up having to wear that to the cemetery. Hilarity ensues? After the funeral, we cut back to the family home, where Natalie tells Ashton that he’s a great guy, and he’ll be lucky if he never sees Natalie again.
From here on out, it’s just a two hour montage of Ashton trying “woo” Natalie, while she insists they remain fuck buddies. Ashton is wonderful and amazing (gag me), but Natalie is terrified of falling in love because she might get her heart broken (kill me.) There’s also some bullshit at the end about Natalie’s little sister getting married at 22 (stupid) and how she teaches Natalie about risking it all for love. Eventually Natalie comes to her senses and realizes Ashton is the perfect man, and they fall in love and get committed. Credits roll, and I leave the theater, wishing I were committed – to an institution.

I don’t even know where to start with this movie. What were you thinking, Natalie Portman? This is even more misogynistic than an ordinary romcom. First of all, the protagonist just wants to be fuck buddies, yes, but it’s not because she’s independent and confident, it’s because men are scary. She’s extremely timid and insecure, and constantly having mini freak outs about Ashton “getting too close.” She says herself that he’d be lucky to never have to see her again. The fact that she isn’t hooking up in high school and college almost makes the situation creepy, like they’re trying to tell us she’s not even a sexual person. How did she go from reserved and uninterested to demanding sex daily followed by anxiety meltdowns? It’s never explored – they spend too much time documenting Ashton’s father’s sexual exploits with Ashton’s ex “foreign” model girlfriend, whose accent switches between British, French, Swiss, and shitty. (I’m not making this up.) Second of all, even if she were really progressive and independent and therefore didn’t want a relationship because she legitimately didn’t need one, it wouldn’t matter anyway because the moral of the story is that women only think they’re independent until they meet the right man.

Natalie Portman isn’t even really the star. Here’s what we know about Ashton: He’s an assistant for a teen musical TV show, his dream is to become a writer, his dad was a famous TV performer who has cast a shadow over Ashton his entire life, his ex girlfriend dumped him for his dad, he writes episodes for the TV show in his spare time but he’s always been too afraid to show the big execs. Here’s what we know about Natalie: She’s a doctor. She likes to fuck. She has some roommates, who are the only funny and/or interesting people in the entire movie. Oh, and her dad died.

It’s basically a movie about Ashton Kutcher, and how he molds Natalie. It’s like Taming of the Shrew, but it’s even worse because this time it was written by a woman. A woman who was just nominated for BEST ACTRESS in a movie that was just nominated for BEST PICTURE, which I have seen twice, and loved. It’s unfortunate that less than 30 days after I decided I love Natalie Portman, I have to go back to hating her. This movie didn’t need a skilled actress, it might as well have starred Kate Hudson.

The only redeemable people in this movie were Natalie’s roommates, played by Greta Gerwig and Mindy Kaling. Greta Gerwig hasn’t been in many mainstream movies – she was in Greenberg last year. Mindy Kaling is known for playing Kelly on the The Office. I read another review that said they should have scrapped the entire movie and wrote a new one with just those two going on a road trip, and I totally agree.

Also, there’s another movie coming out in July called Friends with Benefits, starring Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis and it is the exact same movie, but probably way better. This one was completely unnecessary and I think Natalie Portmans owes the world an apology.

Feminist RomCom Success: 0/5
Hotties:0/5
Likelihood of Bruce Willis being forced to increase alimony payments to talentless Asthon Kutcher and Demi Moore as a result of this bomb: 5/5

Sex and Breakfast

I just watched a film from 2007 on Instant Netflix called Sex & Breakfast. As you may recall, I am in a Macaulay Culkin phase and am attempting to watch his filmography over break, in addition to that of his brothers. He starred in this movie alongside Eliza Dushku, Kuno Becker, and Alexis Dziena, none of whom are very recognizable actors. (Eliza Dushku was in Bring It On & Alexis Dziena was in a bunch of shitty romantic comedies of the late 00s - When In Rome, Fools Gold, and Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist. Kuno Becker was in a series of Spanish movies.)

The story is about two couples (Mac & Alexis / Kuno & Eliza) who are having a rough period in their sex lives. For Macaulay and Alexis, the issue lies with Alexis' inclination towards "bad boys." As Macaulay's character is not a bad boy, Alexis finds it difficult to be completely attracted to him. Meanwhile, his character is kind of smarmy (a common theme in his movies, I've noticed), and doesn't want to participate in couples therapy, but is doing so anyway to be compliant. For Kuno and Eliza, the issue is that Kuno believes Eliza to be a lesbian, and has angry outbursts when she bonds with other girls, suspecting her to be cheating. Both pairs sign up for a sex therapy class in which they are encouraged to participate in group sex with another couple, and end up getting matched with each other. One couple stays together, and another one breaks up, but I WONT TELL WHO since I know you're so intrigued by this blurb that you're going to run out and rent it.

I thought this was a pretty good movie. I loved Macaulay of course, and I really liked Alexis Dziena as his girlfriend. She made the character feel very natural. The fact that I liked her speaks for her acting ability, because she was the type of character whom I generally hate. I don't get the "bad boy" thing and I think it's really annoying when girls date guys who beat up random strangers out of anger & then act surprised when they end up with a black eye. Obviously if he's willing to attack other people he's going to be willing to attack you. There's a scene where she invites her ex boyfriend over for the weekend and has Macaulay drive him home from the airport. A car cuts in front of them, and the ex boyfriend leaps out the car and beats up the driver of the other car. And Alexis gets mad at MACAULAY for "not standing up for himself." I think beating the shit out of a stranger because they cut in front of you on the highway could be classified as an "over reaction" but apparently it's super romantic. Anyway, her performance was very genuine. I liked the other actress a lot, too. The female characters were definitely the most dynamic. For the men, I thought Kuno Becker was pretty flat, but it was passable.

I thought the movie had a pretty good pace - it was mostly dialogue driven, but it never felt slow. However, it's only 81 minutes, so it's quick movie anyway. I didn't like the ending. I guess it was surprising, which could be a good thing, but I felt like a lot of the characters were just continuing on an unhealthy path. Another downside was that the humor is a little cheesy, and a lot of the banter between the couples feels forced.

Overall Quality 3/5 It's pretty entertaining & has some solid acting
Hotties 4/5 Macaulay is hot, but the other guy is totally fug
Lessons 1/5 No one learns anything in this movie

The Culkins

I have recently decided that the Culkins are an extremely attractive trio of actors. For clarity, I am speaking of Macaulay, Kieran, and Rory. There are 3 other sibs in the Culkin clan but they will not be discussed in this blog post, as they are not famous or actors. (The above photo is of Kieran and Macaulay)

It all began on Thanksgiving Day. I ate lunch/dinner at my dad's house in Port Matilda and then went to work at 5PM. I got off work at 11PM, and had to get up at 3AM to go Black Friday shopping w/ my mom. Knowing that I would be unable to wake up that early, I decided to just stay up the entire night. I went to Target first and then ended up at WalMart at around 4:15 to get in line for the electronics sale that started at 5. It was then that I purchased a Blu Ray Player, along w/ the film Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (which I HIGHLY recommend). This movie co stars Kieran Culkin as Scott Pilgrim's roommate, and he does an excellent job. Perhaps my exhaustion awakened my senses to the truth - or perhaps my mature sensibilities have led me to seek outside my previous fake love Davy Jones. Whatever the reason, it was then that I realized that Kieran Culkin is fucking sexy.

Intrigued, I began watching other recent Culkin films. My blu ray player came with a $15.99 credit towards movies on some app called "Vudu," so I ordered the movie Saved! for $3.99. I had seen Saved! when it was originally released in theaters in 2004 and thought it was great. It's a story about a girl who goes to a Born Again Christian school, whose boyfriend confesses to being gay. In order to save him from damnation, she has sex with him to try and change him into a heterosexual. She then becomes pregnant, and a whole bunch of shit ensues. I was in Catholic school at the time, so I was curious if I would still enjoy it as much, and I definitely did. My rental was for 48 hours and I watched it twice. Anyways, one of the main characters is played by Macaulay Culkin, and he has fine written all over him. As if that's not enough, I watched some interviews with him on YouTube, and he seems like a totally nice guy. Unfortunately, he's currently dating Mila Kunis, who is approximately 8,000x hotter than I am, so I'm not confident about my chances. He's also 30 years old, but that's totally a minor detail.

I tried to buy the movie Lymelife on Vudu also, but for some reason the sound didn't work, so I was unable to watch it. Lymelife stars Rory Culkin, although Kieran is also in it. This means that the only movie featuring Rory I have to report on is Signs, in which he is 12 years old. That's kind of creepy, but today Rory is the same age as me - 21! And he's single! (Kieran is 27 - and dating Emma Stone, who is also 8,000x hotter than I am) So I guess the conclusion here is that my best chance is with Rory. Which kind of sucks because I don't like his long hair style. But maybe we can assume that when we start dating he'll cut it off for me.

IN CONCLUSION

Through my journey I determined that the sex appeal comes from the "sleepy face" that all the Culkins have. When I told Sky about my new interest, she said was "not surprised." I don't know what that says about me. However, as soon as I watch Igby Goes Down, Lymelife, and Party Monster, I will have more to report on the matter. STAY TUNED

Tangled 3D / The Fate of Princess Movies

I recently saw Tangled 3D at my theater the other day. I missed the first 8 minutes because I somehow managed to mix up the times, despite BEING EMPLOYED BY THE THEATER, so I can't speak for the intro or the opening credits, but I can tell you that the entire rest of the movie is 100% awesome. Sky thinks its as good as The Little Mermaid, with which I agree. In fact, I think it's as good as Pocahontas, but when I told this to Sky she become outraged and called me blasphemous. Apparently you can't just go around saying a movie is as good as Pocahontas, there are procedures and field studies and years of research that are required for such bold a statement. (But I stand by it.)

"Tangled" is a Disney movie that was originally titled "Rapunzel" which is in fact about the fairy tale Rapunzel. They changed the title after the lackluster success of "Princess and the Frog" last year, which fell way below expectations and still didn't even make back the budget last time I checked. So Disney got this idea that "princess movies" are no longer marketable, because they marginalize the film into a female demographic, which means that families with more than one child will more likely see a movie that's agreeable to both sexes instead. Because the title "Rapunzel" is immediately recognized as a "princess movie," they changed it to "Tangled," which gives no indicator as to the subject matter.

First of all, I have some things to say about the concept of a princess movie. I think a lot of Disney movies are categorized as being princess, when they actually have nothing to do with royalty or kingship. Any movie with a female lead is immediately labeled "princess." For instance, Belle from Beauty in the Beast is a peasant until the last 5 minutes of the movie, and she's considered a Disney Princess. So is Mulan, and she's a princess for literally none of the movie. Pocahontas is almost technically a princess, but she doesn't live in a castle, go to evening balls, or do anything featured in the original princess movies. Jasmine from Aladdin is a legit princess, but she's a supporting character at best. The only true princess movies are Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and Snow White.

I agree with Disney that its risky to put out a princess movie these days, but I disagree that it's because it alienates families with boys. I think Princess and the Frog didn't work because princess movies themselves don't work. Princess and the Frog features an African American princess, because for a long time people made the argument that Disney doesn't have any African American princess movies. While that's true, what people failed to mention is that Disney hasn't made a princess movie since 1959. Snow White came out in 1937 for fuck's sake. I think they should have titled Princess and the Frog something else, because really it's not about a princess either, it's about a poor girl. They should have made the emphasis that it was a movie with a black lead, not that it was a movie with a black princess. People don't like the princess movies as much because they really aren't that good. I haven't watched Snow White since I was 7, but I watch Mulan at least once a year, and I have the Pocahontas soundtrack on my iPod. The only reason people loved Snow White so much is because it was 1937 and there were like 6 movies in theaters and the fact that pictures could move and talk was already half the entertainment. Aurora of Sleeping Beauty isn't even in her movie! She's the sleeping beauty, and she's on screen less than Jasmine from Aladdin. And with a release date of 1959, Aurora is easily the freshest of the princesses. Why would kids want to go see a princess sleep for 70 minutes and then get married at 16 when they could watch a merry band of hilarious toys go on an adventure and learn about friendship? I know which one I would (and did) pick.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR PRINCESS MOVIES?
Stop making them & stick to a story that's actually dynamic. Interesting characters/dialogue are also a plus.

Quality 5/5 It's awesome. Would definitely see again.
Hottie Quotient 3/5 Zachary Levi is actually pretty attractive in real life
Worthiness to Previous Disney Classics 4/5 It's not as good as the Lion King, but it's definitely as good as the other Renaissance movies

Cosmopolitan Magazine

This post has nothing to do with movies, but I decided to write it anyway because I am a) drunk and b) fed up with Cosmopolitan magazine.

IN THE BEGINNING...

So I have this issue of Cosmo sitting in my bathroom. It has Lauren Conrad on the cover, and a lot of advertisements on what my man is craving and how to take him from zero to blast off. The fact that I saw a magazine cover in which ejaculation was referred to as "blast off," and then proceeded to buy it should be enough to have me institutionalized, but that's a post for another time. For whatever reason, the Cosmo ended up in my bathroom and I have read it cover to cover many times, and each time it has made me increasingly angry. Here is a series of reasons why no one should purchase Cosmo:

1. It's Fucking Presumptuous
Cosmo has a lot of bold assumptions about what all women (or Fun Fearless Females, as Cosmo says) do, think, eat, want, read, watch, believe, and imagine. And they are all wrong. I mean I guess they're right for someone, perhaps Lauren Conrad, but definitely not for me.

The first thing FFFs want, according to Cosmo, is "the answers to all the crazy sex questions you're too terrified to ask!! But don't worry WE WENT THERE!" These crazy sex questions range from "If you're pregnant, can his penis hit the baby?" and "My guy has asthma, does that mean he can't have sex?" First of all, THANKS COSMO for pushing the limits of journalism where others before you could not. Thank God somebody's tackling the hot button issues. Second of all, what kind of magazine buying adults wrote those letters and sent them in? Half the articles in the magazine are about marriage, and a substantial amount are about "careers," so I don't understand how someone w/ either one of those doesn't know where the uterus is located.

The second thing FFFs want is to eat salads and drink spring water. You might think that sounds esoteric, but trust me, those two items appear more often in this magazine than anything else besides men. One of their common reader dilemmas is "What to do when all your man wants for dinner is greasy food and beer! Yuck!" It literally says yuck. Are you kidding me? Is there another magazine out there where all men do is write in about me? "ALL KATIE WANTS TO DO IS EAT PIZZA AND GO TO THE BAR. OMG HELP A BRO OUT!" There's a photo of Chinese food and Lionshead on the cover, with the caption HOW TO TAKE KATIE TO BLAST OFF! This goes hand in hand with the assumption that everyone on Earth wants to lose weight. There are always articles on dieting labeled as the "health section," but it's actually not about health, its strictly about weight loss. If you're anemic, fuck you, that's not a real health problem.

2. None of the Guys in It Are Hot

None. They have all these pics of "mouth watering hotties," which are absolutely not hot at all. They all look like Sam Worthington knock offs, except the one black guy, who is always bald. I guess being bald makes him more palatable to FFFs? They have no short guys, no Bradley Coopers, and nothing of interest for me.

3. It Pretends to Be Progressive
Cosmo acts like it's creating some type of 2nd sexual revolution. It's not. All of the articles about how to please the boyfriend you definitely have, and how to make him the husband you definitely want. There's one about what to put in your bathroom so your boyfriend doesn't have to use your girly products. I have a crazy idea for Cosmo: If he doesn't like rain fresh shampoo then he can use his own bathroom. It also has a habit of dismissing all misbehavior by men as easily forgivable acts of fear. "Your man ignores you and tells everyone you're a slut? HE GOT TOO ATTACHED AND FREAKED!" OK well next time he gets "freaked" he can also get "dumped" because there's no reason they should be excused for acting like a dick.

That's all I have for now.

Case 39

Blinded (and apparently deafened, and review-deferred) by my love for Bradley Cooper, I decided to watch the moving picture Case 39 today. Before I even get into how bafflingly awful this movie is, let me state upfront that I expected it to be subpar and/or shitty, based on its 24% on RottenTomatoes and the fact that it was originally filmed in 2006 and left on the backburner until the "perfect moment," (which was apparently September 2010, opening against another horror movie.) What I didn't expect was how slack paced and BORING it was, barring the brief 3 minute sequence in which Bradley Cooper is shirtless. I left the theater at 7:15 and it seriously felt like midnight.

ANYWAY here's a synopsis so yins can get a feel for the story: A child services worker played by Renee Zellweger (who made a vow in 2002 to never again appear in a compelling film) is given 38 different cases to work on at one time, leaving her swamped, frazzled and ready to call it quits! Just when she thinks things can't get hairier, her boss gives her her 39th case - that of a meek little girl named Lily who turns Renee's world upside down and teaches her how to love. If you think this doesn't sound like a horror movie, you're correct, because for the first ENTIRE HOUR of the film, it isn't one. Renee investigates the girl, figures out her parents are trying to murder her in an oven, and decides to adopt her. Months pass and everything is going swimmingly, until suddenly another one of Renee's case kids decides to murder his parents with a tire iron. Shortly after that, Renee's boyfriend played by Bradley Cooper (I think they're dating in reality too, but it's not a reality I accept so we can overlook that) mysteriously kills himself. Renee uses these two pieces of evidence to determine that her newly adopted daughter is actually Satan, and she must destroy her before it's too late.

The first grievance I have with this movie is that it's boring as shit. The plot slogs along while we learn what Renee does in her spare time, what every room in her house looks like, how many pet fish she has, and what she and Bradley do on the weekends. My second grievance is that it makes almost no sense whatsoever. The fact that the little girl is a secret demon incarnate is the most believable aspect of the story. First of all, we spend at least 20 minutes in the first few scenes hearing about how fast paced and work laden Renee's life is. She's so bogged down with her career, she doesn't have time to date Bradley Cooper (which is also bullshit. Everyone has time to date fuckin Bradley Cooper.) Yet when she decides to adopt Lily, she suddenly has tons of free time in which to care for an elementary age child, by herself, with zero experience. It isn't until weeks into the new family setup that Renee inquires about sending Lily "back to school." What the hell were they doing all that time? Was Lily just sitting alone at home all day? What happened to the other 38 cases Renee had been working on simultaneously?

When Lily finally does get back in school, nothing happens for another two months. Renee and Bradley never start dating, even though there's plenty of foreshadowing & Renee seemingly has all this free time to whip up omelets for breakfast every morning. Lily doesn't do anything evil and acts completely timid and soft spoken. Because they waste so much time frolicking around from scene to scene in the first act, the second act is crammed into a 20 minute hodgepodge of events. First some 10 yr old kid named Diego beats his parents into a puddle in their bedroom (an incident that pretty much flies under the radar in terms of news coverage & public distress), which he attributes to a mysterious phone call he received at 2AM from Renee's home land line. Renee suspects it may have been Lily, but brushes it off when Lily claims to know nothing about it. Later, Bradley Cooper does an interview with Lily to determine her group therapy placement. She turns into a complete dick 12 seconds into the interview, and starts giving all these snarky and ominous replies. She asks Bradley what his greatest fear is, to which he responds "hornets." He leaves the interview shaken, and explains briefly to Renee that he thinks Lily was threatening him. Later, he is attacked in his bathroom by hornets that crawl out of his face. This is both the best and worst scene in the film - you get to see Bradley shirtless, he's the only character on screen, and there isn't any dialogue, however, he also dies, and you spend the entire sequence haunted by the knowledge that this will be the last even remotely engaging thing you will see on screen until the credits.

After Bradley dies, we begin to barrel through the plot, starting with Renee's instantaneous conviction that Lily is evil and has caused the past 2 deaths. Renee heads down to the local mental institution to get the sitch from Lily's parents, who inform her that Lily is a demon, and that they tried to kill her for weeks, but failed due to the fact that Lily "almost never sleeps," which apparently did not seem strange for the first two months Renee lived with her. When Renee gets home, we learn that Lily can read minds, and that she knows Renee is on to her. For some reason Renee decides she's going to drug Lily with sleeping pills by crushing them into her tea, and then kill her while she's asleep. If she was going to do that, she could have just put poison in Lily's tea and reduced it to a one step process, but it doesn't matter anyway because LILY CAN READ MINDS and she knows that the tea has been altered. A bunch of bullshit happens, and there's a part where Lily's enflamed ghost mom thing chases Renee down the street and it's actually kind of scary. After that Renee sets her house on fire to kill Lily, but it turns out Lily escaped prior to the fire. Because she can read minds.

The police are totally cool with the blazing inferno & Renee's cold dead stare in the driveway, so they tell her to come drive to the station to find a place to sleep. Renee and Lily start to follow behind the squad cars, but Renee suddenly goes crazy and decides to swerve all over the road and shit to kill Lily. Earlier in the film, we learn that Renee's mother died in a car accident on a rainy night, and sure enough, tonight is a rainy night. Lily creates a scene to visualize Renee's "worst nightmare," which is dying like her mother did. A giant truck swerves in front of them, but Renee drives right through, giving the same "I AM NOT AFRAID BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE IN YOU" schpiel that can be found in many other, better horror movies. Lo and behold, the truck vanishes just as they are about to collide! However, for some reason this does not actually defeat Lily, so Renee goes flying off a nearby dock into the ocean. Renee escapes and Lily drowns, after transforming into a pretty ripped demon. THE END

Quality 1/5 This movie is a train wreck.
Hottie Quotient 3/5 Bradley Cooper is super hot, but he's not in it enough, and he dies. Also his hair is kind of short.
Respect for Renee Zelwegger Preservation 2/5 Come on. New in Town? Leatherheads? You're an Oscar winner for crying out loud.