He said, she said and he said

While we were waiting for the news of my blog partner's romantic rendevous, fellow blogger lccb and I decided it might be interesting for us to do another guest review on this here blog. Thus we came up with 2 films neither of the other had ever seen, not too difficult considering our vastly different tastes in...everything.

LCCB dared me to watch The Notebook, the film version of the Nicholas Sparks bestseller and I dared her to watch The Big Lebowski, the film version of a guy the Cohen Brothers know in real-life (watch the DVD extras if you doubt me).

So without further ado, I present to you reviews of both films. Keeping true to the format Green and I created whilst drunk and hanging out in a Tijuana tit bar, the challenger's review appears first in each section. Ladies first:

SCRIBE'S CHALLENGE:
The Notebook

LCCB's sexy guest review: When I suggested this movie to my dear Scribe, I had not actually seen it. I had read the book and had cried buckets at the ending. Even the previews made me tear up. So in terms of tear factor, this movie was a success. I was sobbing towards the end. I should say it was a particularly hormonal time of the month for me, but that aside, I think I would have cried anyway, just not as hard.

This movie is a love story told by an older gentleman to a female friend who suffers from dementia in a nursing home. He tells the story of star-crossed lovers who you hope in the end will not be so star-crossed. Girl and boy meet, girl and boy fall in love, girl moves away sooner rather than later as mother disapproves of said poor boy. Years later he sees her but she's engaged to a much wealthier boy so she does not see him. Before she gets married she goes to see him as she has doubts and… well, she has to choose. (Insert suspense here)

The good thing about the movie is that while it is predictable in the traditional love story sense, it takes has twist that reflects reality – the love that is not just about the love story but about life. So needless to say, the story itself is great.

In terms of the acting, it was not first-rate but it was good. The pace was a little slow but I have a personal belief that most movies don't have to be more than 1 hr. 30 min. It's not the kind of movie that kept me glued to my seat but I genuinely liked most of the characters and wanted to keep watching past the slow parts.

***1/2 out of ***** (Tear factor: 5 tears out of 5 tears)

Scribe's sexier review: I was surprised at how watchable this film was. I was expecting schamtlz and, for the most part, I got it, but it was nowhere near as painful as I thought it would be.

The film, based on mainstream author Nicholas Sparks' bestseller, concerns an elderly woman with Alzheimer's and the man who comes to see her daily in order to read from a notebook that tells the story of an unlikely love between two people who should have ended their romantic affair at the end of the summer during which they met.

Sadly, the film depends heavily upon flashbacks, the refuge of a lazy writer. Even sadder, the acting in the flashbacks is painfully awkward when first we meet the young Allie and Noah. He is from the wrong side of the tracks and she is a wealthy girl with the world at her feet. I was stricken by the originality of the concept, as I 'm sure are you. Young Noah (Ryan Gosling), cocksure and charming in an unrefined yet oddly intelligent way, goes to great and embarrasingly hackneyed lengths to get a date with the yummy Allie (Rachel MacAdams) and of course she gives in.

The early scenes in the late 1930's are awkwardly rendered, due in no small part to the fact that no actor under 30 seems capable of realistically portraying people from that time period anymore. McAdams is fine and credible but Gosling is not. There was not a single moment that I bought his performance; it was too contemporary and unconvincing. By contrast, James Garner and Genna Rowlands are incredible in their performances, despite looking absolutely nothing like their younger counter-parts. Although they are only in 25% of the film, those two are the only reason to keep watching.

Another point in this film's favor is the fact that the filmmakers don't try to hide the "big secret" for the entire film. Only an idiot wouldn't have known what was happening and they wisely revealed it at the movie's middle point.

Nicholas Sparks is one of those writers whose works have convinced me that James Grisham is not the biggest hack in the field after all. His dialogue is rancid, his situations are right out of the charts for writing romance fiction, and his narrative is filled with horrific cliches' and bad imagery.

So, it comes as no surprise that the ending falls flat and fails miserabley, due in so small to the fact that it is the tactic of a first semester creative writing student. It was hoakey and far-fetched and ruins the film's overall message, which is the continuation of devotion despite harsh conditions. Still, there is a compelling quality to the story that garners it a decent review.

*** out of *****

Green's Two Cents: I had not watched this film before. Had no desire to, actually, until the Scribester suggested I add my review in here. Actually, I had read the book this summer (can't refuse a challenge from a beautiful woman) and liked it. This is one of Nicholas Sparks' thinner novels and from what I remember, the book doesn't have nearly the early character development as the movie needs to have to beef up the run time to a healthy 124 minutes.

True, it is a sappy story, but what love story isn't sappy to some degree? Generally I agree with scribe-o-rama that relying on flashbacks is a poor writer's way of doing business. In this case it works because the story deals with the main older character's fight vs. Alzheimer's Disease and her beloved husband reading to her from a journal that she wrote to help regain her memory for brief periods.

I thought Rachel McAdams did a great job as the young Allie and (gasp!) I'll agree with Scribey-Wibey again that Ryan Gosling's performance as young Noah was stiff and uninspiring. I can't believe that in this day and age of movie CGI characters and superb make-up artistry that McAdams and Gosling weren't suitably age-enhanced to portray their characters' older selves. Joan Allen was a scene stealer as Allie's conceited and uppity mother.

And a record third agreement with Sir Scribe-a-Lot that James Garner looks nothing like Ryan Gosling. Gena Rowlands passes adequately for an elder Rachel McAdams but barely. Still, Garner and Rowlands performances were excellent.

This is a watchable film because of the emotional nature of the story and it's real life victims, even if the suspense is dull razor-blade thin and the ending predictably adding to the sappiness..

*** out of *****

LCCB'S CHALLENGE:
The Big Lebowski

Scribe's compelling review: Simply put, this is one of the greatest examples of anarchy in filmmaking ever put on the screen. Unlike most mainstream movies, it doesn't concern itself with plot progression and muli-layered storylines.

Quite simply, it is the story of "The Dude," (Jeff Bridges) a Hippy slacker who happens to share first and last name with a millionaire whose trampy trophy wife owes loan sharks money. Unfortunately for the Dude, the idiots sent out to collect the money get the wrong address and wind up roughing up the wrong guy. The Dude is cool with getting his face slammed in the toilet, but when the "Chinaman" pees on his rug, that's just going too far.

You see, that rug "really brought the room together." He is willing to forgive the transgression at first, but this is 1991 (film released in 1997) at the height of Desert Storm and Dude decides to draw a line in the sand, prompted by his unlikely buddy Walter (the underrated John Goodman) a Vietnam vet and gun nut who enjoys bowling and celebrates Jewish holidays in honor of his ex-wife.

Soon The Dude and Walter find themselves embroiled in a kidnapping plot that may or may not be staged, hunted by pancake-loving German nihilsts, a disgusted heiress (Julianne Moore) and quivering at the sight of convicted sex offender "The Jesus" (John Turturro).

In the midst of it all, Bridges, Goodman and Steve Buscemi as the terribly treated Donny display a style of acting and a timing rarely seen in film these days. The lack of structure almost becomes a structure of its own as this movie creates its own reality and energy.

The Big Lebowski is a journey into a world inhabited by fringe-dwelling weirdoes who, for no apprent reason, make us feel like the world is a place worth fighting for just because it can create such hilarity and lack of purpose.

***** out of *****

LCCB's feminist-leaning review: Really? I just sat through that movie because of a damn rug? I will be the first to admit that I didn't get this movie. I mean, I got the story line, I got the characters, I got the jokes (ok, not really) and I got The Dude. But the movie did not arrive anywhere. It didn't really start anywhere. I'm not sure how to even begin to describe this movie.

Basically, there are two Lebowskis, the rich, old one married to "Bunny" and "The Dude" whose a total slacker. The Dude gets confused for the rich one and his rug gets peed on. This sets him off on a journey to get a rug replacement, which puts him on the path of trying to figure out a kidnapping and trying to get some cash for his slacker unemployed self. That's pretty much it. Except it isn't. I know that I must have missed something, because I know I did not just spend almost two hours watching something that had absolutely no point!!! (And which one is the Big Lebowski anyway????? Whatever.)

John Goodman's character was my favorite by far. The script is littered with great one-liners. It's a funny movie. But I still don't get it.

*** of ****

Green's Better Late Than Never Review: The Since the scribester did an excellent job reviewing the plot for us, I won't waste your time (or mine) doing it again.

The best thing I can say about this movie is that Jeff Bridges makes a very convincing hippie slacker "dude". John Goodman is cool in virtually every role he's ever done. Otherwise, this makes it into the top ten list of the worst/dumbest films I have ever seen. Maybe this movie would be funnier if I were drunk while watching it. Maybe not. No, probably not. Even mass quantities of liquor (or some of the ganja "dude" smokes) floating through my body wouldn't be enough to alter my opinion. Save yourself. Avoid this movie at all costs.

* out of *****