Well, I guess this is “grande dame week” here at www.ItsNotAboutMe.TV; yesterday, we saluted May Rose Salkin and today it’s Meryl Streep. My little mo is in good company.

Here’s my short review of The Iron Lady: Give Meryl Streep the Oscar right now! And every other award out there! That woman is a phenomenon.

I’m begging my fellow actors to vote for her tomorrow for the Screen Actors Guild Award. But I’m sure she’ll get screwed this year, as usual. People, all of them idiots, think she’s won everything she’s nominated for, but in reality she’s won only two Oscars…and one’s even for a supporting role!

If anyone else wins this year, it will be a travesty, just like when Cher, winning for her mediocre turn in Moonstruck, beat out Meryl’s absolutely amazing performance in the heartbreaking Ironweed. Yes, Michelle Williams was convincing as Marilyn Monroe in My Week With Marilyn, and Viola Davis gave her usual excellent angst-ridden portrayal in The Help, but Meryl is in a class by herself as Margaret Thatcher. In my humble opinion, no one else in the business even deserves to call herself an actress, next to Meryl Streep. There should be no dissension that she’s the greatest actress of at least my lifetime, if not all time.

I honestly did not know that that woman at the beginning of The Iron Lady was Meryl Streep! And I went back over that part twice, to see if I could figure out just who was playing her as an old woman. It took about fifteen minutes, and tons of convincing by Mr. X, to realize it was indeed she! I’ve never seen anything like it in my life.  (The make-up crew really must be lauded, as well.)

I tried to find a photo of her as the older Maggie, but there were none to be found. I would have just taken a screen shot from my screener, but I don’t think that SAG allows even that much to be shared, and I’m all about the rules. So, you’ll just have to see it for yourself.

There’s not much else to be said about this film. We saved it until nearly the end of the screening period because we both assumed it would be boring. But, from the very first scene of just Meryl as Maggie buying milk from a grocery store, we were riveted. To Meryl’s performance—the story is not half as interesting. But the story itself did not matter in this case; we were blown away by what Ms. Streep was accomplishing. As actors ourselves, (and Mr. X being a really good one,) even we could not imagine how someone can do what she did.

Mr. X had two observations that I wish I had come up with. He said, “There’s so much life in her eyes,” just as I was being fascinated by them. He also commented that he felt that we were intruding on her life; that’s how intimate a portrait of Mrs. Thatcher she was painting.

So, even if someone else wins Best Actress, at first this week-end’s Screen Actors Guild awards, and then next month at the Oscars, please know that Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher gave really, by far, the performance of the year.

Young Adult premieres in Los Angeles tomorrow, so I figure I’ll get a jump on the reviews now, if I can save even one person the price of admission. I feel that films at this time of year should be upbeat and fun, not slow and depressing.

I’m not really a fan of Jason Reitman to begin with since for his film last year, Up In The Air, he hired out-of-work regular people instead of out-of-work actors, and then bragged about it at an industry screening I attended. [Read about it here: www.itsnotaboutme.tv/news/2010/01/08/475/ ] But I can be fair about someone’s work, which I am in this case.

And, let me tell you, his new film, Young Adult, is basically pretty boring. It’s only an hour and a half, and I had to take wake-up pills in the middle of it to get through the rest. (No worries—they’re only Ultra Energy vitamins. No biggie.)

In addition to being boring, it’s depressing. And slow. There are a few laughs in it, but only about every nine minutes. The pal who accompanied me to the screening was one of my best audience members during the run of my show, Karen’s Restaurant Revue, because she laughs so easily, and often. And during this film, all she could muster was a few chuckles. And no guffaws.

I should sue them over the tagline: “Everyone gets old. Not everyone grows up.” That’s the story of my life! But not really the story of this depressing mess. (Have I mentioned it’s depressing??) It’s a depressing premise, all the way around. I never tell anyone what a film’s about, to not ruin it for anyone, but I don’t think it matters in this case because it’s in all the trailers and promos. Charlize Theron plays a thirty-seven-year-old who decides she wants her high school, hick town boyfriend back when she finds out that he and his wife had a baby. It’s supposed to be a comedy, I think, but I was sad the whole time.

The little guy who played the poor guy from high school, which was basically just a device to let her tell us, the audience, what she was thinking, was the best part of the film. I had never heard of the actor before, Patton Oswalt, but I’ve since researched him, (of course,) and he’s worked a lot, so perhaps many of you are familiar with him, which is as it should be.

I hate Jason Reitman’s directing style, in his other films as well. No one talks like that in real life, in one sentence at a time, with pauses in between.

And the end was really stupid; there was no resolution, which would have been okay if the journey had been more interesting. I just expected so much more from the team (writer, director, producers) who bought us the entertaining Juno. I actually spent a moment wondering if Jason hired actors this time, or if he felt that he needed small-town folks to fill out the cast in this film, too.

Maybe it will be a success because people always want to see the still-beautiful Charlize, (and because of the schadenfreude that comes with seeing a good-looking person be miserable,) but that’s about it. On that topic, I was actually surprised to realize that she’s just a regular pretty girl, and not as stunning as we see with the right make-up and lighting. She’s still better than most of the rest of us, but not as stunning as, at least I, originally thought.

I’d suggest you just wait to see this one on an airplane, which I feel will be soon.

If you’re like I am, and need to prove to your family and pals that you have good reasons to not have kids, just take them to see We Need To Talk About Kevin. The film totally validated my lack of desire for children.

This was far from a “fun” movie, but it was really interesting. [Funny—I just meant to write “interesting,” but my hands typed “depressing.” That it is, that it is.] I just feel you need to be aware of just how depressing it is going in. A feeling of impending doom filled the air in the theatre from the get-go.

Tilda Swinton. See what I mean about her stare?

I know that Tilda Swinton is an excellent actress, but it seems, for the most part, that she comes from that school of acting where, if you just stare ahead, with a blank look that could indicate any number of different thoughts, people think you’re great. Maybe I should try that and not audition for very wordy roles!

Anyway, We Need To Talk About Kevin (which I was waiting for one of the characters to say the whole time, but no one ever did,) is basically, to my mind, the 2011 version of The Bad Seed, a frightening film from 1956. [Note: to be technical, The Bad Seed, like We...Kevin, began as a novel. But then it was a play before a film, and, in 1985, was re-done as a TV movie starring my old pal, Lynn Redgrave, as the mother.]

Tilda and all three boys, who, of course, are never seen together on-screen. But, notice their intensity in just this publicity shot!

We…Kevin is actually quite good and, though there’s very little dialog, and could almost just as well have had the same effect if it was done as a silent movie, it held my attention for the most part. But throughout the entire film, I kept wondering why an intelligent woman, who can see quite clearly that her son is “off” (at the very least!) from when he’s just a toddler, didn’t do something about him at any stage of his development. (I don’t want to give any of the story away, in case you’re like I am and just want to let it unfold while you’re watching.)

Ezra Miiler as the teen-age Kevin. Even his eyes are frightening!

As good as Tilda is in this film (I’m sure that other reviewers are calling this a “tour de force,” but I’m not so sure–see the second paragraph above,) the best part of the film is the casting of the actors who play the boy in various stages of his life. Super-props to Billy Hopkins, who cast Ezra Miller as the teen-age Kevin, and even more so, Jasper Newell as the “childhood” version. I seriously can’t figure out how Jasper, who couldn’t have been more than ten, could come up with that chilling of a performance. It was so real. (And, looking for photos of this film for this column, whenever I came upon a pic of Ezra Miller, chills ran down my spine. He should play Richard Ramirez, the “Night Stalker” serial killer, some day soon. Someone should whip it together, just to sign Ezra now.)

One small problem with the film, though, is that it got predictable, once you got the gist of it. I could give you examples of the predictability, but again, I don’t want to spoil your journey when seeing it.

I did appreciate the artistry of the film, especially the use of color, which was something I loved learning about in Film 101 in college. (I guess that was good use of my parents hard-earned money, eh?) And I also found the casting of odd-looking actors, in just about every role, fascinating. It made Tilda Swinton’s strange visage blend right in.

Somehow, I have a feeling that some parents group somewhere will have a problem with the film. But I say it’s worth the viewing. At the very least, it will make you come out of the theatre really appreciating your own life. And kids, if you have any. (And lack of them, for people like me who choose not to have offspring. This made me especially grateful for that decision, and yet another thing to remember to give thanks for next week. And always!)

The animated feature Rango has been open for two weeks now, and I believe it’s doing really well. We should all ask for our money back. Here are some of my thoughts on it, the ones I had when I could get my pissed-offed-ness at wasting two precious hours out of my brain.

It just went on and on and on and on……. You get the idea.

If you haven’t yet seen it, wait till it’s on television and then record it to help with insomnia.

The creators kept thinking it was profound, but they missed the mark on every level.

Good voices, great animation and sound, the last one especially where I saw it–at the newly re-furbished Aidakoff Screening Room in Beverly Hills. Charles Aidakoff just loves movies! And at 96, he’s seen, first run(!), more than half the old movies I love to watch on TV when I have the time. What history does that man have in his brain?!

The whole time I was watching the movie, I didn’t even know that was Johnny Depp! I kept trying to figure out who it is. I had thought Johnny D.’s voice was a lot deeper. I kept picturing a tall, youngish, kind-of nerdy man voicing him.

The set looked just like the one where we shot my latest movie, also a western. I know they had actors do the scenes on an actual set this time, and not just computer generate them. Then they animated the characters from the real action. I wish we had done that on my movie because I far from loved myself as the Mayor’s Wife, with awful hair and make-up. I would have rather done all the work and then see myself animated.

How do they get this boring, way-too-violent crap made???

And lastly, just plain don’t waste your time!

The reviews of these three movies are quick–they don’t merit lots of discourse. As far as I’m concerned, they’re some of the ones to avoid, even when they come to cable, which should be really soon, if you get my drift.

SOMEWHERE

I almost walked out of the house without glasses, and when I got home, I realized it wouldn’t have really mattered for this one! This is one of the slowest movies I’ve ever seen.

But I should have realized it would be weak–the writer-director is Sophia Coppola, the person who brought us the annoying Lost In Translation. If I had paid more attention to what I was RSVPing to, I might have stayed home.

When it was over, my pal leaned over and whispered, “Somewhere? This should have been titled Nowhere.” I hear ya on that one!

It was like a student film of one long object exercise that you have to do in Acting 101 class. No fooling–I think no one talked for the first fifteen minutes of the only ninety-eight minutes.

As it went one, I got a little more into it because I finally figured-out what Sophia was going for, which she confirmed in her post-screening comments. But give me a break with this pace! And the stupid ending. Even she couldn’t explain it! And she’s the one who wrote it! I guess it’s supposed to be a look at a major movie star’s really humdrum existence, but we got that in the first few minutes.

And what’s wrong with the parents of the Fanning girls? First they allow Dakota to do that rape movie, and now Elle gets to be in this bore-and-a-half.

Surprisingly, Stephen Dorff, whom I’ve never seen before, but is the star of Somewhere, (and in every scene,) was kind-of interesting in the Q-and-A. He’s a self-confessed smoker, which you can tell immediately when he speaks, and we all know how I feel about smokers, but he explained so much more than did the director. Strange.

Elle just laughed like an idiot, but then again, she’s only twelve, though she looks about eighteen. And Sophia spoke with one hand waving the whole time in that affected manner of many show business folk. The whole event made me wish I was Somewhere else.

BARNEY’S VERSION

Yeah, like these three would be attracted to...

While it’s always a treat to see Dustin Hoffman on film, (or in person, for that matter,) even he couldn’t save this one.

There are two big problems with Barney’s Version to begin with, (outside of the stupid title.) The first is that it veers too much from what is set-up at the beginning to be the main premise, a murder mystery of a man possibly wrongly-accused. They forgot all about it till the very last few sentences, leaving us confused as to why it was part of the story to begin with. (To be fair, it’s based on a novel and is not an original screenplay.)

...HIM!!!

The second is something I feel awful saying, but it’s the elephant in the room. Okay, here goes: (this would be so much easier to say out loud on my show, because than you could all see how bad I really feel pointing it out.): There is just no way that someone who looks like Paul Giamatti would get all these chicks! I don’t care how great the character’s personality might be, though this film neglected to show that aspect, as well. So, we’re to believe that these chicks, especially his attractive third wife, played by Rosamund Pike, would be interested in him as soon as they meet??? Come on, filmmakers, give us a break! No way. It’s just very strange casting.

I don’t have anymore time in my life to waste on this movie, so that’s it. Bad casting, no pay-off, and weird storyline. That’s Karen’s Version of this debacle!

HOW DO YOU KNOW

Reese's expression here tells us she must have just seen her own movie!

How do you know? By listening to Mr. X! He saw the promos for this one and refused to go to the screening. I wish I had joined him in his not seeing it!

I don’t want to waste anymore time on it, so suffice it to say that it blows. Plain and simple. Boring, confusing, and downright stupid.

I loved Reese Witherspoon in Legally Blonde and Sweet Home Alabama, but the love affair is over with this bomb. And, the make-up person should be kicked out of the union for allowing Reese’s moustache to be so noticeable! It was downright distracting. I thought she was going to twirl that baby! And I never noticed that she has bad teeth before. And her hair looked dirty and skanky the whole time. I wouldn’t even wear that hair to the screening of it, let alone be in the film with it!

And her character’s removal from the national softball team, which seemed to be what it was about in the beginning, was never brought into play after the first few minutes. It was all just stupid.

And I can see why Jack Nicholson doesn’t do a lot of movies anymore–he looked like someone’s old grandpa. Sad. I was never a fan, but it’s still sad.

This is supposed to be a romantic comedy, but it was neither romantic nor comic, except for a few of Owen Wilson’s deliveries, which still didn’t make me laugh. Even once. The storyline was just all over the place and hard to follow at times. I still don’t know what Paul Rudd’s character was in legal trouble for, and I have a 147 IQ!

And there was zero chemistry between Reese and Owen and less than that between Reese and Paul.

Okay, I’ve spent way more time on this hack job than I want to, so that’s it for this one.

Movies like these three are an insult to filmmaking. I’d rather spend two and a half hours being depressed by Javier Bardem’s stunning Biutiful than even one second on these beyond-banalities.

It’s hard for me to separate the brilliance of the film Biutiful as a whole from the brilliance of Javier Bardem’s acting. And now, having had the extreme pleasure and privilege of seeing him speak after the actors-only screening I just attended, I can’t separate Javier, the person, from any of it. He and his new film are just on a much higher level than the norm. I’m overwhelmed with emotion about the whole experience.

I have so much to say on these topics that I can’t even form it into cohesive paragraphs, so please bear with me. The screening organizers tell us not to bring cameras or recording equipment, but so many people who can’t follow rules do. I regret that this time I wasn’t one of them because I just could not write down every word of genius and fun that came out of Javier’s mouth, so just know that his exact words were much better than what I can even portray here.

Since I’m linear thinker, I’ll review the film first, though all you really need to know is that it’s the best film I’ve seen all year, to date. I feel that the other movies should be ashamed to call themselves “films” compared to Biutiful. [Note: I haven’t seen The King’s Speech yet.]

This is how the press release describes the story, and there’s no way I can do any better–even this is on a higher level!: “Biutiful is a love story between a father and his children. This is the journey of Uxbal, a conflicted man who struggles to reconcile fatherhood, love, spirituality, crime, guilt and mortality amidst the dangerous underworld of modern Barcelona. His livelihood is earned out of bounds, his sacrifices for his children know no bounds. Like life itself, this is a circular tale that ends where it begins. As fate encircles him and thresholds are crossed, a dim, redemptive road brightens, illuminating the inheritances bestowed from father to child, and the paternal guiding hand that navigates life’s corridors, whether bright, bad – or biutiful.” I’m going to start crying just reading this!

As many of you know by now, I never want to know anything about a film going in–even the genre. (I do need to be warned if it’s horror, though, because then I’ll take a pass.) But I always ask Mr. X to look it up for himself, to see if he wants to join me or if I should take a pal. Sometimes he forgets my policy and starts to tell me something about it. (Guys!) Before I could stop him this time, he said, “I don’t know what to say about this one–I guess ‘gritty’ would sum it up best.” He described it perfectly in one word–just from reading a brief synopsis!

And, of course, I love an actress whose nose is bigger than mine!

But it’s nothing more horrific than basic life itself for so many people who we privileged ones know little or nothing of. It’s extremely sad, but such a riveting film that it’s worth it to be depressed for awhile. (Or, the rest of my life, in my case! I rarely get over the sadness I see, whether real-life or fictional.) And I especially hope that all of the snobs out there, who think that the worst day of their lives is not being able to find the perfect dress for a black-tie function (as one of my good friends really did say to me a few years ago!,) see Biutiful and realize just how many thanks they need to give to the powers-that-be. (Maybe, in this holiday season, it could act as a new A Christmas Carol, to show people to be grateful for what they have before it’s too late.)

The film is long (two and a half hours, to be exact,) but there was nothing that I would cut-out. Javier is in just about every scene (I can think of only four short ones he wasn’t in,) and just to watch him be is breathtaking.

And to witness him holding court afterwards, as himself, is even more breathtaking, though in a totally different way–he’s supremely charming, funny, not-full-of-himself, intelligent, sincere, and educational. A finer person I cannot imagine. And I swear, all I knew about him previously was that he’s an amazing actor and a perfect match for his wife, Penelope Cruz. They’re a perfect couple, as far as I’m concerned; both are genuine, lovely, intelligent, and thoughtful people. Only he’s also a riot.

I banged-out this paragraph the second I got home: I wish that every good person on earth could spend one hour listening to Javier Bardem speak. It would be an hour of pure joy, as it was for me and the rest of the assemblage at the screening. We all wanted him to go on and on, and I’m pretty sure that he would have been more than happy to continue, had the moderator not ended the session for time constraints. (BTW–This guy was the best moderator ever! He totally stayed out of the way, and made it nothing about himself, as most of them do. I wish I knew his name.)

Javier joyfully declared near the end of our time together that “I’m having fun!” He said he loved speaking to a room full of fellow actors, but I have a feeling that he’d have fun doing just about anything. In the middle of his talk, I actually thought the words, “I love this man!” I had a feeling I would, but not to this extent. He’s perfect!

His talk made me realize even more how full of beans most of the other actors with films to push are. As boring and affected as Justin Timberlake was the other night, [check this site for my Social Network review,] Javier was the exact opposite. And the BS that came out of Ann Hathaway and Ed Zwick at their talk last week, regarding the film-making “process,” is Jersey Shore compared to Javier’s Romeo and Juliet! What wastes of time these people were; I think so even more since I’ve been to the mountaintop in that category. It just could not get better than what Javier Bardem had to say.

Lest I bore you with my adulation of this man, here are my last thoughts for the day on this topic: I haven’t even enjoyed watching my own show as much as I did watching this man speak! Those of you who’ve seen me get a kick out of myself know how serious that statement is! I feel like it changed my life. I cannot even portray in words how wonderful this experience was. I’d sit through an even longer, even more depressing, film just to get to hear his discourse again.

I should have posted this whole review this past Friday, rather than just a highlight of what Justin Timberlake had to say in the post-screening Q-and-A, so my scoop about him being on crutches would have been more noticeable, (I think I scooped just everyone, including People.com, for whom I used to write,) but there were several factors in waiting these few days: 1) I had already drafted the review of Love And Other Drugs, so wanted to get it posted, 2) I figured that, by now, most everyone had seen Social Network, so my review wouldn’t be helpful, and 3) I really had nothing profound to say about it, either way, so I wasn’t going to even bother.

But, as time has worn-on, I realize that there was so much juiciness in the post-show, that I need to share it. So here it is. Oysh. All that just for a small actual review!!! I’m exhausting myself before I’ve even begun to write!

The cast members speaking after the screening. Note the crutches under Justin's seat.

Okay, first the two best scoops from Justin Timberlake:

1) As I reported at the end of my Love And Other Drugs review on Friday, just to get credit for the scoop, (which I rarely do get,) Justin hobbled onto the stage with crutches, which he said was a result of a mishap on the set of his latest project, which I believe is titled Now.

2) Here’s a story I also reported on Friday, but I was so excited to witness this that I have to re-share: Justin was talking about how great the film’s use of music was. He was describing how intense it was at one point and said that it made the scene so exciting, “like the bank robbery scene in Heat.” And, sitting right next to me, was Ray Buktenica, the actor who played the bank manager who got punched-out by Robert DeNiro in that very scene!

I looked right over at him, and he had a bemused smile on his face. I asked if he was going to go over and thank Justin after, and, being the classy, non-self-promotional guy he is, of course he wasn’t. But it was a fun experience for me to witness the lauding by Timberlake. I can’t even imagine what that must have felt like for Mr. Buktenica. If it had been me, I’m sure I would have screamed. Loudly.

Other than those bon mots, Justin was the most boring person on earth!!! I was truly shocked. This from the dude who gave us [Junk] In The Box! I didn’t even have to take a warm bath when I got home to fall asleep–I just thought of Justin’s speech.

But the other two guys were somewhat interesting. I don’t really have much of a review of the actual film. I thought it was good enough, (though not enough for any awards they’ve already won,) seemed a little too long, and had excellent portrayals for the most part.

A still from the film--this is how dark most of looked, lighting-wise. I just don't get it.

But I just don’t get why it was so darkly-lit. I guess they were trying to use true college lighting, maybe? I kept checking to see if I was wearing sunglasses by accident. (Don’t laugh–it happened once at an animation festival, and I’ve been aware of that possibility ever since.) For a second, I actually worried that I was dying, ala Betty Davis in what Mr. X and call “Prognosis Negative,” but is really Dark Victory. There’s just no reason for such dark lighting on a film that people are going to spend two hours using their eyes to decipher.

My one other problem with it was Justin Timberlake’s acting, which is not great. I see him thinking that he’s doing great, as he’s doing it. I’m a fan of his music and comedy, but his acting just does not cut it, I’m sorry to say. (And all the writers and critics who say he should be up for an award are just wanting to be on his good side, like they’ve always done when Cher’s been up for something. Her Oscar for her close-to-dreadful performance in Moonstruck over Meryl Streep’s more-than-brilliant portrayal of a homeless woman in Ironweed is beyond laughable.)

Armie Hammer, talking to a fan.

So, back to the post-screening Q-and-A. I swear, I was shocked to find out that the Winklevoss twins, so easy to differentiate on film, were actually played by just one guy! I really must laud the handsome Armie Hammer for his excellent acting job. Everyone I’ve talked to since thought they were twin actors, as well. Mr. X even commented on how of course they got the part because they were perfect for it! And he never gets tricked–he notices every little thing on-screen.

Armie walked-out with us, so I got to witness up-close how nice he was to all the people who wanted a piece of him. Lovely to see.

The other surprise was that Andrew Garfield, who played the real co-founder of Facebook, Eduardo Saverin, is really British! I kept calling him “the Jewish guy” because his movie accent was so New York Jewish; he reminded me of a young Jonathan Silverman. But, just as I giving him props in my mind for such an authentic accent, the speakers mentioned that he was doing a Brazilian one! I did not hear that at all, so I have to re-think my props. It’ll be interesting to see him as the new Spiderman, which I can’t picture, but I still can’t see Tobey McGuire in the role, so maybe I won’t be the best judge on that front.

At least this time, no one in the audience tried to self-promote, as inevitably happens at these events. They must have all just been star-struck to see JT right in front of their eyes.

One thing I found annoying is that, when a question was put to the panel about if they had met their real-life counterparts, Justin said, “Can I take this one?,” knowing full well that the other actors wouldn’t protest. I thought he was just going to tell the story of meeting his guy, Sean Parker, and instead, he told both of the other guys’ stories! He even said, “Andrew had just two photos to work off–he has a great story about doing that,” and then never let the guy tell it!!! Self-involved much, Justin?

Okay, so to re-cap, I don’t think the film as a whole deserves the awards and accolades it’s getting, but I haven’t seen all this year’s crop yet to compare. And Jesse Eisenberg seems excellent to me in the starring role of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, but Mr. X said that that’s basically how he always acts, so I don’t really know.

And, the movie still didn’t answer the question to which many of us are dying to know the answer: JUST HOW ARE THEY MAKING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM A SITE THAT HAS NO ADVERTISING OR AFFILIATE MARKETING??? We just don’t get it. I was really hoping the film would give us just a little insight into that, but all they mentioned was all the money going into the company. [Last night’s 60 MINUTES cleared that up for us, but the movie still should have done so.]

And at the end, the filmmakers put-up notes of who got what in their lawsuits, but I’m pretty sure they didn’t mention the third guy who really invented social networking with the twins. Why not? Googling it all told me that he did get some money out of it, too, so why not let us know? (Unless I just blanked-out when they showed it because it seemed so long by then.)

So, that’s my review: worth seeing, some interesting backstories, and a not-praiseworthy Justin Timberlake. Par for the screening season. [After writing this review, I saw the brilliant Biutiful, which made-up for the up-till-now boring film season, so please don’t miss that review tomorrow.]

I haven’t reviewed any of this year’s crop of films, only because there have been none that I loved, hated, or that inspired me to even discuss. They’ve all been just mediocre for me so far. That is, until I saw this dud the other night. My mouth waters to warn you about it.

I needed to take some drugs to get through this snooze-fest! I don’t read reviews of movies or plays before I see them, so I really don’t know what other people thought of Love And Other Drugs, but if anyone says they liked it, I have a feeling they’re either easy to please or fudging a bit.

I didn’t laugh even once and was bored to tears. The opening montage of Jake Gyllenhaal being charming was fun, but the movie went downhill from there, especially when the super-self-indulgent Ann Hathaway came on. I honestly didn’t get at all what she trying to portray in her first scene at a doctor’s office, and thought that she was going to turn out to be a scam artist to rival the character played by Jake Gyllenhaal, not a girl who was really ill.

I’m so not a fan of Ann Hathaway, so I would assume that it would be her way-too-full-of-herself am-I-not-adorable acting that would ruin the film for me. Her acting is always so obvious; you’re aware that she’s Ann Hathaway at all times. I just couldn’t get into her character in Love And Other Drugs at all. I really can’t figure out how she got this far in the biz. There just have to be better actresses for her roles.

But actually, her acting was only part of the problem. Mainly, I don’t know what the story was trying to be; was it an indictment of the prescription drug business, a sad story of a sick girl, a love story of a former player, or a brother comedy? Judging by how many times Ann Hathaway was naked, I’m assuming it was supposed the third, but it was just too diffused. And the relationship storyline was so pat. (And, no matter how many times she and the director, Ed Zwick, say the nudity was essential to the story, it definitely was not.)

On top of the muddled genre, the writers and director never follow-up on several of the themes: what happened to the homeless man who got better-looking just once from taking the anti-depression samples? He should have shown-up as working in a doctor’s office, at the very least, some time after the scene saying he had a job interview.

And what happened with the brother’s marriage? He said, near the end, that sex with a stranger made him realize how much he misses his wife and that’s the life he wants, but he was already a mess because she kicked him out, so how does this “revelation” manifest itself in his life?

And what about the superb actors, including the rarely-seen-anymore George Segal and the late Jill Clayburgh, as Jake’s parents? They have one scene and are never to be heard from again! What a waste of an excellent supporting case. I kept praying for them to come back. (Or for me to get to go home.)

Even the ever-talented Jake Gyllenhaal couldn’t save this mess. I feel like he took the gig because he just wanted to lighten-up a taste, from his usual heavy roles. (Afterwards, he said his two favorites are Brokeback Mountain and Jarhead, not exactly light fare.) He definitely seemed to be friends with Ann at the Q-and-A, (which he must have flown in to be at, fresh off his coffeehouse tour of the South with Taylor Swift,) but on camera, he had so much more chemistry with Heath Ledger!

The post-screening Q-and-A was only a tad more entertaining than the movie itself. For once, we had a good, try-to-move-it-along moderator, whose name I didn’t catch, but I believe he said he wrote the article on the movie for Entertainment Weekly. (I tried googling him, but gave-up after a half hour with no luck.)

Jake was darling, charming, natural, and brief. Ann could not stop rambling, thinking she was giving cute, clever asides, and interrupting the moderator to weigh in on every topic, making them all about her. (Maybe she should take a tip from the name of this site and remember “it’s not about me.”) I’ve never seen so many audience members get antsy and start to leave during one of these sessions, especially with a very well-thought-of actor such as Jake participating. Ann made it seem as long as the tedious movie felt. (I was shocked when I found-out later the film wasn’t even two hours long!)

When we finally left, my guest, who said she liked Ann on the way there, said she now didn’t like her, either, after seeing her in person. She said, “Now I know what you mean,” when I imitate her phoniness.

It’s funny–I’m sitting here needing an ending to this review, and then thought that maybe everything doesn’t need an ending, per se. But then I realized that at the screening, I was grateful for Jake’s character’s last line, which explained why he liked her, since it was far from obvious from the story. So, that’s my ending, too–we, the audience, needed his attraction to her explained.

[Here’s a better ending to this column, although it’s a sidebar about another screening I just attended last night. I’m putting this story in my last Celebrity Sightings column of the year, that’ll be posted towards the end of the month, but it was so exciting to me that I have to tell you now.

Justin Timberlake was one of the speakers at the end of the Social Network screening, {and, here's a sidebar to my sidebar: he was on crutches from an accident he had on a set the previous night,} and was talking about how great the film’s use of music was. He was describing how intense it was at one point and said that it made the scene so exciting, “like the bank robbery scene in Heat.” And, sitting right next to me, was Ray Buktenica, the actor who played the bank manager who got punched-out by Robert DeNiro in that very scene!

I looked right over at him, and he had a bemused smile on his face. I asked if he was going to go over and thank Justin after, and, being the classy, non-self-promotional guy he is, of course he wasn’t. But it was a fun experience for me to witness the lauding by Timberlake. I can’t even imagine what that must have felt like for Mr. Buktenica. If it had been me, I’m sure I would have screamed. Loudly.]

I had no idea what to expect of this film. Mafia stuff isn’t really up my alley and I attended the VIP screening and after-party just because I like the PR person and the event was close to my house, at the Italian Cultural Institute of Los Angeles in Westwood, across from the W Hotel.

But not only did I enjoy the event as a whole, but I was riveted to the film! And when the adorable, charming, intelligent director, Marco Amenta, spoke post-screening, I was in professional love. A more passionate filmmaker I can not imagine. And, as with almost all Italians I know, he is so articulate, in what isn’t his native language, and informative, and honest that you just have to root for his success.

A brief synopsis just would not do The Sicilian Girl any justice, but I’ll try anyway. This is no fictional Sopranos. Rather, it’s the true story of a young Sicilian girl’s quest for justice when first her father and then her brother are murdered by their compatriots. As with all real-life mob stories, there can never be a happy ending, but the journey is indeed fascinating.

And the actors are fantastic, even the ones that Marco explained are not really in the business, but are his friends and acquaintances. (There’s one person in show business who actually employs his friends, as opposed to many of my so-called pals who wouldn’t miss a function of mine, but are loathe to even call me in to read! And this time it’s really not about me–it’s all on them. There are sad psychological reasons that have been explained to me, but no need to go into that here; I just wanted to laud Marco for his loyalty to his friendships.)

I didn’t even mind the subtitles because the Italian language is so enthralling to listen to. You can just know what they’re saying by their physicality at each moment. I felt that the entire audience was just glued to our seats.

"The Sicilian Girl" director, Marco Amenta.

Same as we were for Marco’s stories, especially the collaborations with his legendary 77-year-old Italian co-screenwriter, Sergio Donati, of Sergio Leone fame. (Research these men, if you have the time. All captivating.) He started off speaking with no moderator, who was late and whom we wished hadn’t showed-up at all because he broke-up Marco’s wonderful rhythms a bit. His tales were a bit like mine–long, but entertaining. (I meant just long for mine; it’s not for me to say whether or not mine were entertaining.) He’s probably the only other person who could have comfortably done my show, Karen’s Restaurant Revue, for all those years! I’ve never met anyone else who would be at home sitting at a table spinning their yarns for thirty minutes in a row.

When we finally left the cozy screening room, there was a fun buffet of multiple pastas–what else? Near-by Pastina had done the catering, and it was really delicious, especially the Penne Bolognese. I used to go there a lot, but have forgotten about it in recent years. Maybe it’s time for a review of them, if the party fare was any indication. Nothing like good chow and hip live music to make one forget the murder and mayhem that was just witnessed in the film. Despite the sad topic of The Sicilian Girl, who doesn’t love an evening of Italian food and men? And I certainly was held spellbound by it all.

www.musicboxfilms.com/the-sicilian-girl www.musicboxfilms.com/the-sicilian-girl

This movie really doesn’t need big in-depth analysis. I can sum it up like this: fabulous dancing, the best 3-D ever, crap story, worse acting, and even worse dialog. Period.

If you need deets, there are but a few. I saw it at a very private screening with a mainly geriatric audience. I give them tons of credit for hanging in there. I really expected to see an empty theatre when the lights came on at the end, save for my krumper bf and me.

All the dancing is phenomenal–I don’t know how these people do it! Nor can I wrap my head around that there are so many dancers capable of these moves. The 3-D makes everything even more mind-blowing than it already is.

I must say, though, that a couple of the girls, like the one who’s so desperate for attention that she makes her hair pinkish-red, are nothing special at all, and just clutter up the area. And, though the lead girl, who plays the character Natalie, is not even close to as awful as the infamous Karen Lynn Gorney in the old school Saturday Night Fever, I don’t get why she was cast–there had to be better girl dancers and for sure better actresses. Though there’s not too much anyone could do to not look foolish saying these dopey lines.

I just wish the whole picture was dancing only, with no dialog. It and the story itself are beyond lame. I wrote better lines for my sixth grade Christmas play!!! For real. My advice to potential audience members is to just rest up during the non-dance parts. Then let your mind get boggled when the moves kick in. And then go home and forget the whole thing. The end.