The Night Of The Bad Judgement Calls.

SAW II (2005)

I know how this works. One good horror movie always breeds a shitty horror movie sequel. It's horror movie law. So after thoroughly enjoying Saw (2004), I didn't go into Saw II expecting anything particularly awe-inspiring. However, it does say something about Hollywood's sewage system when Saw, the based-on-a-student-film with a then no-name director and writer, is a solid horror classic and Saw II is just...well. Something that floated up from the depths of the swamp, right next to the Mob Boss Tony's last hit. 

But, like I said, I expected it, and when you know a movie's going to be bad, you generally have a lot more patience for it. So I sat back, let it run its course, and tried not to ask too many questions like: 

• Why don't they pull the antidote off the dead guy's body? 
• Why do the hackers take an hour and a half to show up? 
• Why do they have two inept cops working the case, one of which is very emotionally compromised? 
• Why are all the people in the death-house insanely stubborn? 
• I mean, really stubborn?
• As in: not making any sort of logical decisions at all?

I have to hand it to the detective's son stuck in the room full of poisonous gas with about five other people: at least he didn't do shit. I mean, if poison is seeping into your lungs, I think the smartest thing to do would be to sit still, keep your mouth shut, and try not to breath. Right? So while he was pretty much a pointless pawn character, he was the only one I really had any respect for because he didn't breath like Brainy. How about that? I don't expect a lot of logic from horror movie characters, but it's nice when at least one of them has some sort of method to their madness.

The only thing that gave this movie any sort of street cred was the ending. While it was predictable, I did make an uncontrollable happy-noise when I saw a familiar set, so that was enjoyable. Other than that, I'm slowly (but surely) making my way through this franchise (so if I see spoilers, I might have to don my pig-mask). Saw III review coming soon!

"What If?"

THE TIME MACHINE (2002)

Considering the fact that this movie has a tendency to attract bad ratings, I'm probably going to get some raised eyebrows on this one. Full disclaimer: I haven't seen the 1960s Time Machine. I haven't read H.G. Wells' novel. And I definitely did not go into this one expecting some full-on, H.G. Wells intellectualism. I just wanted to see a good, sci-fi movie. And I got exactly what I came for. I'm aware that this movie was made in 2002, but to me, it still carries all the innocence and charm of a good, pre-2000s adventure movie. When adventure movies were full of adventure rather than dead cat skins filled with a CGI stuffing. The good guys are good. The bad guys are bad. And there's just something very genuine about the whole film, a certain kind of honest simply hasn't existed in the past decade or so. 

Maybe the special effects weren't always all that great, but everything was much more organic. It was more believable because the actors were able to act with physical people wearing animatronic masks, rather than trying to respond to black dots on a green screen. Not to mention, there's a sense of wonder about it. Nowadays, characters have a tendency to stride onto another planet with a been there, done that attitude. But audiences remember the wonder they felt as they watched the beast of the Brachiosaurus lumber across the screen in Jurassic Park. They remember the awe of the prized artifacts Indiana Jones dug up from the dirt. Now, The Time Machine is in no way comparable to those two classics, but it carries with it that same, unpolished curiosity as we travel through time and get to experience flashes of the world at different times. And since I am a sap and apparently completely nostalgic for a good, solid adventure movie: four stars to you, Time Machine.

As for the content itself, it's just a fun movie. There isn't actually a whole heck of a lot of plot, more like a starting point, some random stuff in between and an ending point. That said, the acting is all on point. Guy Pearce plays a great, obsessed scientist. With a time machine. Orlando Jones is incredibly likable as a hologram librarian. Jeremy Irons is an crazy albino Legolas. Everyone was exactly what they needed to be and pulled together an engaging, creative movie. 

"He Doesn't Want Us To Cut Through Our Chains."

SAW (2004)

So here's the thing. I actually avoided this one when it came out. I couldn't tell you why. Probably because it was around the time when the theaters were infested with plotless gore and I was over it. I was getting sick and tired of the same "rotting" green filter and the same heavy breathing in the microphone. So I skipped this one. For much too long. Finally, I sat down to see it. And I'll be the first to say it: I was wrong. 

The brilliance of Saw is that it's just a straight-up good movie. There's a good deal of gore, sure, but that's nothing compared to the mindfuck that this movie puts you through every time Jigsaw gets another victim under his grasp. We have our killer, our hero, we even have the obsessive cop with a chip on his shoulder. It's all the makings of a good, physiological thriller. The acting is, for the most part, pretty solid, and it helps that Ben makes an appearance. It puts a lot of twists on what you expect from a horror film and constantly ups the ante. Case in point: tired of the one man fumbling through his dark apartment to avoid a hidden assailant? Try a photographer fumbling through his apartment, constantly flashing pictures to give himself some makeshift light. Brilliant. The music is epic, the pacing is great, I really have no complaints with the movie as it is. 

Of course, one of my favorite things about Saw is how simple it is. The majority of the movie just focuses on two guys in a filthy room. It was created by two film students straight out of school who wanted to make something low-budget and brilliant. Honestly, it doesn't get better than that. What can I say, I'm a sucker for a Cinderella story that ends in a jaw-splitting torture helmet. 

I'm probably the last person on earth to see this movie, so I highly doubt I have to recommend this one to anyone. Onto the rest of the series! 

Getting Adults Out Of Their Diapers.

TWELVE AND HOLDING (2005)

I know, I'm on a Renner rampage. However, Jeremy Renner, as epic as he is, is a shadow in the backdrop of this straight-up good movie. The premise follows like this: after the death of his twin brother, one 12-year old boy and his two best friends struggle to get a hold on plots for revenge, their own wild hormones, and unhealthy family dysfunction. It's a dark, intense movie that keeps the viewer in a vice grip of teenage angst and drama. But this isn't about teen pregnancy or the popular cheerleaders in class. Instead, this is one of the few movies I've seen that treats children with the dignity and the respect they deserve. And it's for that reason alone, really, that I gave this one a full five stars, because children are so often swept under the rug in cinema. Steven Spielberg aside, no one seems to really care about what goes on in the mind of a child, unless they can slap a talking dog in it and sell it for millions. Instead, Twelve And Holding gives the children the much-deserved center stage, while the adults take a backseat. 

In order to have a movie like this work, however, you need good child actors who can handle the heavy material, and not cereal box Anakin Skywalker. And, damn, do these kids hold their own. Watch out for these names, because they're going to get a heck of a lot of recognition when they grow up. Conor Donovan plays the ill-fated twins, giving a performance Cate Blanchett would be proud of. Zoe Weizenbaum (stealing the scene from Jeremy Renner) gives a positively fearless performance as the attention-seeking Malee Chuang. And Jesse Camacho pulls off a bold performance and one of my favorite subplots of the movie as he bears the burden of his family's unhealthy lifestyle. All these kids hold their own, and I really don't know what I'm more impressed with: children who can act like adults, or adults who can write like children. Either way, if you can handle the dark side of growing up, I highly recommend everyone check this own out.

"I'm A Killer...Like You."

DAHMER (2002)

So I finally got around to seeing The Avengers (2012). Which left me, like everyone else, teeming with Avenger fever. So I did the next logical step: I set out to hunt down the Avengers cast on Netflix and see if I could find anything to take the edge off. So I popped in Dahmer. Let's just say I couldn't get further from Hawkeye if I tried. Dahmer is a retelling of the life of Jeffrey Dahmer, a serial killer who murdered 17 men. And occasionally raped them and ate their flesh. Sounds horrifying? It is. Though now have a good theory about where Joss Whedon's Reavers came from.

Dahmer is one of those high-profile stories that demands an audience. However, it's clear that this was the only thing the writers banked on when doing the script. The movie has two timelines running simultaneously alongside each other. Moving forward, we have Jeffrey Dahmer grooming his latest victim--a flashy, flamboyant black man, Rodney. Told in reverse, we have the story of how Jeffrey Dahmer became the psychopath he is. In theory, this kind of storytelling should work, but the transitions are a little too sloppy. We've got flashbacks in flashbacks. Yeah. That.

However, Dahmer has a couple saving graces. The story is twisted and intense. Jeffrey Dahmer is neither demonized or forgiven. But the real reason to see this movie? The acting. After watching Jeremy Renner pull off the calm, rational Hawkeye, you really get the full extent of his acting abilities when you see him as the socially inept, mentally damaged Dahmer. Matching him frame-for-frame is Artel Great, who plays Rodney. Artel Great is full of energy and vibrance and he adds a layer of much-needed humanity to the film. In short, if drawn out scenes of mutilation and psychological torment don't make you run for cover, I'd recommend this one solely for the exceptional acting. 

Vampire Porn Goes Viral.

QUEEN OF THE DAMNED (2002)

Since I reviewed Interview With The Vampire, I felt obligated to review this one as well. Even though I am aware that it is entirely unfair of me to review this bad boy, since I have read the book by Anne Rice, Queen Of The Damned, and therefore I hate this movie's undead, beating heart. My hatred is blind and complete. I have absolutely no idea how this movie holds up as a movie, that is, on it's own two legs without the knowledge that a much better book came before it. For all I know, this could be an excellent vampire movie. But here's the thing--if you want to go ahead and make your own vampire movie, fine by me. Hollywood is happy to oblige more bloodsuckers. However, if you're going to do a translation of a book, for the love of God, read the source material. I'm looking at you too, Troy. It barely follows the plot of the book, the characters are all turned on their heads, and worst of all, the director doesn't even know how to pronounce major character's names. Not even kidding. Listen to the commentary, he calls the very French Louis "Lou-IS." And my brain all over the walls.

Am I being petty? Completely. But let's look at the facts: enter our main character and hero, Lestat. The self-absorbed Brat Prince of the vampire world. Great. So they've switched up his backstory, but I get it. He has a complicated, incestuous past, and you want to keep him on the sexy side. Fine. But then they go and cast pretty-boy Stuart Townsend, who has a hard time acting his way out of a paper bag. I will give him credit where credit is due--his role as Dorian Gray in The League of Extraordinary Gentleman? Great. I was one of the few people that actually enjoyed that movie. Probably because I was just tickled by the irony of the fact that Dorian Gray was a lot more like Lestat than Queen Of The Damned's Lestat ever was. 

Moving on--Aaliyah, who played the man-hating ancient Queen Akasha, was actually one of the few enjoyable parts of the movie. She's got that whole vampire swag going on, so I can appreciate that. And she's just as campy and creepy as she needs to be. Fine by me. But then we move to the next in line female protagonist--Jesse Reeves, played by Marguerite Moreau. Jesse was an annoying little Mary Sue in the books, and she's an even more irritating annoying little Mary Sue in the movie. And she ruined a perfectly good gay romance. There is nothing I like about Jesse. The last actor I'll mention is Vincent Perez, who played Lestat's...maker (it hurts me just to say that), Marius. Aaliyah aside, Marius was the best part of the movie. Hands down. He was completely insane and flamboyant in all the right places. You go, Vincent Perez. The long and short of it is this: I hated this movie. But only because I have very fond memories of the book. My suggestion to anyone who isn't familiar with the book would be to probably see the movie first. And then you can tell me if it makes a good movie on its own, or you can join me in ceremoniously burning the DVD and scattering its ashes. 

"We Thought You Was A Toad."

O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? (2000)

Ah, the Coen Brothers. That name is really all you need to say and I'm running to the theaters with my ticket in hand. The Coen Brothers have yet to make a movie that's really bored me to tears. Sure, some are better than others. Some are cleaner than others. But no matter what, they have a knack of making movies that really stick with you. O Brother, Where Art Thou? is a translated version of The Odyssey, featuring three convicts who break out of prison in the 1930s and run away to find an alleged treasure. They meet various folks along their journey, including a man who sold his soul for the guitar, a one-eyed con-man, and Baby Face Nelson himself.

I'll start off with the actors and just say they're all fantastic. George Clooney plays the articulate ring-leader, Everett, and he nails the role. I mean, he's George Clooney. He's always a pleasure to watch. Then we've got the extremely underrated John Turturro, who just looks like he belongs in the wrong end of a jail cell. And Tim Blake Nelson, also underrated, is something of a comic relief as the convict with a heart of gold. It helps that they have a great script to work with, delivering brilliant lines of dialogue one right after the other. Is O Brother, Where Art Thou? problematic as a movie? Sure, the acts don't quite jive, the narrative jumps around a little too much, some solutions are just too "convenient." But have I seen it so many times I can quote it? Yes, yes, I have. If that's not the true testament to a good movie, I don't know what is. 

"The Profile Doesn't Fit The Profile."

MURDER BY NUMBERS (2002)

I just rewatched this movie after having put it down since...well...probably sometime around 2002. And, damn. I forgot what a good movie it was. It's a good, solid movie. Period. It's not just the good actors. Or the insane characters. Or the wild plot. It's the ambiance of the film. The little details. It's the docked boat our heroine sleeps in, the decrepit house the two students work out of, the battle scars under a turtleneck. It has the plot of a Law & Order episode with the undercurrent of an old murder mystery novel. In short, it's everything I enjoy. The main plot runs as such: two bored and morbid students kill a woman just because they can. A detective with a dark and violent past becomes invested in the case when the details start to feel a little too personal. So far so good, right? 

The interesting thing about this movie is it doesn't take the easy way out. It's not a standard whodunit. We know right off the bat who the murderers are. Case closed. The real meat of the movie is in watching the various characters battle with their own demons. The guilty conscience, the paranoid reflex, the itch of things buried right under the skin. And maybe I'm giving Murder By Numbers a little more credit than its due for pure nostalgia reasons. Sure, the ending's a little over the top, it has its campy moments. But there's very little I love more in the world that dissecting the psyche of truly fucked-in-the-head people. Kids who murder because they can...now that's an uncomfortable subject. It's something that makes you squirm the entire movie. Murder without rhyme or reason is just something that doesn't sit well with anyone, and this movie doesn't ever let you off that hook.

As for the actors, this is a throwback. All your favorites of the 2010s before they really hit the jackpot. Ryan Gosling, looking like a baby. All you Notebook fans, check this one out. You will sleep with one eye open. Then we have Michael Pitt, who has always been around by somehow just recently seems to have come into the public eye with Boardwalk Empire. Also looking like a baby. Finally, we've got Sandra Bullock. I know what you're thinking--gag reflex. But I'm one of those people who was actually rooting for her in her earlier years. Let's face it, she had that tomboy with an attitude and a quick tongue down pat. So long as she was playing the rough and tumble characters, I was there with her. Lately, yes. I've avoided her like the plague. But Cassie Mayweather is a hardass on a mission, and there is little I want more in a female detective role. Plus, watching her tumble around with her partner in crime because she has some inner demons to burn is brilliant. She's just a straight up fully fleshed character, and Sandra Bullock pulls her off brilliantly. Lastly, I have to give a shout out to Chris Penn. Because he's in this movie, even if it's only for a couple minutes, and that makes me happy beyond happy. You go, Nice Guy. 

Move Aside, Chris Hansen.

HARD CANDY (2005)

You know the lecture. We've all heard it at one point in our lives since the invention of the world wide web. "There's nothing but perverts and pedophiles out there. Beware." And so parents do their best to monitors their children and sleep easy to the sounds of Chris Hansen on Dateline. Everyone's out to kill our children. If it's not the internet, it's the strangers we talk to and the man on the side of the road sticking his thumb out. I don't know about you, but I've always thought the only person more frightening than the hitchhiker with a hockey mask is the driver who's willing to pick up a hitchhiker with a hockey mask. Hard Candy falls somewhere along those lines. It follows the journey of a 14 year old girl (Ellen Page) who decides to finally meet face-to-face the 32 year old photographer (Patrick Wilson) who has been chatting her up on the internet. To say any more than that is really to spoil the brilliance of the movie. What I will say is that what plays out is an intense cat-and-mouse game that would probably put Patrick Bateman to shame. 

The real brilliance of this movie is in the acting. The concept itself is fantastic, but it's the actors who really turn it around. Ellen Page is not the soft little thing you remember from Juno. She's got a multitude of sides to her, and she plays them all with a chilling deadpan brilliance. As for Patrick Wilson, I can't help but like the guy. Between Watchmen and The A-Team, I'm sold. Sandra Oh makes a brief appearance, but for the most part the entirety of the movie focuses completely on the two leads. They not only play off each other fantastically, but are also excellent in their own right. One of the great things this movie has going for it is good, old fashioned suspense. It's the monster behind the curtains that never really shows its face. It's the very visceral feeling of dread as you watch the characters spiral further and further out of control. If you've got a taste for tension and it's been an hour since your last meal, I'd definitely suggest checking this one out.

I Wanna Breach Your Firewall, Baby.

GAMER (2009)

Some movies are best when you really don't know what you're getting into. Gamer is an excellent example of ignorance is bliss. This movie was supposed to be a good date night pick: Gerard Butler for my lady, explosive action sequences for me. Win-win. Never mind that I had the sneaking suspicion in the back of my head that it was probably made for 14 year old boys and it was probably going to end with the hero growling the words: "Game over." The result was...not quite what I had expected. Instead, I got a future, dystopian society with gladiator style fights with a cyberpunk twist. Hello? How did things suddenly get so awesome?

The world is brilliantly done. In this world, everyone is hooked into their own virtual realities. Except virtual reality is...well...real, and the people on the other side of the screen are being forced by mind control to perform lewd and sometimes deadly acts. Think reality TV with guns. In many ways, you can pair this movie off with Hunger Games. But that wouldn't be quite right, because while Hunger Games delved into serious societal and political issues, Gamer was just a lot of campy fun. The fight scenes are fun, the world is epic, and Gerard Butler is everything you want Gerard Butler to be. The noble hero man with a lot of muscle and a little snark in him. Ludacris is in it as the computer hacker/rebellion leader. I really just enjoy his face, so that cameo made me happy. But the one who really steals the show is Michael C. Hall. Playing--what else?--a psychopath. But here he's a psychopath with a lot of money and some tap dance lessons. He's campy, he's sadistic, and he's just plain insane. But so, so much fun to watch. As usual, he steals every scene and owns the camera. If you have absolutely no desire to see this movie, consider it. Consider it solely for Michael C. Hall. Damn, man. Work it. 

"What Kind Of Devil Bird Chirps At Night?"

FAILURE TO LAUNCH (2006)

If there's anything I hate worse than a Matthew McConaughey movie, it's a Sarah Jessica Parker movie. If there's anything I hate worse than a Sarah Jessica Parker movie, it's a poorly written Sarah Jessica Parker romcom with Matthew McConaughey. It was as though someone in Hollywood decided to take everything I hate and crammed it all into one unwatchable 90 minute mess. Failure to Launch is about an unmotivated slacker, Tripp, who lives at home with his parents. Just by his name alone, we can already tell he's going to be obnoxious. The thing is, I don't always hate Matthew McConaughey. I was one of the few people that actually enjoyed Sahara (2005). And I thought he was great in Tropic Thunder (2008). It's just that awful cheesy smile he reserves for the worst kind of romantic comedy that grates on my every nerve. Sarah Jessica Parker is something else. I've never liked her, I never will. It doesn't even have anything to really do with her acting, it's just an irrational gut feeling of revulsion every time I get when I see her. Kind of like a gag reflex. Between the two of them, it was hard for me to watch this movie from between the spaces in my fingers.

The real tragedy of this movie is that the supporting cast isn't that bad. Justin Bartha just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. His comic timing is always spot on, even in subtle ways like The Hangover. Knowing that, it's a little painful to watch him downgraded to slapstick humor. Not that I have anything against slapstick, it's just...hard to watch when it's not really his style. I even enjoyed Zooey Deschanel, even though she only plays...Zooey Deschanel. But she had great chemistry with Justin Bartha and the few redeemable moments of this movie happened within the small subplot of their relationship. In short, those two are the reason why this film has a star at all. Also, a shout out to Bradley Cooper, just because it's fun to watch him alongside his Hangover compadre without them running around like headless chickens going "what happened?". But really, Hollywood. What happened? 

Fassbender Snuggles A Bear Cub For 2 Hours.

A BEAR NAMED WINNIE (2004)

A good reprieve from American Psycho, no? A Bear Named Winnie delves into the origins of the bear that inspired Winnie The Pooh, a bear named Winnie who was adopted by a World War I army veterinarian, an ultimately won over (most of) the infantry. In short, A Bear Named Winnie is what happens when you feel like doing your history on Michael Fassbender and realize that this one is an instant watch on Netflix. I'm assuming the target audience encompasses young children and their tired mothers looking for a little more eye-candy than The Hunchback Of Notre Dame has to offer, so with that in mind, I'm fully aware that I fall outside this movie's spectrum. However, I have to give it points for trying. Credit where credit is due, there have been worse movies for children dedicated to animals, which can be summed up in "animals do silly animal things for 90 minutes straight." At very least, this movie has a World War I backdrop. Which makes for good bromances and vague moral queries. It also makes for a hardass commanding officer antagonist, who is always over the top but necessary for movies like this.

The highlight, of course, is the bear, Winnie, and Michael Fassbender. The movie really could have been called Fassbender Snuggles A Bear Cub For 2 Hours and I would've been satisfied. Winnie herself is an adorable, lumbering thing and watching her wrap Fassbender in a bear hug sends me into spasms of irrational glee. It doesn't help that Stephen Fry makes a brief but always welcome cameo. Overall, the movie is a happy-go-lucky feel good animal film that never gets too campy nor too Old Yeller style dark, and while it might run a little longer than it has to, it's an entertaining watch for children, Fassbender fanatics, and anyone who stays up at night dreaming about burrowing their face into a mountain of warm bear fur.

"I Have To Return Some Videotapes."

AMERICAN PSYCHO (2000)

If there's anything I love more than a good bloodbath, it's a murderer lecturing about Huey Lewis and the News before cheerfully slicing an axe through his coworker's head. American Psycho gives us the story of Patrick Bateman, a wealthy New York banking executive who wants nothing more than to wear the best suits and go to the best restaurants and own the best business cards. And if he can do it while slaughtering everyone around him, all the better. It's incredibly dark, never skimps on the blood stains, and is riddled with black humor. The frantic comedy is, above all, what makes this a woefully addictive movie, not to mention the namesake for this blog. With its high body count, twisted humor, and scathing social commentary, it's really everything I want out of a movie. 

Above all, I have to give Christian Bale credit where credit is due for this one. He's churned out some great roles over the past twelve years, but I'd still be hard pressed to find anything that tops the fearlessness with which he dives into Patrick Bateman's spit-shined shoes. I don't know what he's channelling, but it comes across as a mix between Jim Carrey and crack cocaine. His energy is through the roof, but he's more than dancing on his toes--it's the subtle expressions that really nail the character, the desperation with which his psychotic inner demons cling for some kind of control seem ever present in his painfully self-aware mask. As for the other characters, he definitely has a terrific supporting cast. Willem Dafoe can't seem to shake his detective's badge, but who would really want him to when he pulls it off so damn well? Jared Leto pulls off a great sleazy business man, and even Reese Witherspoon, a hit and miss (and mostly miss) actress delivers a great, solid performance, no doubt courtesy of the brilliant script. If you've got a sweet tooth for the unapologetically morbid, I highly recommend this bad boy. 

And You Thought Godzilla Was Scary?

LOST IN TRANSLATION (2003)

A confession: the first time I saw this movie, I hated it. I didn't want to see it again. Ever. I couldn't understand why there was such a big fuss around the movie. It was slow, long, and boring. But a couple years later, I was strapped to a chair and forced to watch it against my will. Then again, a couple years after that. And finally, after the what must be the third or fourth time seeing it, I'm actually starting to get it. Lost In Translation follows the brief and fleeting quasi-romance of a washed out actor (Bill Murray) and a recent college graduate (Scarlett Johansson), as they both struggle to keep their heads above water in the electric culture shock of Tokyo, Japan. 

The script itself is pretty good and Bill Murray works it well, his comic timing folds in perfectly with the easy, straight-face humor. The characters themselves are nice, dynamic, and human, but I still find myself not able to actually like any of them, with the except of maybe Anna Faris' character who was just too dim-witted to understand her own ridiculousness. Still, despite the faults of this movie, I have to give credit where credit it due--the directing is phenomenal. Sofia Coppola won the Oscar for best directing on this one, and it was well deserved (edit: Sofia Coppola should have won the Oscar for best directing on this one. There I go, thinking the Oscars have a sense of justice again). This movie is a lesson in atmosphere, in camera angles, in tone. Every second you watch it, you feel like you're in Tokyo, you feel the claustrophobia, the headaches, the culture shock. The real strength of this movie also happens to be the one thing that keeps me away from it; it's over ninety minutes of visual jet lag. And so, yes, I have to commend the artistry and the precision that it took Sofia Coppola to keep that vibrant intensity for the entirety of the movie. Truly a lesson in the craft of directing. Now excuse me while I lay down and take a melatonin. 

A Lesson In (B)romance.

Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN (2001)

It's a story you've heard before: two teenage boys with raging hormones persistently try their luck with a woman far out of their league. It's been done before, it will be done again. What will never be repeated, however, is the brilliant subtlety that this movie really rides on. I could count on my fingers the amount of times narration in movies has been done right, and this one would certainly hit high up on that list. The real meat of this movie is in the depth of its characters and the richness Mexico, which may as well be a character in itself.  Diego Luna gives a solid performance as the rich and spoiled Tenoch, while Gael Garcia Bernal matches his performance with his less fortunate best friend, Julio. The dynamic between these boys is so rich and believable that it came as no surprise to me when I found out that the two actors actually had been childhood best friends. But what is really brilliant here is how the politics of Mexico play out between these two boys. While they initially never address the differences in their social class, we do know (via the narrator) that Julio "lighted matched to mask the smell when he used the bathroom as Tenoch's house", while Tenoch "used his foot to lift up the toilet seat at Julio's house." It's a small detail which, in any other movie, might seem like too much information, but here clearly adds a tense layer of economic discrepancy between the two best friends. 

The object of their teenage desires is Luisa Cortes, played by the talented Maribel Verdú. While Luisa is an interesting character in her own right and a good motivating force, it's clear that the movie really belongs to the two boys and their intense friendship. I would call it a bromance, but anyone who has seen the movie will know that even that is being polite. Y Tu Mamá También is more than just a good movie, it's a lesson in the art of subtle screenwriting, proper narration, and natural, genuine character development.