"Black Swan" is a devilishly energetic, angelically over-the-top, passionately driven, beautifully choreographed melodramatic masterpiece. The music, rearranged by Clint Mansell, fuels the sheer excitement and intensity of this nightmare tragedy while Natalie Portman is gorgeous and unforgettable in one of the greatest screen performances I have ever watched. The rest of the cast and crew secure this as the year's most daring film and quite possibly the best. The White Swan soars above traditional Hollywood simplicity while The Black Swan gives two middle fingers to cinematic cowardice all while refusing a safety net. "Black Swan" is in a class all by itself because of how perfectly it juxtaposes beauty with violence, sex with horror, good with evil, character with thrills, reality with fantasy, and humanity with perfection. It also creates a hybrid of genres while bending your mind. The only word I could mutter as I left the theater was 'wow.' This examination of dedication to the arts and overcoming your nature is a warning to those who fall too deeply into a performance. It's anything but dismissible.
Darren Aronofsky often does movies that serve as warnings. "Requiem for a Dream" showed the dangers of drug addiction using both legal and illegal drugs and how they destroyed four lives. "The Wrestler" analyzed what a comeback is as well as the cost involved to regain lost fame. "Pi," however, seems to be the most like "Black Swan" because they both analyze the price of perfection. "Pi" attached it to a logical medium, but "Black Swan" takes place in a New York City ballet company. Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman) is a very sweet, awkward girl living with her mother. She is fragile in her life as she seems to have no real friends but is perfect in technique for ballet. The only person who ever calls her cell phone is her mother, and the other ballerinas in the company mock her. After director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassell) casts off the former prima ballerina in the company, Beth (Winona Ryder), for reasons explained but unreliable, Thomas announces that a new, fresh face will be the lead in their upcoming production of Swan Lake. The catch is that the lead will have to play both the frail White Swan but also her evil twin, the sexy, manipulative Black Swan. As you are most likely aware, Nina is perfect for the White Swan but lacks the raw sexuality needed for the Black Swan.
The movie goes into an interesting direction at this point. It becomes a psychological thriller with an unreliable witness as Nina begins to discover her inner Black Swan. Nina lands the role before meeting Lily (Mila Kunis), but she discovers that Lily is the incarnate for the Black Swan. Nina doesn't strive to be like Lily in obvious ways such as dressing or talking like her but instead has a core change; she masturbates, experiments with a drug, has anonymous sex in a bathroom stall, and becomes disgusted at her room, dressed in pink and white with stuffed animals. In light of becoming the Black Swan, she casts off her baggage as the White and shifts into something evil.
It may seem like I'm giving away too many plot details, but like all great movies, "Black Swan" is all about the journey rather than the destination. We watch like observers in a zoo as Nina becomes something sexual but ugly. I felt pain for this shift because I genuinely liked and pitied the White Swan, but there is never regret in Nina's turnaround in her mind. She loves where she is going because she believes that it is the only way to achieve perfection.
There are so many levels to this film. First of all, Nina sees some bizarre images including her reflection acting differently than she, her face on other bodies, and the glare of her mother's paintings following her. Are these things real? We can assume not, but within the context other questions about what is real and imagined are raised. I've previously mentioned that Nina as our main character is an unreliable witness because what she sees and what takes place may not be the same, but writers Mark Heyman, Andres Heinz, and John McLaughlin were brilliant in keeping this focus steady and unflinching. We never see the world according to anyone else, so the question of real and imaginary remains.
The film is a melodrama with excellent reason. Being personally unfamiliar with Tchaikovsky's score for Swan Lake, my sister pointed out to me that the themes as well as the emotional climax of the film were mostly taken directly from Swan Lake and rearranged to fit this different context. Clint Mansell simply does a wonderful job with these themes, making the soundtrack to the movie my favorite of the year as well as an all-time best on my list.
"Black Swan" keeps its energy high throughout the movie and has masterful pacing. When you leave the theater, you don't feel drained but instead energized. It's a wonderful feeling that is rarely felt during movies today, but the flick nails it admirably. It's my favorite movie of the year, and after some debate, it replaced "Inception" as my best of the year. It's bold, unflinching, and has some of the best and most realistic characters I've witnessed in my life. Movies like "Black Swan" (and this year's "Inception" to be fair) just aren't made very often, but when they fully and completely nail every single second, I can't watch them enough times. It's a great film- see it as much as you can.
Rated R for strong sexual content, disturbing violent images, language, and some drug use.
Check your local theater for showtimes.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Top Ten of 2010
Before I make the list, I should tell you that the following critically acclaimed movies will not appear on the list because I have not had the pleasure of watching these:
127 Hours
The American
Another Year
The King's Speech
The Town
The Secret in Their Eyes
The Kids Are All Right
True Grit
I Am Love
Somewhere
Hereafter
Rabbit Hole
Secretariat
With those being listed, here are my choices for the top ten as of now. When everything is released on DVD, I will most likely update the list.
1. Black Swan
"Black Swan" is a devilishly energetic, angelically over-the-top, passionately driven, beautifully choreographed melodramatic masterpiece. The music by Clint Mansell fuels the sheer excitement and intensity of this nightmare tragedy while Natalie Portman is gorgeous and unforgettable in one of the greatest screen performances I have ever witnessed. The rest of the cast secures this as the year's most daring film and quite possibly the best. The White Swan soars above traditional Hollywood simplicity while The Black Swan gives two middle fingers to cinematic cowardice all while refusing a safety net. "Black Swan" is in a class all by itself because of how perfectly it juxtaposes beauty with violence, sex with horror, good with evil, character with thrills, reality with fantasy, and humanity with perfection. The only word I could mutter as I left the theater was 'wow.' This examination of dedication to the arts and overcoming your nature is a warning to those who fall too deeply into a performance. It's anything but dismissible.
2. Inception
A thoroughly engrossing sci-fi epic with several unique and unforgettable passages. The characters are all equally fascinating with a finale that is as tense as anything I've ever watched.
3. The Ghost Writer
It's an excellent thriller based on an excellent novel. It works on several levels, and the performances (mostly Ewan McGregor as The Unnamed Ghost) are memorable. The movie looks great, the score makes it sound great, and the feeling in the end isn't one of being duped but instead something that adds a whole new meaning to the previous context without taking away from it.
4. Leaves of Grass
A wonderful dark comedy with an engrossing performance by Edward Norton. There are many fascinating philosophical questions raised, and the plot is never compromised. It's entirely original, and I can't name a single movie like it.
5. Thee Social Network
Its base concept of how we as people living in an age of technology where nothing can possibly be real if we can't see it works. The movie runs on several noteworthy performances, especially Andrew Garfield. David Fincher makes a fine film overall.
6. The Girl Who Played With Fire
Noomi Rapace continues The Millennium Trilogy with power and substance. It's more of a thriller than the modern masterpiece that is "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo," but it works extraordinarily well.
7. Winter's Bone
A very nice, toned-down drama about a girl who must locate her father (or his body), the film remains filled with hope despite its dark nature. Jennifer Lawrence is a notable newcomer as she fuels the entire movie with an unflinching performance. It's not something you may want to watch over and over again, but it's definitely worth at least one viewing.
8. Shutter Island
It's an incredibly engrossing film that shows a new edge to Martin Scorsese. Leonardo DiCaprio gives another fine performance in this wonderful thriller set on an isolated asylum, but the supporting cast is what ultimately makes the movie as wonderful as it is.
9. Toy Story 3
In the front-runner for Best Animated Feature, this story manages to be quite thrilling with a wonderful sense of humor. It works on many levels, but on sheer enjoyment, it's a great one of its kind. It falls short of last year's amazing winner, "Up," but I enjoyed myself.
10. Kick-Ass
Alright, this will most likely be getting the boot after I watch the unseen notables previously mentioned, but as a dark comedy, there isn't much that I could call bad. It has energy, proves that Chloe Moretz is an up-and-coming child actor, and it has a nice, juicy role for Nicolas Cage (who was channeling James Woods' Batman in his comedic performance).
127 Hours
The American
Another Year
The King's Speech
The Town
The Secret in Their Eyes
The Kids Are All Right
True Grit
I Am Love
Somewhere
Hereafter
Rabbit Hole
Secretariat
With those being listed, here are my choices for the top ten as of now. When everything is released on DVD, I will most likely update the list.
1. Black Swan
"Black Swan" is a devilishly energetic, angelically over-the-top, passionately driven, beautifully choreographed melodramatic masterpiece. The music by Clint Mansell fuels the sheer excitement and intensity of this nightmare tragedy while Natalie Portman is gorgeous and unforgettable in one of the greatest screen performances I have ever witnessed. The rest of the cast secures this as the year's most daring film and quite possibly the best. The White Swan soars above traditional Hollywood simplicity while The Black Swan gives two middle fingers to cinematic cowardice all while refusing a safety net. "Black Swan" is in a class all by itself because of how perfectly it juxtaposes beauty with violence, sex with horror, good with evil, character with thrills, reality with fantasy, and humanity with perfection. The only word I could mutter as I left the theater was 'wow.' This examination of dedication to the arts and overcoming your nature is a warning to those who fall too deeply into a performance. It's anything but dismissible.
2. Inception
A thoroughly engrossing sci-fi epic with several unique and unforgettable passages. The characters are all equally fascinating with a finale that is as tense as anything I've ever watched.
3. The Ghost Writer
It's an excellent thriller based on an excellent novel. It works on several levels, and the performances (mostly Ewan McGregor as The Unnamed Ghost) are memorable. The movie looks great, the score makes it sound great, and the feeling in the end isn't one of being duped but instead something that adds a whole new meaning to the previous context without taking away from it.
4. Leaves of Grass
A wonderful dark comedy with an engrossing performance by Edward Norton. There are many fascinating philosophical questions raised, and the plot is never compromised. It's entirely original, and I can't name a single movie like it.
5. Thee Social Network
Its base concept of how we as people living in an age of technology where nothing can possibly be real if we can't see it works. The movie runs on several noteworthy performances, especially Andrew Garfield. David Fincher makes a fine film overall.
6. The Girl Who Played With Fire
Noomi Rapace continues The Millennium Trilogy with power and substance. It's more of a thriller than the modern masterpiece that is "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo," but it works extraordinarily well.
7. Winter's Bone
A very nice, toned-down drama about a girl who must locate her father (or his body), the film remains filled with hope despite its dark nature. Jennifer Lawrence is a notable newcomer as she fuels the entire movie with an unflinching performance. It's not something you may want to watch over and over again, but it's definitely worth at least one viewing.
8. Shutter Island
It's an incredibly engrossing film that shows a new edge to Martin Scorsese. Leonardo DiCaprio gives another fine performance in this wonderful thriller set on an isolated asylum, but the supporting cast is what ultimately makes the movie as wonderful as it is.
9. Toy Story 3
In the front-runner for Best Animated Feature, this story manages to be quite thrilling with a wonderful sense of humor. It works on many levels, but on sheer enjoyment, it's a great one of its kind. It falls short of last year's amazing winner, "Up," but I enjoyed myself.
10. Kick-Ass
Alright, this will most likely be getting the boot after I watch the unseen notables previously mentioned, but as a dark comedy, there isn't much that I could call bad. It has energy, proves that Chloe Moretz is an up-and-coming child actor, and it has a nice, juicy role for Nicolas Cage (who was channeling James Woods' Batman in his comedic performance).
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Best Worst Movie - *** out of ****
"Troll 2" was such a spectacularly horrible film that it actually secured a cult following. The sheer frustration of everything involved in the production seemed to secure its status before it even started. The Italian director, Claudio Fragasso, spoke no English and could not communicate at all with the actors. The script, although its final title was "Troll 2," had absolutely no trolls in it but instead goblins. The original title was "Goblin," but the director, who wrote the script with Rossella Drudi (who I don't think I have to tell you didn't speak much English as well) did not understand the difference between trolls and goblins. The costumes, especially the awfully designed creatures, were something to be noticed. Everyone involved were honestly trying to make a good movie which makes it all the more tragic.
George Hardy is a genuinely nice, good man. Even ask his ex-wife; she has nothing bad to say about him. Just to see his enthusiasm when referring to "Troll 2" as 'The Worst Movie Ever Made' makes him seem all the more tragic when he realizes that he truly does want to be an actor, but because of "Troll 2," that dream will never happen. He's a hometown hero, and after going to the Upright Citizens Brigade in New York City, he has the feeling that he's something of a cult hero, which is partially true. He would later go to Comic Con and be completely ignored.
The director, Fragasso, would reveal his serious hubris because, to this day, he thinks he made an excellent film. When the other actors mention the comedic elements involved in filming (one actor had to stand in a pot for 14 hours in his own shoes), he calls them "dogs of actors, acting dogs" and talks about how they know nothing and are bad actors. He speaks English reportedly better in "Best Worst Movie" than he did during "Troll 2," but if it tells you anything, whenever he speaks, there are subtitles every time. He's insulted by the numerous questions about "Troll 2" about plot points that make no sense and walks out of a conference, snarling at the actors after they get applause.
Margo Prey, who played Diana Waits in "Troll 2," the mother, spends her time with her aging mother. Margo has many warnings outside of her home, and the place seems to be a fortress. She complains of a high-pitched noise often (although none is picked up on camera) and compares "Troll 2" to "Casablanca." She refuses to go to any conventions, screenings, or meetings with anyone outside of her home. She still wishes to pursue an acting career, but according to IMDb, she hasn't appeared in a single role other than "Troll 2" and "Best Worst Movie."
By now, you're either wondering what "Best Worst Movie" is or have managed to figure it out on your own. For the record, "Best Worst Movie" is a documentary made to chronicle the future of those involved in making "Troll 2," what is often referred to as 'The Worst Movie of All Time.' I did see "Troll 2" before watching "Best Worst Movie," and I truly believe that to be an accurate description of the movie. Where the documentary falters is that the subject matter grows old, but there is a nice arc of fame, loss, and conclusion, even though "Troll 2" is no longer the worst-rated movie of all time on IMDb. Why should we take the infamy from it?
Not Rated.
Buy it here.
Buy "Troll 2" here.
George Hardy is a genuinely nice, good man. Even ask his ex-wife; she has nothing bad to say about him. Just to see his enthusiasm when referring to "Troll 2" as 'The Worst Movie Ever Made' makes him seem all the more tragic when he realizes that he truly does want to be an actor, but because of "Troll 2," that dream will never happen. He's a hometown hero, and after going to the Upright Citizens Brigade in New York City, he has the feeling that he's something of a cult hero, which is partially true. He would later go to Comic Con and be completely ignored.
The director, Fragasso, would reveal his serious hubris because, to this day, he thinks he made an excellent film. When the other actors mention the comedic elements involved in filming (one actor had to stand in a pot for 14 hours in his own shoes), he calls them "dogs of actors, acting dogs" and talks about how they know nothing and are bad actors. He speaks English reportedly better in "Best Worst Movie" than he did during "Troll 2," but if it tells you anything, whenever he speaks, there are subtitles every time. He's insulted by the numerous questions about "Troll 2" about plot points that make no sense and walks out of a conference, snarling at the actors after they get applause.
Margo Prey, who played Diana Waits in "Troll 2," the mother, spends her time with her aging mother. Margo has many warnings outside of her home, and the place seems to be a fortress. She complains of a high-pitched noise often (although none is picked up on camera) and compares "Troll 2" to "Casablanca." She refuses to go to any conventions, screenings, or meetings with anyone outside of her home. She still wishes to pursue an acting career, but according to IMDb, she hasn't appeared in a single role other than "Troll 2" and "Best Worst Movie."
By now, you're either wondering what "Best Worst Movie" is or have managed to figure it out on your own. For the record, "Best Worst Movie" is a documentary made to chronicle the future of those involved in making "Troll 2," what is often referred to as 'The Worst Movie of All Time.' I did see "Troll 2" before watching "Best Worst Movie," and I truly believe that to be an accurate description of the movie. Where the documentary falters is that the subject matter grows old, but there is a nice arc of fame, loss, and conclusion, even though "Troll 2" is no longer the worst-rated movie of all time on IMDb. Why should we take the infamy from it?
Not Rated.
Buy it here.
Buy "Troll 2" here.
Golden Globe Nominations and Predictions
For our purposes, I only predicted the movies of this year. The winner is marked with an asterisk (*) before the name, but please keep in mind that the winner isn't who I necessarily think SHOULD win but rather who I think will. I feel as though the Golden Globes almost nailed Drama with the exceptions of forgetting The Ghost Writer and Shutter Island but royally screwed up Comedy/Musical. What happened to well-reviewed films such as Scott Pilgrim vs. The World? Edward Norton's performance in Leaves of Grass? I would take a Steve Carell/Tina Fey Comedy/Musical nomination for Date Night over joint nominations for The Tourist when most critics stated that the movie's biggest problem was the lack of chemistry between the two leads.
At a later date, I will write what I feel the nominations should be and which movies should receive acclaim. For now, enjoy!
Picture- Drama
Black Swan
The Fighter
The King’s Speech
Inception
*The Social Network
Picture- Comedy/Musical
Alice in Wonderland
Burlesque
*The Kids Are All Right
RED
The Tourist
Actor in Drama
Jesse Eisenberg- The Social Network
*Colin Firth- The King’s Speech
James Franco- 127 Hours
Ryan Gosling- Blue Valentine
Mark Wahlberg- The Fighter
Actress in Drama
Halle Berry- Frankie and Alice
Nicole Kidman- Rabbit Hole
Jennifer Lawrence- Winter’s Bone
*Natalie Portman- Black Swan
Michelle Williams- Blue Valentine
Actor in Musical/Comedy
Johnny Depp- The Tourist
*Johnny Depp- Alice in Wonderland
Paul Giamatti- Barney’s Version
Jake Gyllenhaal- Love and Other Drugs
Kevin Spacey- Casino Jack
Actress in Musical/Comedy
*Annette Bening- The Kids Are All Right
Anne Hathaway- Love and Other Drugs
Angelina Jolie- The Tourist
Julianne Moore- The Kids Are All Right
Emma Stone- Easy A
Supporting Actor
Christian Bale- The Fighter
Michael Douglas- Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
*Andrew Garfield- The Social Network
Jeremy Renner- The Town
Geoffrey Rush- The King’s Speech
Supporting Actress
Amy Adams- The Fighter
*Helena Bonham Carter- The King’s Speech
Mila Kunis- Black Swan
Melissa Leo- The Fighter
Jacki Weaver- Animal Kingdom
Director
Darren Aronofsky- Black Swan
*David Fincher- The Social Network
Tom Hooper- The King’s Speech
Christopher Nolan- Inception
David O. Russell- The Fighter
Screenplay
127 Hours- Danny Boyle, Simon Beaufoy
Inception- Christopher Nolan
The Kids Are All Right- Stuart Blumberg, Lisa Cholodenko
The King’s Speech- David Seidler
*The Social Network- Aaron Sorkin
Original Song
*Burlesque X2
Country Strong
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Tangled
Original Score
127 Hours- A.R. Rahman
Alice in Wonderland- Danny Elfman
Inception- Hans Zimmer
*The King’s Speech- Alexandre Desplat
The Social Network- Trent Reznor, Atticus Ross
Animated Film
Despicable Me
How to Train Your Dragon
The Illusionist
Tangled
*Toy Story 3
Foreign Language Film
Biutiful (Mexico/Spain)
The Concert (France)
The Edge (Russia)
*I Am Love (Italy)
In a Better World (Denmark)
At a later date, I will write what I feel the nominations should be and which movies should receive acclaim. For now, enjoy!
Picture- Drama
Black Swan
The Fighter
The King’s Speech
Inception
*The Social Network
Picture- Comedy/Musical
Alice in Wonderland
Burlesque
*The Kids Are All Right
RED
The Tourist
Actor in Drama
Jesse Eisenberg- The Social Network
*Colin Firth- The King’s Speech
James Franco- 127 Hours
Ryan Gosling- Blue Valentine
Mark Wahlberg- The Fighter
Actress in Drama
Halle Berry- Frankie and Alice
Nicole Kidman- Rabbit Hole
Jennifer Lawrence- Winter’s Bone
*Natalie Portman- Black Swan
Michelle Williams- Blue Valentine
Actor in Musical/Comedy
Johnny Depp- The Tourist
*Johnny Depp- Alice in Wonderland
Paul Giamatti- Barney’s Version
Jake Gyllenhaal- Love and Other Drugs
Kevin Spacey- Casino Jack
Actress in Musical/Comedy
*Annette Bening- The Kids Are All Right
Anne Hathaway- Love and Other Drugs
Angelina Jolie- The Tourist
Julianne Moore- The Kids Are All Right
Emma Stone- Easy A
Supporting Actor
Christian Bale- The Fighter
Michael Douglas- Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
*Andrew Garfield- The Social Network
Jeremy Renner- The Town
Geoffrey Rush- The King’s Speech
Supporting Actress
Amy Adams- The Fighter
*Helena Bonham Carter- The King’s Speech
Mila Kunis- Black Swan
Melissa Leo- The Fighter
Jacki Weaver- Animal Kingdom
Director
Darren Aronofsky- Black Swan
*David Fincher- The Social Network
Tom Hooper- The King’s Speech
Christopher Nolan- Inception
David O. Russell- The Fighter
Screenplay
127 Hours- Danny Boyle, Simon Beaufoy
Inception- Christopher Nolan
The Kids Are All Right- Stuart Blumberg, Lisa Cholodenko
The King’s Speech- David Seidler
*The Social Network- Aaron Sorkin
Original Song
*Burlesque X2
Country Strong
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Tangled
Original Score
127 Hours- A.R. Rahman
Alice in Wonderland- Danny Elfman
Inception- Hans Zimmer
*The King’s Speech- Alexandre Desplat
The Social Network- Trent Reznor, Atticus Ross
Animated Film
Despicable Me
How to Train Your Dragon
The Illusionist
Tangled
*Toy Story 3
Foreign Language Film
Biutiful (Mexico/Spain)
The Concert (France)
The Edge (Russia)
*I Am Love (Italy)
In a Better World (Denmark)
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Morning Glory - ***+ out of ****
We all know the tired, old formula- Someone has to do a bad job with bad people, their romantic life begins to develop as their job does, they have a great opportunity, their job becomes their baby, and they decide to stay with the job and decide that they're in love. Although "Morning Glory" does use this formula, what makes it a step above most everything else is the fact that it is really, really funny and believable. The characters are well-drawn, the director wisely lets them interact, and the actors do a wonderful job of elevating the material. I highly recommend this movie because it is very enjoyable, not because it'll make you re-examine your life. No, it's not deep, but you'll have fun.
Let's start with the plot. Becky (Rachel McAdams) loses her job as a producer of a local early morning TV show and ends up only being hired by Morning Glory. Colleen (Diane Keaton) has been with the show for most of her life and has been through fourteen (I think) producers, so she pays no mind to Becky. Since she has to get the ratings up, Becky decides to hire Mike Pomeroy (Harrison Ford), a grumpy old man who thinks that people watch C-SPAN for fun. Becky begins to sensationalize the news, strapping the funny weatherman, Ernie (Matt Malloy), to a roller coaster, having him skydive, and various other things. Colleen and Mike hate each other, and Becky begins as their babysitter when neither will go to the other anchor's dressing room to talk. Oh, and Becky begins a romance with Adam (Patrick Wilson).
You can see where the story is going, so I'll just stop. I am tempted to mention some of the many funny parts to the story, but for the sake of not being an alternative to www.themoviespoiler.com, I will refrain. The thing about all of this is that not a single character becomes old or annoying. I was most impressed with Rachel McAdams and how her Becky was written. The character is on the borderline of a psychotic obsession with her work, but the way it's done is actually endearing. She talks too much and occasionally reveals too much about herself when she gets nervous. She feels like the sweet girl you knew in college who was always running somewhere to put her fingers in a dam on one end of campus. She isn't incompetent with relationships but rather has problems juggling both the romance and her work. She truly, honestly loves her work. After reading this over, I didn't make a convincing argument that her character is not a cliche, so I will just say that she has some lovely freakout scenes as well as a great first roundtable meeting.
Then we have the supporting cast. Diane Keaton's Colleen is self-centered, egotistical, and above everyone else. Harrison Ford's Mike is also self-centered, egotistical, and above everyone else. Neither of these characters feel like the other, so when they meet, argue, and bitch about who gets to say 'goodbye' last, you can tell that these personalities are too big for the studio. They're both dead-on and irresistibly vulgar. You wouldn't want to meet either (or perhaps you have in the past), but you understand where either is coming from. Sure, Mike ends up making the biggest change by the end, but it's very believable. Colleen changes what she does but not how she does it. We wouldn't have followed if either character did a 180 at the end, and their abrasiveness is what we look forward to the most.
I will say that the sets were very impressive. Actually, all the technical elements were well in-place. I liked the costumes because they were never distracting, the cinematography because it showed some interesting scenes, and the sets because they made the space look like a real Manhattan backstage. They're dirty, cramped, and not even decent to live in. To make it down the hallway where the food table is, everyone has to dodge each other, and that's what those spaces are really like. Major points for realism.
Perhaps I wanted Mike and Colleen to try to destroy one another more, but that's because I saw a rare opportunity with both characters. You don't come across well-written characters in a situation like they're in that often, so I would have loved to see more of their hostility and passive-aggressiveness. Of course, this runs the risk of turning a good story into something of an "Anchorman" imitator when it isn't appropriate.
I actually bought the romance. Of course, in movies like these, there always comes a time when the lead manages to screw up the relationship with their obsession with their job or the other demands that they change, but this one never quite reaches that point. There's only one brief scene where it seems like it's reached that climactic argument, but it's actually understated. The central focus is Morning Glory, and it was right of the movie to stick with that.
Sure, "Morning Glory" is pure formula, but this has something special about it. I highly doubt that you'll be moved at all, but it is heartwarming. In the end, you may not quite jump for joy, but you'll probably be glad that you spent your last two hours with this Rachel McAdams.
Rated PG-13 for some sexual content including dialogue, language, and brief drug references.
Check your local theater for showtimes.
Let's start with the plot. Becky (Rachel McAdams) loses her job as a producer of a local early morning TV show and ends up only being hired by Morning Glory. Colleen (Diane Keaton) has been with the show for most of her life and has been through fourteen (I think) producers, so she pays no mind to Becky. Since she has to get the ratings up, Becky decides to hire Mike Pomeroy (Harrison Ford), a grumpy old man who thinks that people watch C-SPAN for fun. Becky begins to sensationalize the news, strapping the funny weatherman, Ernie (Matt Malloy), to a roller coaster, having him skydive, and various other things. Colleen and Mike hate each other, and Becky begins as their babysitter when neither will go to the other anchor's dressing room to talk. Oh, and Becky begins a romance with Adam (Patrick Wilson).
You can see where the story is going, so I'll just stop. I am tempted to mention some of the many funny parts to the story, but for the sake of not being an alternative to www.themoviespoiler.com, I will refrain. The thing about all of this is that not a single character becomes old or annoying. I was most impressed with Rachel McAdams and how her Becky was written. The character is on the borderline of a psychotic obsession with her work, but the way it's done is actually endearing. She talks too much and occasionally reveals too much about herself when she gets nervous. She feels like the sweet girl you knew in college who was always running somewhere to put her fingers in a dam on one end of campus. She isn't incompetent with relationships but rather has problems juggling both the romance and her work. She truly, honestly loves her work. After reading this over, I didn't make a convincing argument that her character is not a cliche, so I will just say that she has some lovely freakout scenes as well as a great first roundtable meeting.
Then we have the supporting cast. Diane Keaton's Colleen is self-centered, egotistical, and above everyone else. Harrison Ford's Mike is also self-centered, egotistical, and above everyone else. Neither of these characters feel like the other, so when they meet, argue, and bitch about who gets to say 'goodbye' last, you can tell that these personalities are too big for the studio. They're both dead-on and irresistibly vulgar. You wouldn't want to meet either (or perhaps you have in the past), but you understand where either is coming from. Sure, Mike ends up making the biggest change by the end, but it's very believable. Colleen changes what she does but not how she does it. We wouldn't have followed if either character did a 180 at the end, and their abrasiveness is what we look forward to the most.
I will say that the sets were very impressive. Actually, all the technical elements were well in-place. I liked the costumes because they were never distracting, the cinematography because it showed some interesting scenes, and the sets because they made the space look like a real Manhattan backstage. They're dirty, cramped, and not even decent to live in. To make it down the hallway where the food table is, everyone has to dodge each other, and that's what those spaces are really like. Major points for realism.
Perhaps I wanted Mike and Colleen to try to destroy one another more, but that's because I saw a rare opportunity with both characters. You don't come across well-written characters in a situation like they're in that often, so I would have loved to see more of their hostility and passive-aggressiveness. Of course, this runs the risk of turning a good story into something of an "Anchorman" imitator when it isn't appropriate.
I actually bought the romance. Of course, in movies like these, there always comes a time when the lead manages to screw up the relationship with their obsession with their job or the other demands that they change, but this one never quite reaches that point. There's only one brief scene where it seems like it's reached that climactic argument, but it's actually understated. The central focus is Morning Glory, and it was right of the movie to stick with that.
Sure, "Morning Glory" is pure formula, but this has something special about it. I highly doubt that you'll be moved at all, but it is heartwarming. In the end, you may not quite jump for joy, but you'll probably be glad that you spent your last two hours with this Rachel McAdams.
Rated PG-13 for some sexual content including dialogue, language, and brief drug references.
Check your local theater for showtimes.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Paranormal Activity 2 - ** out of ****
I guess you can't blame the first "Paranormal Activity" for it, but the bar was set too high for this mediocre pre-sequel. The long moments of unbearable suspense in the first movie are instead replaced by boredom when the audience seems to be more occupied with trying to guess the second when the next jolt will happen than getting to know the characters or understand exactly why this poor family is being traumatized by a demon. It's explained fairly well, and this becomes a nice tie-in to the first movie, but it's just not that scary.
The family this time is named Rey. Ali is the smart teenage daughter, Kristi is the mother, Dan is the skeptical father, and Hunter is the newborn boy being brought home right at the beginning. With the addition of the German Shepherd, Abby, everything is complete except to explain that Katie from the first movie is the sister of Kristi. After Hunter's arrival, the next footage is of a trashed house where the Reys take the video camera around to document where exactly everything was placed. Nothing was stolen, and Hunter's room is completely undisturbed. Unfortunately, this is where the eeriness capitalizes for the majority of the movie.
There is no speculation in our minds as to what is causing the doors to open and shut on their own, what's rattling the pots and pans, or what's been calling names and screaming. The first movie dealt with all that speculation. Instead of a possible secondary explanation, we get the women, Hispanic maid, dog, and baby who believe that something is happening, and the father who does not. As you may recognize, the events escalate until there is no possible explanation but for there to be a super-evil demon after the family.
I tend to grow weary of movies that just kind of prod along until it becomes time for them to present an original idea. Perhaps it's the motif of houses in general that grows thin. Think about the possibilities of a sequel being set in a dorm building/a hospital/an apartment complex/the workplace. You wouldn't have the problem of hearing the annoying questions from people in the theater about whether or not the characters have watched all of the footage of all of the rooms (there are six cameras total) prior to the next thing happening.
It may not be great or even that good, but it's still a better idea than "Saw 3D." If one more person asks me if I want to see it, and I have to respond that I wouldn't see a "Saw" movie in 2D...
Rated R for language and brief violent material.
Check your local theater for showtimes.
The family this time is named Rey. Ali is the smart teenage daughter, Kristi is the mother, Dan is the skeptical father, and Hunter is the newborn boy being brought home right at the beginning. With the addition of the German Shepherd, Abby, everything is complete except to explain that Katie from the first movie is the sister of Kristi. After Hunter's arrival, the next footage is of a trashed house where the Reys take the video camera around to document where exactly everything was placed. Nothing was stolen, and Hunter's room is completely undisturbed. Unfortunately, this is where the eeriness capitalizes for the majority of the movie.
There is no speculation in our minds as to what is causing the doors to open and shut on their own, what's rattling the pots and pans, or what's been calling names and screaming. The first movie dealt with all that speculation. Instead of a possible secondary explanation, we get the women, Hispanic maid, dog, and baby who believe that something is happening, and the father who does not. As you may recognize, the events escalate until there is no possible explanation but for there to be a super-evil demon after the family.
I tend to grow weary of movies that just kind of prod along until it becomes time for them to present an original idea. Perhaps it's the motif of houses in general that grows thin. Think about the possibilities of a sequel being set in a dorm building/a hospital/an apartment complex/the workplace. You wouldn't have the problem of hearing the annoying questions from people in the theater about whether or not the characters have watched all of the footage of all of the rooms (there are six cameras total) prior to the next thing happening.
It may not be great or even that good, but it's still a better idea than "Saw 3D." If one more person asks me if I want to see it, and I have to respond that I wouldn't see a "Saw" movie in 2D...
Rated R for language and brief violent material.
Check your local theater for showtimes.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
The Oscars- Early Theories
After Halloween weekend, we will officially be in Awards Season, where the studios' prestige films will be released in hopes of gaining award glory. There may be some that I'm currently overlooking, but here are some to consider:
Shutter Island- Possible Awards- Picture, Actor (DiCaprio), Director, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Musical Score. This expertly crafted thriller is a wonderful showcase of the joined talent of Leonardo DiCaprio and Martin Scorsese. Some theater-goers were left disappointed by the ending, but in a year of many so-so movies, perhaps the intelligence and craft of this picture will earn it love, despite its early release.
Inception- Possible Awards- Picture, Actor (DiCaprio again), Supporting Actor (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), Supporting Actress (Ellen Page), Director, Original Screenplay, Visual Effects, Cinematography, Musical Score, Editing, and just about everything else. I'm currently naming this the year's best film because this juggernaut requires and demands multiple viewings, something that studios love. Sure, it made a ton of money and was a huge risk, but just about everyone who saw the movie loved it. Every element has been put in place perfectly. It's a masterpiece.
The Social Network- Possible Awards- Picture, Actor (Jesse Eisenberg), Supporting Actor (Justin Timberlake, Andrew Garfield), Director, Adapted Screenplay, Editing. I do believe that this is one of the year's best films, but I left feeling somewhat underwhelmed. This will probably fade with time, but the rapid-fire dialogue and pacing of the funniest comedy imaginable (no, it is not a comedy- it just has the pacing of one) make this fascinating portrait of a man no one wants but everyone seemingly needs is fascinating.
The Ghost Writer- Possible Awards- Picture, Actor (Ewan McGregor), Supporting Actor (Pierce Brosnan), Supporting Actress (Olivia Williams), Adapted Screenplay, Musical Score, Director. This thriller has been called absorbing, masterful, addictive, fascinating, and brilliant, and I found it to be a wonderful combination of those terms. Although it was a box office flop, the Academy would be mistaken to overlook this wonderful thriller with expertly crafted performances.
Those three are the only Best Picture-worthy films I have personally watched, but here are some possible nominations with titles to look out for.
Kick-Ass- Best Supporting Actress (Chloe Moretz, but it's probably not happening)
Let Me In- Best Actress (Chloe Moretz), Best Visual Effects
Leaves of Grass- Best Actor (Edward Norton)
Winter's Bone- Picture, Best Actress (Jennifer Lawrence), Adapted Screenplay.
The American- Best Actor (George Clooney)
Waiting for Superman- Best Documentary
The Kids are All Right- Picture, Original Screenplay, Actress (Annette Bening, Julianne Moore), Supporting Actor (Mark Ruffalo)
Restrepo- Best Documentary
Black Swan- Best Picture, Original Screenplay, Original Score, Actress (Natalie Portman), Supporting Actress (Mila Kunis)
Hereafter- Best Actor (Matt Damon)
The King's Speech- Best Picture, Actor (Colin Firth), Actress (Helena Bonham Carter), Director, Original Screenplay
Of course, this is a simply preliminary list, and many of the films mentioned I have not seen. We should also consider the Razzie Awards which dis-honor the worst achievements of the year:
Life As We Know It- Worst Picture, Actress (Katherine Heigl), Screenplay
The Last Airbender- Picture, Screenplay, Director
The A-Team- Picture, various
Sex and the City 2- Picture, Actress x4, Screen Couple
Nightmare on Elm Street- various
Killers- Picture, Actor (Ashton Kutcher), Actress (Katherine Heigl), Screen Couple, various.
Shutter Island- Possible Awards- Picture, Actor (DiCaprio), Director, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Musical Score. This expertly crafted thriller is a wonderful showcase of the joined talent of Leonardo DiCaprio and Martin Scorsese. Some theater-goers were left disappointed by the ending, but in a year of many so-so movies, perhaps the intelligence and craft of this picture will earn it love, despite its early release.
Inception- Possible Awards- Picture, Actor (DiCaprio again), Supporting Actor (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), Supporting Actress (Ellen Page), Director, Original Screenplay, Visual Effects, Cinematography, Musical Score, Editing, and just about everything else. I'm currently naming this the year's best film because this juggernaut requires and demands multiple viewings, something that studios love. Sure, it made a ton of money and was a huge risk, but just about everyone who saw the movie loved it. Every element has been put in place perfectly. It's a masterpiece.
The Social Network- Possible Awards- Picture, Actor (Jesse Eisenberg), Supporting Actor (Justin Timberlake, Andrew Garfield), Director, Adapted Screenplay, Editing. I do believe that this is one of the year's best films, but I left feeling somewhat underwhelmed. This will probably fade with time, but the rapid-fire dialogue and pacing of the funniest comedy imaginable (no, it is not a comedy- it just has the pacing of one) make this fascinating portrait of a man no one wants but everyone seemingly needs is fascinating.
The Ghost Writer- Possible Awards- Picture, Actor (Ewan McGregor), Supporting Actor (Pierce Brosnan), Supporting Actress (Olivia Williams), Adapted Screenplay, Musical Score, Director. This thriller has been called absorbing, masterful, addictive, fascinating, and brilliant, and I found it to be a wonderful combination of those terms. Although it was a box office flop, the Academy would be mistaken to overlook this wonderful thriller with expertly crafted performances.
Those three are the only Best Picture-worthy films I have personally watched, but here are some possible nominations with titles to look out for.
Kick-Ass- Best Supporting Actress (Chloe Moretz, but it's probably not happening)
Let Me In- Best Actress (Chloe Moretz), Best Visual Effects
Leaves of Grass- Best Actor (Edward Norton)
Winter's Bone- Picture, Best Actress (Jennifer Lawrence), Adapted Screenplay.
The American- Best Actor (George Clooney)
Waiting for Superman- Best Documentary
The Kids are All Right- Picture, Original Screenplay, Actress (Annette Bening, Julianne Moore), Supporting Actor (Mark Ruffalo)
Restrepo- Best Documentary
Black Swan- Best Picture, Original Screenplay, Original Score, Actress (Natalie Portman), Supporting Actress (Mila Kunis)
Hereafter- Best Actor (Matt Damon)
The King's Speech- Best Picture, Actor (Colin Firth), Actress (Helena Bonham Carter), Director, Original Screenplay
Of course, this is a simply preliminary list, and many of the films mentioned I have not seen. We should also consider the Razzie Awards which dis-honor the worst achievements of the year:
Life As We Know It- Worst Picture, Actress (Katherine Heigl), Screenplay
The Last Airbender- Picture, Screenplay, Director
The A-Team- Picture, various
Sex and the City 2- Picture, Actress x4, Screen Couple
Nightmare on Elm Street- various
Killers- Picture, Actor (Ashton Kutcher), Actress (Katherine Heigl), Screen Couple, various.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Frozen - **+ out of ****
"Frozen" is a movie that is very difficult to make effectively. In short, it's about three 20-somethings being stranded on a ski lift late Sunday night when the resort closes until the following Friday. I've heard it compared to the nail-biting "Open Water," but for our purposes, let's just assume you haven't watched anything like this before.
The trio (Kevin Zegers, Shawn Ashmore, and Emma Bell) can't seem to catch a break. After the aforementioned negligence, they discover that they have no real solution. Of course, no one hears them yell, and they aren't accounted for later (I'm sure you knew that as soon as I told you they were stuck on a ski lift). A storm is settling in, they're 50 feet above the ground, the wire that runs the ski lift is razor sharp, they're too far away to climb down a ladder, and wolves become notified of their presence. Yes, you read that correctly- wolves. I was able to buy that much, but if the movie went much farther (or was longer than 93 minutes), I would have expected ravenous buzzards carrying cobras to make an appearance.
One loses a glove, and there is an icky moment where that person realizes that they had left their hand on the metal bar and removes it (painfully, of course). You see quite a bit more gore than I would have wanted other than that (and I have a strong stomach, mind you), and that seems to be the movie's biggest flaw. There's enough suspense through several scenes that had no gore that it almost felt like a stretch to include blood and guts. I won't reveal any more about it because if I do, you could probably piece the entire movie together and be left without much of a ride.
The acting is very good. There are some nice tender moments, and I had enough knowledge of each character that I could distinguish one from the rest without resorting to assignment through 'the one in the red jacket,' 'the one with the goggles,' and 'the chick.' I thought I recognized all three actors, but after doing some www.imdb.com research, I realized that I've only been familiar with one, Keven Zegers ("Transamerica" and the remake of "Dawn of the Dead"). I later discovered that Shawn Ashmore played Iceman in the "X-Men" trilogy, and I'm not familiar with any of Emma Stone's work. Whatever. I hope these guys get great work in the future.
The writer/director, Adam Green ("Hatchet"), is able to do a lot with the simple setting and premise. Shot without special effects or green screen technology, I found many things to be effective without reaching. For instance, the camera occasionally looms around the skiers on the lift, there are intimate close-ups, and there are sometimes views from above or below. After an hour, you think that Green has used up every angle in the book, but the simplicity and logic of the camera shots keep you glued. Also, remember when I mentioned that there were no special effects? Well, I meant it- the actors really were 50 feet in the air. They even helped change the camera lenses between takes.
In short, the gore factor was a little too high for this medium, but the suspense and performances save it. I found this for $10 over the weekend. Check it out if it's your thing.
Rated R for some disturbing images and language.
Buy it here.
The trio (Kevin Zegers, Shawn Ashmore, and Emma Bell) can't seem to catch a break. After the aforementioned negligence, they discover that they have no real solution. Of course, no one hears them yell, and they aren't accounted for later (I'm sure you knew that as soon as I told you they were stuck on a ski lift). A storm is settling in, they're 50 feet above the ground, the wire that runs the ski lift is razor sharp, they're too far away to climb down a ladder, and wolves become notified of their presence. Yes, you read that correctly- wolves. I was able to buy that much, but if the movie went much farther (or was longer than 93 minutes), I would have expected ravenous buzzards carrying cobras to make an appearance.
One loses a glove, and there is an icky moment where that person realizes that they had left their hand on the metal bar and removes it (painfully, of course). You see quite a bit more gore than I would have wanted other than that (and I have a strong stomach, mind you), and that seems to be the movie's biggest flaw. There's enough suspense through several scenes that had no gore that it almost felt like a stretch to include blood and guts. I won't reveal any more about it because if I do, you could probably piece the entire movie together and be left without much of a ride.
The acting is very good. There are some nice tender moments, and I had enough knowledge of each character that I could distinguish one from the rest without resorting to assignment through 'the one in the red jacket,' 'the one with the goggles,' and 'the chick.' I thought I recognized all three actors, but after doing some www.imdb.com research, I realized that I've only been familiar with one, Keven Zegers ("Transamerica" and the remake of "Dawn of the Dead"). I later discovered that Shawn Ashmore played Iceman in the "X-Men" trilogy, and I'm not familiar with any of Emma Stone's work. Whatever. I hope these guys get great work in the future.
The writer/director, Adam Green ("Hatchet"), is able to do a lot with the simple setting and premise. Shot without special effects or green screen technology, I found many things to be effective without reaching. For instance, the camera occasionally looms around the skiers on the lift, there are intimate close-ups, and there are sometimes views from above or below. After an hour, you think that Green has used up every angle in the book, but the simplicity and logic of the camera shots keep you glued. Also, remember when I mentioned that there were no special effects? Well, I meant it- the actors really were 50 feet in the air. They even helped change the camera lenses between takes.
In short, the gore factor was a little too high for this medium, but the suspense and performances save it. I found this for $10 over the weekend. Check it out if it's your thing.
Rated R for some disturbing images and language.
Buy it here.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
The Social Network - ***+ out of ****
Facebook annoys me. I really have no interest in learning about its creation because any more, having a Facebook account feels like a laborious chore, checking your 'Friends,' seeing if you were tagged in any embarrassing pictures, possibly having applications to deal with (I've met people that actually plan out their days around FarmVille), and updating your bio, interests, and all that. I rarely even use my Facebook account nowadays, so understandably, I was skeptical about David Fincher's movie. I was wrong to think that. "The Social Network" is absorbing, fascinating, and flows like hot chocolate. The aftertaste propelled me into deep thought-mode as I just can't get the movie out of my head.
Jesse Eisenberg is Mark Zuckerberg, the credited founder of Facebook, but as the movie shows us, he didn't exactly come up with the idea all by himself. After a disastrous date with Erica Albright (Rooney Mara), she informs him that they're no longer dating and that he's an asshole after Mark makes some paranoid cracks at her and some digs about her attending BU while he's a Harvard man. As revenge, Mark gets drunk and writes some very bad things about her in his blog (although it's unclear how many people actually read it) which sparks him to create 'facemash,' a site dedicated to showing the pictures of two girls so you can pick the prettier one. The site generates 22,000 hits, crashing the Harvard server. Men are cheering Zuckerberg on while women hate him.
From this, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (Armie Hammer and 3/4 of Josh Pence) decide that they would like to make a social network called 'The Harvard Connection.' Zuckerberg agrees to help them so he can gain respect from his 'facemash' fiasco. Forty-two days later, Zuckerberg tells them that he's not too keen on the original idea that they set up and splits ways so he can continue to work on Facebook. Undoubtedly, Zuckerberg wouldn't have come up with Facebook had it not been for their offer.
In the meantime, Zuckerberg is aided by several other guys but most notably Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield with enough intensity to fuel his own movie). Eduardo invests enough money to get Facebook started but would eventually be muscled out of the company by Zuckerberg and his new friend, Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake, excellent), the creator of Napster. Zuckerberg is basically seduced by Parker who makes few contributions to the company. He told Mark and Eduardo to drop the word 'the' from 'The Facebook' and just stick with 'Facebook.' Other than that, Parker seems to spend much of his time in the company putting Zuckerberg in contact with rich people who can help it expand.
Facebook becomes a hit. However, Eduardo and the Winklevoss twins get seriously pissed off and decide to sue Zuckerberg for their portion of the company. The story is told mostly as flashbacks during the deposition for those lawsuits.
David Fincher directs this material from Aaron Sorkin (the genius behind "The West Wing") as if they were made for each other. The dialogue draws you in, and the direction brings you closer. The performances are deeply layered, and it has the pacing and feel of a thriller like "Inception." The sets are so well-designed that I'm not sure how many people actually noticed them. We always accepted that they were where they said they were. It's really masterful stuff all around.
I won't reveal the final image, but I can say to you that it is one of the most poetic moments I've witnessed this year. It has something of a dull ache to its poignancy as you realize how isolated Zuckerberg really is from human contact. He always seems to be like a visitor to a foreign country, not bothering to ever interact effectively with people. I find the irony of the fact that the creator of the biggest social network of our time can't communicate with human beings to be a very bittersweet thought. Of course, this isn't something that the script created; it's based on actual accounts.
I highly recommend this movie to anyone who wants to see how an un-tellable story can be made into a captivating movie that stays with you long after it's over. In case you're wondering, the half-star deduction was because I left wanting more of a dagger in society's shoulder. Perhaps that will change after the next viewing, but for now, I think I need to consider deleting my Facebook.
Rated PG-13 for sexual content, drug and alcohol use and language.
Check your local theater for showtimes.
Jesse Eisenberg is Mark Zuckerberg, the credited founder of Facebook, but as the movie shows us, he didn't exactly come up with the idea all by himself. After a disastrous date with Erica Albright (Rooney Mara), she informs him that they're no longer dating and that he's an asshole after Mark makes some paranoid cracks at her and some digs about her attending BU while he's a Harvard man. As revenge, Mark gets drunk and writes some very bad things about her in his blog (although it's unclear how many people actually read it) which sparks him to create 'facemash,' a site dedicated to showing the pictures of two girls so you can pick the prettier one. The site generates 22,000 hits, crashing the Harvard server. Men are cheering Zuckerberg on while women hate him.
From this, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (Armie Hammer and 3/4 of Josh Pence) decide that they would like to make a social network called 'The Harvard Connection.' Zuckerberg agrees to help them so he can gain respect from his 'facemash' fiasco. Forty-two days later, Zuckerberg tells them that he's not too keen on the original idea that they set up and splits ways so he can continue to work on Facebook. Undoubtedly, Zuckerberg wouldn't have come up with Facebook had it not been for their offer.
In the meantime, Zuckerberg is aided by several other guys but most notably Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield with enough intensity to fuel his own movie). Eduardo invests enough money to get Facebook started but would eventually be muscled out of the company by Zuckerberg and his new friend, Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake, excellent), the creator of Napster. Zuckerberg is basically seduced by Parker who makes few contributions to the company. He told Mark and Eduardo to drop the word 'the' from 'The Facebook' and just stick with 'Facebook.' Other than that, Parker seems to spend much of his time in the company putting Zuckerberg in contact with rich people who can help it expand.
Facebook becomes a hit. However, Eduardo and the Winklevoss twins get seriously pissed off and decide to sue Zuckerberg for their portion of the company. The story is told mostly as flashbacks during the deposition for those lawsuits.
David Fincher directs this material from Aaron Sorkin (the genius behind "The West Wing") as if they were made for each other. The dialogue draws you in, and the direction brings you closer. The performances are deeply layered, and it has the pacing and feel of a thriller like "Inception." The sets are so well-designed that I'm not sure how many people actually noticed them. We always accepted that they were where they said they were. It's really masterful stuff all around.
I won't reveal the final image, but I can say to you that it is one of the most poetic moments I've witnessed this year. It has something of a dull ache to its poignancy as you realize how isolated Zuckerberg really is from human contact. He always seems to be like a visitor to a foreign country, not bothering to ever interact effectively with people. I find the irony of the fact that the creator of the biggest social network of our time can't communicate with human beings to be a very bittersweet thought. Of course, this isn't something that the script created; it's based on actual accounts.
I highly recommend this movie to anyone who wants to see how an un-tellable story can be made into a captivating movie that stays with you long after it's over. In case you're wondering, the half-star deduction was because I left wanting more of a dagger in society's shoulder. Perhaps that will change after the next viewing, but for now, I think I need to consider deleting my Facebook.
Rated PG-13 for sexual content, drug and alcohol use and language.
Check your local theater for showtimes.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Let Me In - *** out of ****
For English-speaking folk who are more afraid of subtitles than the supernatural, "Let Me In" will prove to be well-worth your ticket price. I know the Swedish original, "Let the Right One In," quite well, and because I feel that it is a perfect film, I was very skeptical when it was announced that Matt Reeves ("Cloverfield") would be writing and directing this American update.
The plot is virtually the same, but it is a movie that is more fun to discover on your own, so there will be minimal spoilers in this review. Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee from "The Road") is a young boy turning 13 who is constantly bullied at school. His parents are separated, and he has this overwhelming feeling of loneliness in his life. His mother, who he lives with, only appears onscreen to alert him to dinner and remind him to pray before his meals. His father only exists in the form of a desperate phone call, and it becomes clear that neither really wants him.
This changes when he meets Abby (Chloe Grace-Moretz of "Kick-Ass"). Abby is intelligent way beyond her years, does not wear shoes in the snow, and seems to have a strange relationship with the man living with her (the great Richard Jenkins from "The Visitor" and "Burn After Reading"). Owen does not question these strange circumstances but instead sees Abby as a different version of himself, and they form a friendship although Abby immediately warns him, "We can't be friends."
At the same time as this, a bizarre series of murders seems to be plaguing their small town, and a police inspector (Elias Koteas from small parts in "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" and "Shutter Island") tries to make sense of everything. This key role wasn't quite emphasized well enough in this version, but his purpose within the plot is still there. He doesn't serve the same role of the audience as trying to figure out what's happening in this movie but instead is on his own while we figure everything out ahead of him.
That's about all you will get from me in the plot. The acting in this film is a revelation of child acting with Chloe Grace-Moretz and Kodi Smit-McPhee nailing dimensions of their characters that would be difficult for most adult actors. The pair are the foundation of the movie, and they both perform beyond admirably. I was most impressed by Miss Moretz. If you think about the dimensions of her character and what was required of her, you know that this was not a simple feat. I was reminded of Anna Paquin's (HBO's "True Blood") Oscar-winning role in "The Piano." Chloe has the most lines and must also show the greatest struggle and range of emotion.
Matt Reeves appeared to me to not be the one to effectively make this movie because I was disappointed in "Cloverfield." I guess when the advertising campaign made you more scared than the final product, you're bound feeling as if something is missing. He proves to be very competent here, allowing the dull yellows and greens to light the areas with the red blood serving as the finishing touch. The pacing of some scenes felt a little off, and the suspense was lacking in certain areas where the original made it unbearable. These problems aside, Reeves did a splendid job of working with child actors in very adult roles.
The computer graphics are slicker, and although they looked wonderful, I was anxiously awaiting the 'cat attack' scene from "Let the Right One In." Unfortunately, it was cut. Perhaps it does make more sense to cut it in this version, but because that was the cheesiest-looking effect from the original, I was looking forward to seeing it polished.
As of right now, you're probably thinking that I'm reviewing a different movie than the trailer you saw. I am not. "Let Me In" is chilling, scary, morbidly satisfying, and unafraid of stepping on shaky territory. That the movie on the whole was able to handle these things with such grace and ease truly surprised me. Yes, I would classify it as a horror film while the original was a dramatic thriller, but those who are not familiar with the story will go into this and experience a good movie. Whether it's a good horror movie, good drama, good thriller, or what-have-you is beyond the point. This hybrid works extremely well despite whatever doubts I have about it being made in the first place. Watch this version first, then find "Let the Right One In" on DVD. It's like seeing the movie before reading the novel so you aren't disappointed.
Rated R for strong bloody horror violence, language and a brief sexual situation.
Check your local theater for showtimes.
The plot is virtually the same, but it is a movie that is more fun to discover on your own, so there will be minimal spoilers in this review. Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee from "The Road") is a young boy turning 13 who is constantly bullied at school. His parents are separated, and he has this overwhelming feeling of loneliness in his life. His mother, who he lives with, only appears onscreen to alert him to dinner and remind him to pray before his meals. His father only exists in the form of a desperate phone call, and it becomes clear that neither really wants him.
This changes when he meets Abby (Chloe Grace-Moretz of "Kick-Ass"). Abby is intelligent way beyond her years, does not wear shoes in the snow, and seems to have a strange relationship with the man living with her (the great Richard Jenkins from "The Visitor" and "Burn After Reading"). Owen does not question these strange circumstances but instead sees Abby as a different version of himself, and they form a friendship although Abby immediately warns him, "We can't be friends."
At the same time as this, a bizarre series of murders seems to be plaguing their small town, and a police inspector (Elias Koteas from small parts in "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" and "Shutter Island") tries to make sense of everything. This key role wasn't quite emphasized well enough in this version, but his purpose within the plot is still there. He doesn't serve the same role of the audience as trying to figure out what's happening in this movie but instead is on his own while we figure everything out ahead of him.
That's about all you will get from me in the plot. The acting in this film is a revelation of child acting with Chloe Grace-Moretz and Kodi Smit-McPhee nailing dimensions of their characters that would be difficult for most adult actors. The pair are the foundation of the movie, and they both perform beyond admirably. I was most impressed by Miss Moretz. If you think about the dimensions of her character and what was required of her, you know that this was not a simple feat. I was reminded of Anna Paquin's (HBO's "True Blood") Oscar-winning role in "The Piano." Chloe has the most lines and must also show the greatest struggle and range of emotion.
Matt Reeves appeared to me to not be the one to effectively make this movie because I was disappointed in "Cloverfield." I guess when the advertising campaign made you more scared than the final product, you're bound feeling as if something is missing. He proves to be very competent here, allowing the dull yellows and greens to light the areas with the red blood serving as the finishing touch. The pacing of some scenes felt a little off, and the suspense was lacking in certain areas where the original made it unbearable. These problems aside, Reeves did a splendid job of working with child actors in very adult roles.
The computer graphics are slicker, and although they looked wonderful, I was anxiously awaiting the 'cat attack' scene from "Let the Right One In." Unfortunately, it was cut. Perhaps it does make more sense to cut it in this version, but because that was the cheesiest-looking effect from the original, I was looking forward to seeing it polished.
As of right now, you're probably thinking that I'm reviewing a different movie than the trailer you saw. I am not. "Let Me In" is chilling, scary, morbidly satisfying, and unafraid of stepping on shaky territory. That the movie on the whole was able to handle these things with such grace and ease truly surprised me. Yes, I would classify it as a horror film while the original was a dramatic thriller, but those who are not familiar with the story will go into this and experience a good movie. Whether it's a good horror movie, good drama, good thriller, or what-have-you is beyond the point. This hybrid works extremely well despite whatever doubts I have about it being made in the first place. Watch this version first, then find "Let the Right One In" on DVD. It's like seeing the movie before reading the novel so you aren't disappointed.
Rated R for strong bloody horror violence, language and a brief sexual situation.
Check your local theater for showtimes.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Avatar Special Edition 3D - **** out of ****
It's such a kick watching a megabudget movie done well, but what "Avatar" entails is one of the monumental films of the decade. Although I would have enjoyed seeing "Up in the Air," "Precious," or "Inglourious Basterds" win Best Picture (an honor that "The Hurt Locker" grasped), I still think this is a movie that needs to be seen. I was skeptical about seeing a perfect movie re-released into theaters less than a year later, this version feels even better than the previous one.
I do have to say, you know exactly where the movie is going within about 15 minutes. That's just something that you have to accept. It's really not the story that's the movie's strong point but the experience on the whole. In 3D, I felt that I was watching something that's basically required viewing, like "The Silence of the Lambs" or "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy.
As you can probably tell, I'm having some difficulty writing this review. Let's go with the story now. In 2154, a Marine who has lost the ability to use his legs gets an impossible opportunity- his twin brother, a scientist set for the avatar program, dies. The Marine, Jake Sully, starts the avatar program and basically answers our questions about it. He is briefed by Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang, slime incarnate) that he is to take his brother's avatar and learn the culture of the Na'vi, a 12 foot-tall race of peace-loving people who live on Pandora, a planet unsustainable for us humans. He meets a fascinating local girl named Neytiri (Zoe Saldana, having a wonderful year with this and "Star Trek") and begins to learn and respect their spiritual love for the land. All of this hits the fan when a rich guy (Giovanni Ribisi) finds out that the mineral 'unobtainium' (it is what it sounds like) is located extensively below the Na'vi's Hometree, where they feel a deep connection. He could stand to make a ton of money by forcing them off their tree.
The lead, played by Sam Worthington, is quite a wonderful tight-rope act. He's fairly abrasive ("Kiss the darkest part of my lily white..."), he must act in both human form in a wheelchair and avatar form which in itself is a physical challenge, we have to root for him throughout the movie, and his character is developed at great length during action sequences. His sense of humor helps us root for him, and his bull-headed determination satisfies our curiosity of the world. It's a well-written character played by a very talented actor.
The rest of the film consists of intense action sequences, cutting edge CGI, supporting characters that could carry a movie of their own, and a big, blue (or green, rather) heart. There are several heartbreaking moments, but they work because you actually care about these people, not just the circumstances.
I have to mention the fact that it is in 3D. Often times, 3D is used to lure audiences because, well, it looks cool. In "Avatar," the 3D actually enhances the storytelling because it's not a gimmick here. You are able to see the world, the people, and the story play out in a very convincing way instead of having sticks, bullets, and water thrown at you throughout. It really makes the entire movie look even better mostly because of the lighting. Usually, 3D makes the colors more saturated and darker, but in the jungles of Pandora, you never have trouble telling what's happening.
If you haven't yet, you need to see this movie. It is on DVD now, but that's just the 2D version, and unless you have an awesome TV and Blu-Ray Player, you'll probably be underwhelmed. Well James Cameron, you've knocked another homerun. I can't wait to see it again.
Rated PG-13 for intense epic battle sequences and warfare, sensuality, language, and some smoking.
Check your local theater for showtimes.
I do have to say, you know exactly where the movie is going within about 15 minutes. That's just something that you have to accept. It's really not the story that's the movie's strong point but the experience on the whole. In 3D, I felt that I was watching something that's basically required viewing, like "The Silence of the Lambs" or "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy.
As you can probably tell, I'm having some difficulty writing this review. Let's go with the story now. In 2154, a Marine who has lost the ability to use his legs gets an impossible opportunity- his twin brother, a scientist set for the avatar program, dies. The Marine, Jake Sully, starts the avatar program and basically answers our questions about it. He is briefed by Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang, slime incarnate) that he is to take his brother's avatar and learn the culture of the Na'vi, a 12 foot-tall race of peace-loving people who live on Pandora, a planet unsustainable for us humans. He meets a fascinating local girl named Neytiri (Zoe Saldana, having a wonderful year with this and "Star Trek") and begins to learn and respect their spiritual love for the land. All of this hits the fan when a rich guy (Giovanni Ribisi) finds out that the mineral 'unobtainium' (it is what it sounds like) is located extensively below the Na'vi's Hometree, where they feel a deep connection. He could stand to make a ton of money by forcing them off their tree.
The lead, played by Sam Worthington, is quite a wonderful tight-rope act. He's fairly abrasive ("Kiss the darkest part of my lily white..."), he must act in both human form in a wheelchair and avatar form which in itself is a physical challenge, we have to root for him throughout the movie, and his character is developed at great length during action sequences. His sense of humor helps us root for him, and his bull-headed determination satisfies our curiosity of the world. It's a well-written character played by a very talented actor.
The rest of the film consists of intense action sequences, cutting edge CGI, supporting characters that could carry a movie of their own, and a big, blue (or green, rather) heart. There are several heartbreaking moments, but they work because you actually care about these people, not just the circumstances.
I have to mention the fact that it is in 3D. Often times, 3D is used to lure audiences because, well, it looks cool. In "Avatar," the 3D actually enhances the storytelling because it's not a gimmick here. You are able to see the world, the people, and the story play out in a very convincing way instead of having sticks, bullets, and water thrown at you throughout. It really makes the entire movie look even better mostly because of the lighting. Usually, 3D makes the colors more saturated and darker, but in the jungles of Pandora, you never have trouble telling what's happening.
If you haven't yet, you need to see this movie. It is on DVD now, but that's just the 2D version, and unless you have an awesome TV and Blu-Ray Player, you'll probably be underwhelmed. Well James Cameron, you've knocked another homerun. I can't wait to see it again.
Rated PG-13 for intense epic battle sequences and warfare, sensuality, language, and some smoking.
Check your local theater for showtimes.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Piranha 3D - *** out of ****
"Piranha 3D" is an event film for a select audience. Although the 3D was added as an afterthought (something I'm strongly against), this time it seems to have worked very well. Body parts fly across the screen, tequila puke flies into your face, and, as promised, killer piranhas flood the screen. Sometimes it seems muddled (especially when underwater), but when making an event film, you have to give people a reason to see this with an audience. I'm sure that if "Snakes on a Plane" was released this summer, it would go for the same idea, being released in 3D.
I think I'll just spit out the plot and get it over with- a believably extinct race of cannibalistic piranhas are freed from their cave when an earthquake causes a shift. In the meantime, it's Spring Break, and tons of horny frat boys and sorority girls chug whatever alcohol is present and disobey the sheriff (Elisabeth Shue, an often forgotten treat). Also, a sleazy, coke-snorting 'director' of an adult video series called 'Wild Wild Girls' (try to guess the reference) takes the sheriff's son along as a local who knows the area. And there, reader, is your excuse for piranha victims and female nudity.
I was very surprised at how much the movie got away with. Supposedly, 8-9 minutes of footage was cut to obtain an R rating, but it will no doubt show up on the Unrated DVD. People lose many limbs (including the ironic loss of a certain reproductive organ), there is sometimes naked girl-on-girl action (motorboting and kissing, if you were wondering), the body count is probably over 100, and the lake runs almost as red as the fountains in "Kill Bill: Volume 1."
And there you have it- a fun little escapist summer movie that may have some kind of moral in it, but I wasn't paying any attention. Maybe when the sheriff and Ving Rhames tell you to get out of the water because of an emergency, you should. Or wait for the Unrated DVD. Or don't see it at all. It's up to you.
Rated R for sequences of strong bloody violence and gore, graphic nudity, sexual content, language and some drug use.
Check your local theater for showtimes.
I think I'll just spit out the plot and get it over with- a believably extinct race of cannibalistic piranhas are freed from their cave when an earthquake causes a shift. In the meantime, it's Spring Break, and tons of horny frat boys and sorority girls chug whatever alcohol is present and disobey the sheriff (Elisabeth Shue, an often forgotten treat). Also, a sleazy, coke-snorting 'director' of an adult video series called 'Wild Wild Girls' (try to guess the reference) takes the sheriff's son along as a local who knows the area. And there, reader, is your excuse for piranha victims and female nudity.
I was very surprised at how much the movie got away with. Supposedly, 8-9 minutes of footage was cut to obtain an R rating, but it will no doubt show up on the Unrated DVD. People lose many limbs (including the ironic loss of a certain reproductive organ), there is sometimes naked girl-on-girl action (motorboting and kissing, if you were wondering), the body count is probably over 100, and the lake runs almost as red as the fountains in "Kill Bill: Volume 1."
And there you have it- a fun little escapist summer movie that may have some kind of moral in it, but I wasn't paying any attention. Maybe when the sheriff and Ving Rhames tell you to get out of the water because of an emergency, you should. Or wait for the Unrated DVD. Or don't see it at all. It's up to you.
Rated R for sequences of strong bloody violence and gore, graphic nudity, sexual content, language and some drug use.
Check your local theater for showtimes.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Scream 3 - *** out of ****
With "Scream 4" filming at this time, perhaps I should try to get you up to speed about the first three. "Scream" was a refreshing breath of fresh air and a perfect example of a parody by showing you how the slasher genre is done while poking fun at the logical fallacies inherent in the genre. I would give it no less than ***+, and the only reason I hesitate to give it that extra half would be the fact that the movie feels a little dated. Perhaps this is because every slasher movie made since its release uses it as an example, but from the classic opening sequence to the smart finale, "Scream" is seriously fun, quite scary, and tongue-in-cheek hilarious.
"Scream 2" wasn't quite as good, but what saves the film is the brilliant ending twist. It's something you can't predict but seems obvious when you think about it. There's a great kill scene in broad daylight on a crowded campus, a scary 'yell-at-the-screen' opening, and most of all, it features Neve Campbell in her role. I say that it's her role because apart from "Wild Things," I never watched or even heard of a single film she's done. Although she may be making a comeback with "Vivaldi," which is in pre-production, she will always be known as The Scream Actress.
And now onto "Scream 3." I have to say that I was disappointed, otherwise I would be lying to myself. I wanted to enjoy it, but it felt like, as most critics have said, the movie that "Scream" was parodying. There is some great humor in the situations, such as an actress' encounter with Ghostface in prop storage, played well I must say by Jenny McCarthy. There are some throwaway gags (one 'point-at-the-screen' joke involving two comic heroes), but it's really the most fun the less you think about it. I decidedly turned off my brain and just let the movie flow over me, but you know what to expect when the movie shows one single camera shot of something seemingly meaningless or tries to make you think who the killer is. I didn't predict the killer, but I knew what was going to happen at many parts.
Predicting the killer is easy for some people who know the twists. You've watched enough movies to know some of the cliches, including suspecting the person who has the least screentime, the person who is wrongly accused, and the person who may not be quite dead. I won't say who it is in this review, but needless to say, one of those three cliches in the last sentence is true.
"Scream 3" doesn't have any grotesquely gory parts, so if you're hoping to see Casey Becker's guts again, you'll be disappointed. This isn't a flaw within the movie because usually when a movie tries to keep the focus on the suspense, situation, or drama instead of what bodily fluids could be shown, the director wants to say something. Maybe not in every case, but think about it. The main reason people I talk to want to see the new "Saw" movies isn't because of the villain but because of the disgusting ways victims are tortured/killed using unnecessary silly machines. Why would you create a device like a reverse bear trap to shove in someone's mouth? Why would you make a heavy necklace with shotgun shells? Why would you want to show a device that breaks someone's limbs one at a time? I guess someone never heard of Alfred Hitchcock or the word 'subtlety.'
"Scream 3" is worth seeing because of its focus on the people, the past, and the suspense instead of the gore. I do wish some nail-biter scenes were drawn out more, and I would have liked a better surprise ending (if you're going to make an ending that doesn't quite make sense, go for the gold). I feel like a pain complaining about Wes Craven's best work (yes, I liked the trilogy better than the original "Nightmare on Elm Street"), so I'm going to end my review here. It's not the best one by far, but it came with the Scream Triple Pack I picked up, so I watched it. Buy it for the first two, and on a boring night, throw in the third. Maybe if "Scream 4" is fun, get up-to-date.
Rated R for strong horror violence and language.
Buy it here.
"Scream 2" wasn't quite as good, but what saves the film is the brilliant ending twist. It's something you can't predict but seems obvious when you think about it. There's a great kill scene in broad daylight on a crowded campus, a scary 'yell-at-the-screen' opening, and most of all, it features Neve Campbell in her role. I say that it's her role because apart from "Wild Things," I never watched or even heard of a single film she's done. Although she may be making a comeback with "Vivaldi," which is in pre-production, she will always be known as The Scream Actress.
And now onto "Scream 3." I have to say that I was disappointed, otherwise I would be lying to myself. I wanted to enjoy it, but it felt like, as most critics have said, the movie that "Scream" was parodying. There is some great humor in the situations, such as an actress' encounter with Ghostface in prop storage, played well I must say by Jenny McCarthy. There are some throwaway gags (one 'point-at-the-screen' joke involving two comic heroes), but it's really the most fun the less you think about it. I decidedly turned off my brain and just let the movie flow over me, but you know what to expect when the movie shows one single camera shot of something seemingly meaningless or tries to make you think who the killer is. I didn't predict the killer, but I knew what was going to happen at many parts.
Predicting the killer is easy for some people who know the twists. You've watched enough movies to know some of the cliches, including suspecting the person who has the least screentime, the person who is wrongly accused, and the person who may not be quite dead. I won't say who it is in this review, but needless to say, one of those three cliches in the last sentence is true.
"Scream 3" doesn't have any grotesquely gory parts, so if you're hoping to see Casey Becker's guts again, you'll be disappointed. This isn't a flaw within the movie because usually when a movie tries to keep the focus on the suspense, situation, or drama instead of what bodily fluids could be shown, the director wants to say something. Maybe not in every case, but think about it. The main reason people I talk to want to see the new "Saw" movies isn't because of the villain but because of the disgusting ways victims are tortured/killed using unnecessary silly machines. Why would you create a device like a reverse bear trap to shove in someone's mouth? Why would you make a heavy necklace with shotgun shells? Why would you want to show a device that breaks someone's limbs one at a time? I guess someone never heard of Alfred Hitchcock or the word 'subtlety.'
"Scream 3" is worth seeing because of its focus on the people, the past, and the suspense instead of the gore. I do wish some nail-biter scenes were drawn out more, and I would have liked a better surprise ending (if you're going to make an ending that doesn't quite make sense, go for the gold). I feel like a pain complaining about Wes Craven's best work (yes, I liked the trilogy better than the original "Nightmare on Elm Street"), so I'm going to end my review here. It's not the best one by far, but it came with the Scream Triple Pack I picked up, so I watched it. Buy it for the first two, and on a boring night, throw in the third. Maybe if "Scream 4" is fun, get up-to-date.
Rated R for strong horror violence and language.
Buy it here.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Rendition - **** out of ****
"Rendition" is an unusually mindful and well-made thriller as well as a slap-in-the-face to senseless politicians more concerned about their jobs than what they know to be right and wrong. Although it does have a political message, it still has the elements of a memorable thriller. It opens with a mystery. An Egyptian man named Anwar El-Ibrahami (Omar Etwally, a talented newcomer) boards a flight back to America from South Africa but isn't shown to arrive back in the states. As a matter of fact, the record of him boarding the plane vanishes. His very pregnant wife, Isabella (Reese Witherspoon, with determination), shows up at the airport with their 6 year-old son and assume that there is a mix-up. There is, and there isn't.
Isabella comes into contact with the aid to Senator and an old fling, Alan Smith (Peter Sarsgaard, performing excellently once again). Smith works with an older Senator (Alan Arkin, wonderfully cast) who doesn't react well to this news. The two resolve that his disappearance must have been known by CIA Corespondent Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep in a vile-filled role played expertly). These people bring us into the knowledge of several others whose roles would spoil some of the 'fun' of the movie.
I do act as if this thriller isn't fun, but this really belongs in a not easily-distinguished category of serious thrillers. There is some humor in moments, but it's not like we're watching "Serenity" or "Casino Royale." The elements are all in place, but how the material is handled is quite different than many other notable thrillers. This isn't a light-hearted journey either. This is something that needs to be studied and debated.
I'm amazed about how much fire seems to be flowing through my fingers as I type this review. I certainly agree with the politics behind the film against our interrogative tactics, and this is not an issue I take lightly. We seem to have a belief that if you continuously torture someone who might be guilty, then eventually they'll become guilty despite reasonable doubt. I think of this as the opposite of justice because people are presumed guilty when accused of terrorism. And since when is that even a valid excuse? The damage done when we're wrong greatly outweighs what we believe to be done that is good. You can try to call me soft, a sympathizer, and even wrong but I'm sure you wouldn't willfully accept your Freedom Torture.
Movies like "Rendition" are important because they comment on the times in which we live as well as develop a coherent and involving story. I cared for the characters not because they were political pawns or because the movie told me to but because I genuinely did. This is not easy to do, especially in a political piece, but it is done here. There are around a dozen key players and each have their own clear motives as well as wonderful dialogue. Another plus is that there isn't really a twist ending. Sure, it's not quite what you expected, but for this film, it's perfect.
I wonder how many people would think differently about torture tactics if they just watched "Rendition." It becomes clear that these methods are outdated and only produce the results we assign to them. Terrorism is a real threat both abroad and, unfortunately, one that is commonly manufactured by our government and then called patriotic. We're even told how many lives are saved because of them when in reality, the majority of the time it ruins others' lives. Don't people just know that if someone is being cut, drowned, and electrocuted that they will tell you what you want to hear? How woeful and pessimistic this makes me.
Rated R for torture/violence and language.
Buy it here.
Isabella comes into contact with the aid to Senator and an old fling, Alan Smith (Peter Sarsgaard, performing excellently once again). Smith works with an older Senator (Alan Arkin, wonderfully cast) who doesn't react well to this news. The two resolve that his disappearance must have been known by CIA Corespondent Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep in a vile-filled role played expertly). These people bring us into the knowledge of several others whose roles would spoil some of the 'fun' of the movie.
I do act as if this thriller isn't fun, but this really belongs in a not easily-distinguished category of serious thrillers. There is some humor in moments, but it's not like we're watching "Serenity" or "Casino Royale." The elements are all in place, but how the material is handled is quite different than many other notable thrillers. This isn't a light-hearted journey either. This is something that needs to be studied and debated.
I'm amazed about how much fire seems to be flowing through my fingers as I type this review. I certainly agree with the politics behind the film against our interrogative tactics, and this is not an issue I take lightly. We seem to have a belief that if you continuously torture someone who might be guilty, then eventually they'll become guilty despite reasonable doubt. I think of this as the opposite of justice because people are presumed guilty when accused of terrorism. And since when is that even a valid excuse? The damage done when we're wrong greatly outweighs what we believe to be done that is good. You can try to call me soft, a sympathizer, and even wrong but I'm sure you wouldn't willfully accept your Freedom Torture.
Movies like "Rendition" are important because they comment on the times in which we live as well as develop a coherent and involving story. I cared for the characters not because they were political pawns or because the movie told me to but because I genuinely did. This is not easy to do, especially in a political piece, but it is done here. There are around a dozen key players and each have their own clear motives as well as wonderful dialogue. Another plus is that there isn't really a twist ending. Sure, it's not quite what you expected, but for this film, it's perfect.
I wonder how many people would think differently about torture tactics if they just watched "Rendition." It becomes clear that these methods are outdated and only produce the results we assign to them. Terrorism is a real threat both abroad and, unfortunately, one that is commonly manufactured by our government and then called patriotic. We're even told how many lives are saved because of them when in reality, the majority of the time it ruins others' lives. Don't people just know that if someone is being cut, drowned, and electrocuted that they will tell you what you want to hear? How woeful and pessimistic this makes me.
Rated R for torture/violence and language.
Buy it here.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
The Pianist - **** out of ****
"The Pianist" begins and ends with Frederick Chopin's 'Nocturne in C# Minor.' It is interrupted by many bombs, and as Wladyslaw Szpilman (Adrien Brody) runs to be with his family during the beginning of the Nazi invasion of Poland, the piece seems to be the perfect choice. Chopin was of polish ancestry, an expert pianist of the romantic era, and towards the end of his life couldn't afford many practical expenses, including his physician. The 'Nocturne' was published after Chopin's death, and the irony of Wladyslaw Szpilman performing it for Polish radio is that neither Chopin nor Szpilman knew their futures and fates during the period of composition and performance. While these factoids may or may not interest you or have any bearing on your interpretation of the film, I feel that in a movie about someone who only has his music and blind luck, what he is able to turn to in his darkest hours (but alas cannot quite do) is extremely important.
Adrien Brody is a fine actor, and this performance is one of nuance and subtlety, not something exactly emphasized in the 'Transformers' and 'Twilight' days. Why should you spend two and a half hours in such dark territory when there's a new 3D movie showing practically every weekend? The answer to that isn't one that is universal, but you must understand that Roman Polanski intertwines this story with some of his own personal experiences during Nazi rule. This isn't a movie that is designed to make you feel depressed but instead launch you into a state of thoughtfulness. What I left feeling was a bittersweet gratitude, as the one who engaged in the most suffering is able to do what he loves most but someone in a higher position who helped him took his probably fate from him. Perhaps not every single Nazi was as evil as we think. This is touched upon, but what the majority did, as we all know, was beyond deplorable. You ask the question, 'why?' and get answered with a bullet in your brain. You drink mildewed water (if you're lucky enough to find it), eat when and if you find food, family members are murdered in front of you and you cannot grieve until you're left in silence, and you hardly ever sleep in the same place two nights in a row. These things are not, by any means, elements meant for cheap dramatic gain but instead are facts. The drama lies in the character, not the situation.
Any story of survival in this time is worth hearing, but this one isn't filled with a life lesson about survival and staying strong; instead, what leads to Szpilman's survival is mostly his fortunate luck of being in the right place at the right time. Unfortunately, luck is what caused many to survive. Of course, I feel strange using the word 'luck' in a review of a movie about the holocaust.
Szpilman was given the opportunity to join the other side but refused. Perhaps he always knew the Nazi position was temporary, perhaps he didn't wish to leave his family, or perhaps he simply knew right from wrong. Whatever the cause, Szpilman went into the war with everything and left with only his music and his love for music. Many people wish they had as much as Szpilman had.
Rated R for violence and brief strong language.
Buy it here.
Adrien Brody is a fine actor, and this performance is one of nuance and subtlety, not something exactly emphasized in the 'Transformers' and 'Twilight' days. Why should you spend two and a half hours in such dark territory when there's a new 3D movie showing practically every weekend? The answer to that isn't one that is universal, but you must understand that Roman Polanski intertwines this story with some of his own personal experiences during Nazi rule. This isn't a movie that is designed to make you feel depressed but instead launch you into a state of thoughtfulness. What I left feeling was a bittersweet gratitude, as the one who engaged in the most suffering is able to do what he loves most but someone in a higher position who helped him took his probably fate from him. Perhaps not every single Nazi was as evil as we think. This is touched upon, but what the majority did, as we all know, was beyond deplorable. You ask the question, 'why?' and get answered with a bullet in your brain. You drink mildewed water (if you're lucky enough to find it), eat when and if you find food, family members are murdered in front of you and you cannot grieve until you're left in silence, and you hardly ever sleep in the same place two nights in a row. These things are not, by any means, elements meant for cheap dramatic gain but instead are facts. The drama lies in the character, not the situation.
Any story of survival in this time is worth hearing, but this one isn't filled with a life lesson about survival and staying strong; instead, what leads to Szpilman's survival is mostly his fortunate luck of being in the right place at the right time. Unfortunately, luck is what caused many to survive. Of course, I feel strange using the word 'luck' in a review of a movie about the holocaust.
Szpilman was given the opportunity to join the other side but refused. Perhaps he always knew the Nazi position was temporary, perhaps he didn't wish to leave his family, or perhaps he simply knew right from wrong. Whatever the cause, Szpilman went into the war with everything and left with only his music and his love for music. Many people wish they had as much as Szpilman had.
Rated R for violence and brief strong language.
Buy it here.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
The Indiana Jones Quadrilogy - **** out of ****
The very first "Indiana Jones" movie I ever watched was actually "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." I wasn't allowed to watch the earlier three landmark movies as a kid because they were feared by my parents to be too violent and to cause nightmares. Perhaps that is true, but what I lost from not being able to enjoy these cinematic masterpieces is that of a hero. Oh-so typical of an idea, a fictional hero helps the evolving youth we were develop into what we are today. We need standards, ideas, and I still have such desires in my life. They truly just don't make movies like Speilberg did anymore.
"Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" received a fairly lukewarm reception, only being liked by few, loved by even less, and the object of disappointment by everyone else. You have to understand the movie like I did, stepping into the franchise fresh and new. What Indiana Jones shows all of us is that you need not gain a 6-pack and be able to lift a small house to be an action hero; all you really need is intelligence and mild physical stamina. Yes, Harrison Ford is in great shape (you can tell by his shirtlessness throughout all four films), but what makes him just so irresistible and what gives me the desire to be him are the moments that are just human.
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" is an action/adventure masterpiece. His female counterpart, Marion Ravenwood, is simply a wonderful creation. She can be described by many words such as intelligent, driven, bull-headed, and determined. Her sweet alto voice makes her occasional obligatory whining comedic and realistic at the same time (not an easy feat by any means). "Raiders" allows Speilberg to attack the Nazis, show us who an action hero really should be, thrill and excite us, and teach us a valuable lesson about dabbling where we shouldn't. The climactic scene where Indiana and Marion are tied to a pole while the Ark of the Covenant is opened is timeless, plain and simple. The pacing, music, and dialogue all work together to create this wonderful tapestry juxtaposing the supernatural, philosophy, logic, and pure horror. It's sensationally scary and altogether fascinating.
"Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" keeps its focus on Asian and Indian culture. The tribal rituals shown are disturbing in their matter-of-fact flow by those performing aforementioned rituals. The heroine was something that seems like a cliche now, but at the time of its creation was entirely new and original. Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw, Speilberg's wife) was a singer who unwillingly gets drawn into the messy, disgusting, creepy-crawly, and altogether un-feminine journey with Jones' young sidekick, Short Round. She and Jones fall for each other in scenes as delicate and choreographed as a classic ballet and as comedic as a Charlie Chaplin routine. You get the best of a sequel wherein you receive just want you want and are given more in the areas where you want more, put in the most elementary way possible. In the end, there is a child worker uprising, a long, heart-stopping mine cart chase, some PG-13 violence, and the looks of another sequel. This was my least-favorite of the four, but let's face it- it's still a head and shoulders above most anything else.
The final of the first three (and the last I watched) would be "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade." Adding Sean Connery into the mix, plenty of humor was added, letting the energy constantly stay high despite there not being many major chase scenes like the other three films have. Indiana Jones ventures to find the Holy Grail (yes, THAT Holy Grail) after his father (Connery) goes missing. I don't really know what I could possibly tell you about this movie except for the golden line, 'He chose...poorly.' The femme fatale is a nice addition, defying the formula and not turning Indiana Jones into the womanizer James Bond is. To be honest, in my opinion, Marion Ravenwood has yet to be topped as the female counterpart to a male hero (and this does include all Bond girls), so it was wise of Speilberg to let the chemistry of Harrison Ford and Sean Connery to exist rather than be undeveloped.
Perhaps there is a flaw in "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" being released so many years later, and (minor spoiler) truth be told, I enjoyed the plot development about extraterrestrials. It may feel out of place, but if you think about it, Indiana Jones movies serve to balance good old-fashioned action/adventure with something supernatural. The first contained the Ark of the Covenant, the second had Asian/Indian tribal rituals, and the third followed The Bible, so what was there next? Aliens do seem to fit in (in my eyes at any rate), so why not? I advise you to just roll with it and not throw too much logic into the movie- it is a popcorn movie, not the action classic the originals were.
I say that the fourth is a popcorn movie and the first three are classics yet I give every movie four stars...why, oh why? The popcorn movie is an essential in our lives; this time of year, that's what we want to see. We want action, comedy, fun, and periods of illogic while the whole isn't composed solely of pieces that don't make sense. The movie does actually make sense in its storytelling, but I doubt the same characters would just happen to run into each other, things would happen as they do, and all that unnecessary crap. As movies go, I feel that the fourth doesn't rape Indiana Jones (in the words of Trey Parker and Matt Stone) but instead place the hero in a context typical for a summer blockbuster. If the character names had been different and had some other developments, I'm sure the movie would have been one of my favorites of the year. Because it happened to fit into an Indiana Jones adventure made it even better for me.
My finale will basically just say that if Stephen Speilberg hadn't been a filmmaker, we would live in a very sad world today. "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" is a movie I just re-visited tonight, and I would never change or update a single moment of it. "ET: The Extra Terrestrial" has already been updated, and although it is still a masterpiece, some of its charm of its time was lost in the translation. It was great for some of these old-school graphics to be updated for our further enjoyment, but I'd stop after that. "Saving Private Ryan" is an immortal film of unmentionable power and is something that is studied in film classes by those wishing to ever make a great movie. "Schindler's List" is Speilberg's only movie to win Best Picture (if I'm wrong, I will correct that statement immediately) and is a drama worth study by all, not just film students. "Jaws" is every bit as tense and horrifying as it was when it was created. "Jurassic Park" opened a whole new world of fantasy for teens and adults alike. "Munich" was an exceptional dramatic thriller with a profound political statement. I could go on to talk about "Minority Report," "Catch Me if You Can," "The Terminal," "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence," "Amistad," and the "War of the Worlds" update, but the last few are the only ones that seemed to contain any flaws in filmmaking, as believed by a fraction of their viewers.
Indiana Jones serves to me as a beacon of hope, like that treasured toy everyone had as a kid. You were able to understand its creative function, but what you did with it was quite different. You could take your Matchbox Cars on trips across the world, picking up your friends, doing good, or just being awesome. Barbie could live her life as a glamorous woman with everything she could ever have and just be happy. Where Indiana Jones fits into this little rant is that the character as well as his journeys teach us many life lessons, but I can never settle for enough. As long as Speilberg is thinking and making movies, I want him to take me to another world, show me the one of the past, or critique the one of the present. I can never get enough of this guy.
Buy them here.
All 'Indiana Jones' movies are rated PG-13 for adventure violence, mild language, and the like.
"Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" received a fairly lukewarm reception, only being liked by few, loved by even less, and the object of disappointment by everyone else. You have to understand the movie like I did, stepping into the franchise fresh and new. What Indiana Jones shows all of us is that you need not gain a 6-pack and be able to lift a small house to be an action hero; all you really need is intelligence and mild physical stamina. Yes, Harrison Ford is in great shape (you can tell by his shirtlessness throughout all four films), but what makes him just so irresistible and what gives me the desire to be him are the moments that are just human.
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" is an action/adventure masterpiece. His female counterpart, Marion Ravenwood, is simply a wonderful creation. She can be described by many words such as intelligent, driven, bull-headed, and determined. Her sweet alto voice makes her occasional obligatory whining comedic and realistic at the same time (not an easy feat by any means). "Raiders" allows Speilberg to attack the Nazis, show us who an action hero really should be, thrill and excite us, and teach us a valuable lesson about dabbling where we shouldn't. The climactic scene where Indiana and Marion are tied to a pole while the Ark of the Covenant is opened is timeless, plain and simple. The pacing, music, and dialogue all work together to create this wonderful tapestry juxtaposing the supernatural, philosophy, logic, and pure horror. It's sensationally scary and altogether fascinating.
"Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" keeps its focus on Asian and Indian culture. The tribal rituals shown are disturbing in their matter-of-fact flow by those performing aforementioned rituals. The heroine was something that seems like a cliche now, but at the time of its creation was entirely new and original. Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw, Speilberg's wife) was a singer who unwillingly gets drawn into the messy, disgusting, creepy-crawly, and altogether un-feminine journey with Jones' young sidekick, Short Round. She and Jones fall for each other in scenes as delicate and choreographed as a classic ballet and as comedic as a Charlie Chaplin routine. You get the best of a sequel wherein you receive just want you want and are given more in the areas where you want more, put in the most elementary way possible. In the end, there is a child worker uprising, a long, heart-stopping mine cart chase, some PG-13 violence, and the looks of another sequel. This was my least-favorite of the four, but let's face it- it's still a head and shoulders above most anything else.
The final of the first three (and the last I watched) would be "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade." Adding Sean Connery into the mix, plenty of humor was added, letting the energy constantly stay high despite there not being many major chase scenes like the other three films have. Indiana Jones ventures to find the Holy Grail (yes, THAT Holy Grail) after his father (Connery) goes missing. I don't really know what I could possibly tell you about this movie except for the golden line, 'He chose...poorly.' The femme fatale is a nice addition, defying the formula and not turning Indiana Jones into the womanizer James Bond is. To be honest, in my opinion, Marion Ravenwood has yet to be topped as the female counterpart to a male hero (and this does include all Bond girls), so it was wise of Speilberg to let the chemistry of Harrison Ford and Sean Connery to exist rather than be undeveloped.
Perhaps there is a flaw in "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" being released so many years later, and (minor spoiler) truth be told, I enjoyed the plot development about extraterrestrials. It may feel out of place, but if you think about it, Indiana Jones movies serve to balance good old-fashioned action/adventure with something supernatural. The first contained the Ark of the Covenant, the second had Asian/Indian tribal rituals, and the third followed The Bible, so what was there next? Aliens do seem to fit in (in my eyes at any rate), so why not? I advise you to just roll with it and not throw too much logic into the movie- it is a popcorn movie, not the action classic the originals were.
I say that the fourth is a popcorn movie and the first three are classics yet I give every movie four stars...why, oh why? The popcorn movie is an essential in our lives; this time of year, that's what we want to see. We want action, comedy, fun, and periods of illogic while the whole isn't composed solely of pieces that don't make sense. The movie does actually make sense in its storytelling, but I doubt the same characters would just happen to run into each other, things would happen as they do, and all that unnecessary crap. As movies go, I feel that the fourth doesn't rape Indiana Jones (in the words of Trey Parker and Matt Stone) but instead place the hero in a context typical for a summer blockbuster. If the character names had been different and had some other developments, I'm sure the movie would have been one of my favorites of the year. Because it happened to fit into an Indiana Jones adventure made it even better for me.
My finale will basically just say that if Stephen Speilberg hadn't been a filmmaker, we would live in a very sad world today. "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" is a movie I just re-visited tonight, and I would never change or update a single moment of it. "ET: The Extra Terrestrial" has already been updated, and although it is still a masterpiece, some of its charm of its time was lost in the translation. It was great for some of these old-school graphics to be updated for our further enjoyment, but I'd stop after that. "Saving Private Ryan" is an immortal film of unmentionable power and is something that is studied in film classes by those wishing to ever make a great movie. "Schindler's List" is Speilberg's only movie to win Best Picture (if I'm wrong, I will correct that statement immediately) and is a drama worth study by all, not just film students. "Jaws" is every bit as tense and horrifying as it was when it was created. "Jurassic Park" opened a whole new world of fantasy for teens and adults alike. "Munich" was an exceptional dramatic thriller with a profound political statement. I could go on to talk about "Minority Report," "Catch Me if You Can," "The Terminal," "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence," "Amistad," and the "War of the Worlds" update, but the last few are the only ones that seemed to contain any flaws in filmmaking, as believed by a fraction of their viewers.
Indiana Jones serves to me as a beacon of hope, like that treasured toy everyone had as a kid. You were able to understand its creative function, but what you did with it was quite different. You could take your Matchbox Cars on trips across the world, picking up your friends, doing good, or just being awesome. Barbie could live her life as a glamorous woman with everything she could ever have and just be happy. Where Indiana Jones fits into this little rant is that the character as well as his journeys teach us many life lessons, but I can never settle for enough. As long as Speilberg is thinking and making movies, I want him to take me to another world, show me the one of the past, or critique the one of the present. I can never get enough of this guy.
Buy them here.
All 'Indiana Jones' movies are rated PG-13 for adventure violence, mild language, and the like.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Pirate Radio - *** out of ****
Movies aren't defined by their soundtracks. The music should always work to enhance the overall feel of the film. The closest I think a movie can come to defying this concept would be in the case of "Pirate Radio." This movie has what I think to be the best soundtrack I may have ever experienced. The sounds of The Kinks, The Who, John Fred and His Playboy Band, Jimi Hendrix, The Turtles...if you don't recognize any of those artists, then this movie is probably not for you.
In the 1960's, one of my favorite decades, the British government worked to ban rock & roll from the radio and possibly throughout the country. The music, they believe, is sinful and encourages people to act immorally. As we know today, that isn't true. The music helped to define a generation and laid the foundation for some of the greatest musicians of all time, including The Beatles (the DVD and poster covers mimic their White Album quite excellently). We hear what they play, listen to the characters discuss their feelings about it, and what the movie works to show us is a group of rebellious 'pirates' who work to broadcast this music 24/7. They would die for the privilege to show people this brilliant 'new' music. Actually, they would think dying for it would be a privilege.
The guys and girl on the boat live out on sea where they broadcast their music. The residents aboard include The Count (Philip Seymour Hoffman, giving one of his trademark brilliant performances), Angus Nutsford (Rhys Darby, a walking punchline), Doctor Dave (Nick Frost, Simon Pegg's sidekick in "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz"), Midnight Mark (Tom Wisdom), Quentin (Bill Nighy, giving amazing acting and nailing every single joke), and later Gavin Canavagh (Rhys Ifans, wonderful), and a whole bunch of others. You may or may not remember every single character later (I sure as hell can't), but I wouldn't call that one of the film's weaknesses. Some others do, but it seems to be the nature of the music to be surrounded by very different, eccentric people.
That's really about it. The movie is hilarious, fun, and truly rocks. The ending is a little muddled, but the final note is one that leaves you feeling great. I can't really imagine a better way to spend your time than to leave a movie with the feeling I left after seeing "Pirate Radio."
Rated R for language, and some sexual content including brief nudity.
Buy it here.
In the 1960's, one of my favorite decades, the British government worked to ban rock & roll from the radio and possibly throughout the country. The music, they believe, is sinful and encourages people to act immorally. As we know today, that isn't true. The music helped to define a generation and laid the foundation for some of the greatest musicians of all time, including The Beatles (the DVD and poster covers mimic their White Album quite excellently). We hear what they play, listen to the characters discuss their feelings about it, and what the movie works to show us is a group of rebellious 'pirates' who work to broadcast this music 24/7. They would die for the privilege to show people this brilliant 'new' music. Actually, they would think dying for it would be a privilege.
The guys and girl on the boat live out on sea where they broadcast their music. The residents aboard include The Count (Philip Seymour Hoffman, giving one of his trademark brilliant performances), Angus Nutsford (Rhys Darby, a walking punchline), Doctor Dave (Nick Frost, Simon Pegg's sidekick in "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz"), Midnight Mark (Tom Wisdom), Quentin (Bill Nighy, giving amazing acting and nailing every single joke), and later Gavin Canavagh (Rhys Ifans, wonderful), and a whole bunch of others. You may or may not remember every single character later (I sure as hell can't), but I wouldn't call that one of the film's weaknesses. Some others do, but it seems to be the nature of the music to be surrounded by very different, eccentric people.
That's really about it. The movie is hilarious, fun, and truly rocks. The ending is a little muddled, but the final note is one that leaves you feeling great. I can't really imagine a better way to spend your time than to leave a movie with the feeling I left after seeing "Pirate Radio."
Rated R for language, and some sexual content including brief nudity.
Buy it here.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Moulin Rouge! **** out of ****
The first time I watched this, I wasn't in the right frame of mind. The thing I wished I understood was that absolutely nothing in this movie is original by any means- the way in which everything is presented gives it its originality. It reminded me of those pictures that are really a couple hundred individual pictures mashed together to create a giant greater work. When looking at it from a distance, you can't see what is really special about it. You have to look deeply as this is a very deep film as well as the best definition of a "Post-Modern Musical," although no one really seems to know what the hell a "Post-Modern Musical" really is.
This is a hybrid of three brilliant operas filled with only one original song, the touching "Come What May." The rest have been done earlier (ranging from "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend" to "Like a Virgin"). However, in order to understand the film, you must understand the operas upon which it is based. The first is "La Vie de la Boheme," the opera upon which the musical "Rent" was based. It handles the storyline of a writer falling for a terminally ill woman as well as a couple other minor motifs. "La Traviata" shows us the details of the most important aspect of the movie, love. Love is shown as both an incredibly real feeling and relationship amongst two people but also as naive and childish. Finally, the story of Orpheus is presented (the opera is "Orpheus in the Underworld"). In mythology, Orpheus' wife, Persephone, was kidnapped by Hades and taken into the underworld where Orpheus journeys to rescue her. In the myth, Persephone falls for Hades, leaving Orpheus powerless.
I won't reveal how exactly these three shows merge, but what I can say is that despite the fact that I was convinced I was on an acid trip during the beginning, the characters and situations within the script were very real and very true. I'm not suggesting that some of the movements are possible, I'm simply stating that the feelings they have for one another, the underlying circumstances, and above all, the characterizations were unique and extraordinary, especially in what is thought of as a 'love story.' Sure, there is love in the plotline (according to www.imdb.com, the word 'love' and its derivatives occur 143 times throughout the movie), but what elevates it is the greater concept present.
Opening and closing with the gorgeous 'Nature Boy,' we are taken into a very daring vision of what entertainment can be. It is risky because the song is a classic, and if it's performed or used badly, the desecration will not be misremembered. What this perfect movie-musical shows us is that perhaps nothing is original, but what makes it original and non-cliche is the execution. It is done with such style, grace, and brilliance that when I walked away from it, I had to remember that I was back in my world, not theirs. It is absorbing, goofy, and filled with lessons on competent writing and direction.
The performances are truly remarkable. Ewan McGregor shows us the Nature Boy named Christian as many things but never overly simple. Don't get me wrong- there is a simplicity in his character, but that adds to his charm. This is probably the only time that I believe that a main actor not digging too deeply is a success. McGregor handles the role perfectly.
Nicole Kidman is an actress I have always admired, but what she shows here is something I haven't seen before and probably will never see again because it is so unique. I've watched her perform in comedies, dramas, dramadies, thrillers, horror movies, children's films, bit parts, and through most other means, but no role she's performed is as unique as her Satine. She has wonderful singing chops I never could have imagined, and wherever the director goes, she's there. Normally, this kind of performance would call for a de-glam, but that was not necessary for this film. What makes everything work is her sheer commitment to the project.
I have two favorite parts of the movie. The performance of 'Spectacular Spectacular' was filled with such a goofy sense of humor and took a very familiar melody and placed it in a new context (Surprise! That's what the movie's all about!). However, nothing beats, in my opinion, the suspense, beauty, tragedy, drama, and musicality of their version of 'Roxanne' by The Police. That scene is one for the musical time capsule. I can't even describe the scene to do it justice.
Other accomplishments include taking bad songs and making them great. A fine example of this is the torturous 'I Will Always Love You' from the multiple Razzie-nominated movie, "The Bodyguard." In Whitney Houston's version, she starts at the climax and continues for around four minutes, making it unbearable. In "Moulin Rouge!", it is divided into a duet between Christian and Satine, given room to build, and shown in a way that makes perfect sense.
Above all, this movie is a love-it or hate-it experience, but the literary value, vision, and performances kept everything working for me. It's easy to feel mauled by what's happening onscreen, and this movie is simply not for everyone. It certainly transports you into another world, but whether or not you want to take the journey is up to you. If the first twenty or so minutes don't appeal to you, I advise you to just stick it out. The finale has serious bite.
Rated PG-13 for sexual content.
Buy it here.
This is a hybrid of three brilliant operas filled with only one original song, the touching "Come What May." The rest have been done earlier (ranging from "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend" to "Like a Virgin"). However, in order to understand the film, you must understand the operas upon which it is based. The first is "La Vie de la Boheme," the opera upon which the musical "Rent" was based. It handles the storyline of a writer falling for a terminally ill woman as well as a couple other minor motifs. "La Traviata" shows us the details of the most important aspect of the movie, love. Love is shown as both an incredibly real feeling and relationship amongst two people but also as naive and childish. Finally, the story of Orpheus is presented (the opera is "Orpheus in the Underworld"). In mythology, Orpheus' wife, Persephone, was kidnapped by Hades and taken into the underworld where Orpheus journeys to rescue her. In the myth, Persephone falls for Hades, leaving Orpheus powerless.
I won't reveal how exactly these three shows merge, but what I can say is that despite the fact that I was convinced I was on an acid trip during the beginning, the characters and situations within the script were very real and very true. I'm not suggesting that some of the movements are possible, I'm simply stating that the feelings they have for one another, the underlying circumstances, and above all, the characterizations were unique and extraordinary, especially in what is thought of as a 'love story.' Sure, there is love in the plotline (according to www.imdb.com, the word 'love' and its derivatives occur 143 times throughout the movie), but what elevates it is the greater concept present.
Opening and closing with the gorgeous 'Nature Boy,' we are taken into a very daring vision of what entertainment can be. It is risky because the song is a classic, and if it's performed or used badly, the desecration will not be misremembered. What this perfect movie-musical shows us is that perhaps nothing is original, but what makes it original and non-cliche is the execution. It is done with such style, grace, and brilliance that when I walked away from it, I had to remember that I was back in my world, not theirs. It is absorbing, goofy, and filled with lessons on competent writing and direction.
The performances are truly remarkable. Ewan McGregor shows us the Nature Boy named Christian as many things but never overly simple. Don't get me wrong- there is a simplicity in his character, but that adds to his charm. This is probably the only time that I believe that a main actor not digging too deeply is a success. McGregor handles the role perfectly.
Nicole Kidman is an actress I have always admired, but what she shows here is something I haven't seen before and probably will never see again because it is so unique. I've watched her perform in comedies, dramas, dramadies, thrillers, horror movies, children's films, bit parts, and through most other means, but no role she's performed is as unique as her Satine. She has wonderful singing chops I never could have imagined, and wherever the director goes, she's there. Normally, this kind of performance would call for a de-glam, but that was not necessary for this film. What makes everything work is her sheer commitment to the project.
I have two favorite parts of the movie. The performance of 'Spectacular Spectacular' was filled with such a goofy sense of humor and took a very familiar melody and placed it in a new context (Surprise! That's what the movie's all about!). However, nothing beats, in my opinion, the suspense, beauty, tragedy, drama, and musicality of their version of 'Roxanne' by The Police. That scene is one for the musical time capsule. I can't even describe the scene to do it justice.
Other accomplishments include taking bad songs and making them great. A fine example of this is the torturous 'I Will Always Love You' from the multiple Razzie-nominated movie, "The Bodyguard." In Whitney Houston's version, she starts at the climax and continues for around four minutes, making it unbearable. In "Moulin Rouge!", it is divided into a duet between Christian and Satine, given room to build, and shown in a way that makes perfect sense.
Above all, this movie is a love-it or hate-it experience, but the literary value, vision, and performances kept everything working for me. It's easy to feel mauled by what's happening onscreen, and this movie is simply not for everyone. It certainly transports you into another world, but whether or not you want to take the journey is up to you. If the first twenty or so minutes don't appeal to you, I advise you to just stick it out. The finale has serious bite.
Rated PG-13 for sexual content.
Buy it here.
A Mighty Heart - ***+ out of ****
While I was watching this movie, I began to doubt my skills to write an effective review of it. I spent around a half an hour just searching for the words to describe what I had seen, but the conclusion I have come to is that what makes this film a heavy step above the norm is the absolute power of Angelina Jolie's acting skill. She never lets the makeup, pregnant belly, or the French accent do the work for her, what she produces is a very difficult embodiment of Mariane Pearl. I long forgot that I was watching a superstar act in an Oscar-worthy role. I mean, let's just admit it; when we see a movie where a megastar with several blockbusters and "Sexiest of the Year" honors under their belt is expected to perform in a role to get awards attention, it usually feels like you're watching a kid wear a suit. This is certainly not the case in "A Mighty Heart," as this performance is one that should not have been overlooked.
Before I distract myself, I'll explain the story. In Pakistan in January of 2002, journalist couple Marianne and Daniel Pearl (Dan Futterman with tremendous screen presence) are visiting on business. Daniel leaves one afternoon to interview Asra Nomani but doesn't return home. If you watched the news during that time, you are aware of his fate. Because he is Jewish and the couple are staying with an Indian woman named Asra (Archie Panjabi, a major find), they believe him to be evil. He is thought of by the abductors to be a CIA spy posing as a journalist because of some communication with the US Government (although he is American), and unfortunately, they are never convinced. The search continues for ten days until it is confirmed that he was murdered by the group.
I would never give away the ending of a movie, but this is an exception. The filmmakers must assume that those attending the film know of Daniel's demise. This doesn't ruin the storytelling but instead enhances it as the search for information continues. It is a tragedy instead of a sob story because of the extreme efforts undertaken by the FBI, Pakistani police, and those living in the house, including Marianne and Asra. They keep a large dry-erase board which is used to show the connections amongst those that fit within the chain.
This will be a very short review for me because most of what I would end up doing is spitting out names and affiliations, and I feel that that would be wasted time. The movie explains all that. The film was Brad Pitt's idea because of the interviews with Mariane broadcast during the time. His production company, PLAN B, helped to make this film, but the screenplay by John Orloff (whose only previous writing credit was "Band of Brothers," two episodes) is based upon Mariane's memoir, 'A Mighty Heart: The Brave Life & Death of my Husband Danny Pearl.' I have not read the memoirs, but I would imagine that the script stayed close to the material as nothing fictional or fantastical seemed to be present. The direction by Michael Winterbottom (British director whose only credit you would most likely recognize is "Tristam Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story") gives the movie a neo-documentary feel, showing us scenes in the beginning that were difficult to decipher whether they were archive footage or re-shot for the film.
Everything about this film works except for a slight narrative lull in the middle. I feel like a hypocrite by praising the realism yet mentioning a somewhat boring part of the story, like they should enhance it for dramatic gain. Every bit of information they give is necessary, and it's handled in such a great manner, but I have to remember one of the main rules of art; "Never, ever bore your audience." For the vast majority of the movie, however, it is suspenseful, fascinating, and filled with subtle drama. Mariane's suffering is never shoved in our faces (as one worker stated after her first interview, "you'd never know it that her husband's been missing for six days."), and the manner in which Angelina Jolie handles this material is brilliant. I believed every line, every second. She already has one Oscar for "Girl, Interrupted" and was nominated later for "Changeling," but this performance should have been more widely recognized. She deserves even more praise.
Rated R for language.
Buy it here.
Before I distract myself, I'll explain the story. In Pakistan in January of 2002, journalist couple Marianne and Daniel Pearl (Dan Futterman with tremendous screen presence) are visiting on business. Daniel leaves one afternoon to interview Asra Nomani but doesn't return home. If you watched the news during that time, you are aware of his fate. Because he is Jewish and the couple are staying with an Indian woman named Asra (Archie Panjabi, a major find), they believe him to be evil. He is thought of by the abductors to be a CIA spy posing as a journalist because of some communication with the US Government (although he is American), and unfortunately, they are never convinced. The search continues for ten days until it is confirmed that he was murdered by the group.
I would never give away the ending of a movie, but this is an exception. The filmmakers must assume that those attending the film know of Daniel's demise. This doesn't ruin the storytelling but instead enhances it as the search for information continues. It is a tragedy instead of a sob story because of the extreme efforts undertaken by the FBI, Pakistani police, and those living in the house, including Marianne and Asra. They keep a large dry-erase board which is used to show the connections amongst those that fit within the chain.
This will be a very short review for me because most of what I would end up doing is spitting out names and affiliations, and I feel that that would be wasted time. The movie explains all that. The film was Brad Pitt's idea because of the interviews with Mariane broadcast during the time. His production company, PLAN B, helped to make this film, but the screenplay by John Orloff (whose only previous writing credit was "Band of Brothers," two episodes) is based upon Mariane's memoir, 'A Mighty Heart: The Brave Life & Death of my Husband Danny Pearl.' I have not read the memoirs, but I would imagine that the script stayed close to the material as nothing fictional or fantastical seemed to be present. The direction by Michael Winterbottom (British director whose only credit you would most likely recognize is "Tristam Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story") gives the movie a neo-documentary feel, showing us scenes in the beginning that were difficult to decipher whether they were archive footage or re-shot for the film.
Everything about this film works except for a slight narrative lull in the middle. I feel like a hypocrite by praising the realism yet mentioning a somewhat boring part of the story, like they should enhance it for dramatic gain. Every bit of information they give is necessary, and it's handled in such a great manner, but I have to remember one of the main rules of art; "Never, ever bore your audience." For the vast majority of the movie, however, it is suspenseful, fascinating, and filled with subtle drama. Mariane's suffering is never shoved in our faces (as one worker stated after her first interview, "you'd never know it that her husband's been missing for six days."), and the manner in which Angelina Jolie handles this material is brilliant. I believed every line, every second. She already has one Oscar for "Girl, Interrupted" and was nominated later for "Changeling," but this performance should have been more widely recognized. She deserves even more praise.
Rated R for language.
Buy it here.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
The Messenger - **** out of ****
"The Messenger" is a film that could have been a really obnoxious tearjerker, but instead we have a very human story with absorbing performances. All of this is highlighted by writer/director Oren Moverman (this is first directorial feature but fifth screenplay by the Israili Army veteran) and co-writer Alessando Camon (second writing credit).
The movie shows Staff Sargent Will Montgomery (Ben Foster in his breakthrough role) who has only three months left in his time in the Army. He receives word that his new assignment will entail working with Captain Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson, rightfully Oscar-nominated here) to alert the Next of Kin that their child, spouse, or sibling was killed in the war. Montgomery never likes this job, but what he discovers he is doing is a vital service of the utmost respect, although the grief-stricken do not always initially see it this way. "There are no satisfied customers," Stone tells Montgomery.
The Staff Sargent is called "a goddamned hero," so since he only has three months left and is experiencing injuries in his leg and eye (as well as the possibility of PTSD), the Army decides to give him an assignment where he won't be killed. They could have put him behind a desk, but he can still walk. He doesn't exactly have social skills any more (not in the way that you see in oh-so-many romantic comedies), and you can see this with the way he handles his first notifications. No, he doesn't say anything damaging or really screw up, but by the expression on his face and several subtle actions you see that he is wounded in more ways than one.
Montgomery has a girl, but if Will had a facebook account (or a computer for that matter), their relationship status would read "It's Complicated with...". Stone has been married three times, twice to the same woman, and all he wants in life is to get laid. Montgomery isn't quite looking for the opposite, but in this time in his life, he could use a friend. No, it's not as cliche or eye-rolling as it sounds. It's never actually stated that he needs a friend, but he never has anyone, male or female, over to his place.
This begins to change when he must notify Olivia Pitterson (Samantha Montgomery, absolutely perfect) of the death of her husband. She has a very unusual reaction to the news. Stone has his own take on what caused the reaction, but Montgomery isn't sold. He inadvertently steps into her life, breaking a rule of the messengers (do not fraternize with the NoK, or Next of Kin). What happens isn't exactly what you'd expect- the movie's too good for that. Instead, we are given something of a gift that is only subtly heartbreaking but enormously hopeful.
Things aren't resolved, catharsis isn't exploited, and we aren't left with a pretty little package, but I couldn't have been more satisfied. This isn't a movie about a war but about the people in it. It doesn't have an Aesop message tied to it, but there is much to learn from this occasionally funny and yet beautifully subdued film.
Rated R for language and some sexual content/nudity.
Buy it here.
The movie shows Staff Sargent Will Montgomery (Ben Foster in his breakthrough role) who has only three months left in his time in the Army. He receives word that his new assignment will entail working with Captain Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson, rightfully Oscar-nominated here) to alert the Next of Kin that their child, spouse, or sibling was killed in the war. Montgomery never likes this job, but what he discovers he is doing is a vital service of the utmost respect, although the grief-stricken do not always initially see it this way. "There are no satisfied customers," Stone tells Montgomery.
The Staff Sargent is called "a goddamned hero," so since he only has three months left and is experiencing injuries in his leg and eye (as well as the possibility of PTSD), the Army decides to give him an assignment where he won't be killed. They could have put him behind a desk, but he can still walk. He doesn't exactly have social skills any more (not in the way that you see in oh-so-many romantic comedies), and you can see this with the way he handles his first notifications. No, he doesn't say anything damaging or really screw up, but by the expression on his face and several subtle actions you see that he is wounded in more ways than one.
Montgomery has a girl, but if Will had a facebook account (or a computer for that matter), their relationship status would read "It's Complicated with...". Stone has been married three times, twice to the same woman, and all he wants in life is to get laid. Montgomery isn't quite looking for the opposite, but in this time in his life, he could use a friend. No, it's not as cliche or eye-rolling as it sounds. It's never actually stated that he needs a friend, but he never has anyone, male or female, over to his place.
This begins to change when he must notify Olivia Pitterson (Samantha Montgomery, absolutely perfect) of the death of her husband. She has a very unusual reaction to the news. Stone has his own take on what caused the reaction, but Montgomery isn't sold. He inadvertently steps into her life, breaking a rule of the messengers (do not fraternize with the NoK, or Next of Kin). What happens isn't exactly what you'd expect- the movie's too good for that. Instead, we are given something of a gift that is only subtly heartbreaking but enormously hopeful.
Things aren't resolved, catharsis isn't exploited, and we aren't left with a pretty little package, but I couldn't have been more satisfied. This isn't a movie about a war but about the people in it. It doesn't have an Aesop message tied to it, but there is much to learn from this occasionally funny and yet beautifully subdued film.
Rated R for language and some sexual content/nudity.
Buy it here.
Monday, June 7, 2010
A Single Man - *** out of ****
"A Single Man" is a very smartly made, risky little film loosely based on the novel of the same name by Christopher Isherwood. The movie is written, directed, and produced by Tom Ford, a former Gucci fashion designer who helped to turn around the company's financial problems. Because the author of the book died in 1986, his original vision is not present, but that is by no means a flaw. Ford has a unique voice in the storytelling, juxtaposing beautiful imagery with excellent acting. What the movie was missing, I can't quite put my finger on, but if you're in the mood for something that isn't exactly mainstream, this may be a ticket worth buying.
Colin Firth is George, a depressed English professor who is still having nightmares from his lover's death, Jim (Matthew Goode from "Match Point," "Watchmen," and "Leap Year"). George is planning to kill himself, but the method he uses is very bizarre yet necessary for the storytelling. He teaches his English course, but instead of discussing the novel of which he assigned, he talks about fear. Fear of nuclear disaster, fear from politicians, fear of just living. A senior named Kenny (Nicholas Holt, working wonders) talks with him after class about how that day was unique. Kenny is obviously hitting on him, wanting to give him some pot to smoke, but George is somewhat reluctant, as he doesn't want to betray Jim, even though he died eight months ago.
George's only friend is the alcoholic Charley (Julianne Moore, absolutely sensational), who still clings to their experimental days in the past. George never exactly tells her about his homosexuality as his defense, but instead it becomes a human relation between the two. She spends her day getting ready to meet him with his bottle of gin, and we flash back to the rainy night when he was informed of Jim's death. The two actors have a certain chemistry that isn't sexual but can easily be mistaken for that. What they share is something much deeper, a friendship. Any more, I've come to realize that having great, loyal friends around is much better than a lover, and George seems to understand this as well. Charley doesn't.
Sure, with most stories, the plot is what keeps everything going, but what Tom Ford offers seems to be brush strokes of events as they fit into George's Friday. You can tell by the style of the movie that you aren't supposed to be absorbed in what's happening but rather how it's happening. The pacing is a little wacky as the movie has moments that border on thriller (certainly after watching the trailer you think that that's what you're in for), but there is no bomb underneath a coffee table in this movie. Instead, you're left to see the world as George sees it with vibrant colors accenting his past with dreary, muted earth tones shadowing the present.
Faces wax and wane in color, moments are slowed down, and there seems to always be an opera happening on the soundtrack. This is a movie that is designed which is certainly something audiences don't see every day. The style borders on over-direction, but what makes it a success is the quality of the performances. Given that this is a first-time writer/director/producer, there really is no way of knowing exactly what the final product will look like, but the entire cast and crew seem to be in the same film, always a good first step.
The literary themes overshadow the human interest part of George's decision to commit suicide, and that is a question that doesn't seem to have a steady answer. Why do people kill themselves? That is something that we cannot know as everyone that has is dead. It wasn't Tom Ford's intention to answer this question, but in feeling so detached from everything due to the style, we cannot get an effective glimpse into this difficult philosophical point. Maybe that's what I was missing here, an answer to an impossible question. Splitting hairs perhaps, I will say that the bottom line is that if you find deeper meaning in literature and want to be challenged, then by all means see "A Single Man."
Rated R for some disturbing images and nudity/sexual content.
Buy it here.
Colin Firth is George, a depressed English professor who is still having nightmares from his lover's death, Jim (Matthew Goode from "Match Point," "Watchmen," and "Leap Year"). George is planning to kill himself, but the method he uses is very bizarre yet necessary for the storytelling. He teaches his English course, but instead of discussing the novel of which he assigned, he talks about fear. Fear of nuclear disaster, fear from politicians, fear of just living. A senior named Kenny (Nicholas Holt, working wonders) talks with him after class about how that day was unique. Kenny is obviously hitting on him, wanting to give him some pot to smoke, but George is somewhat reluctant, as he doesn't want to betray Jim, even though he died eight months ago.
George's only friend is the alcoholic Charley (Julianne Moore, absolutely sensational), who still clings to their experimental days in the past. George never exactly tells her about his homosexuality as his defense, but instead it becomes a human relation between the two. She spends her day getting ready to meet him with his bottle of gin, and we flash back to the rainy night when he was informed of Jim's death. The two actors have a certain chemistry that isn't sexual but can easily be mistaken for that. What they share is something much deeper, a friendship. Any more, I've come to realize that having great, loyal friends around is much better than a lover, and George seems to understand this as well. Charley doesn't.
Sure, with most stories, the plot is what keeps everything going, but what Tom Ford offers seems to be brush strokes of events as they fit into George's Friday. You can tell by the style of the movie that you aren't supposed to be absorbed in what's happening but rather how it's happening. The pacing is a little wacky as the movie has moments that border on thriller (certainly after watching the trailer you think that that's what you're in for), but there is no bomb underneath a coffee table in this movie. Instead, you're left to see the world as George sees it with vibrant colors accenting his past with dreary, muted earth tones shadowing the present.
Faces wax and wane in color, moments are slowed down, and there seems to always be an opera happening on the soundtrack. This is a movie that is designed which is certainly something audiences don't see every day. The style borders on over-direction, but what makes it a success is the quality of the performances. Given that this is a first-time writer/director/producer, there really is no way of knowing exactly what the final product will look like, but the entire cast and crew seem to be in the same film, always a good first step.
The literary themes overshadow the human interest part of George's decision to commit suicide, and that is a question that doesn't seem to have a steady answer. Why do people kill themselves? That is something that we cannot know as everyone that has is dead. It wasn't Tom Ford's intention to answer this question, but in feeling so detached from everything due to the style, we cannot get an effective glimpse into this difficult philosophical point. Maybe that's what I was missing here, an answer to an impossible question. Splitting hairs perhaps, I will say that the bottom line is that if you find deeper meaning in literature and want to be challenged, then by all means see "A Single Man."
Rated R for some disturbing images and nudity/sexual content.
Buy it here.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Jennifer's Body (Unrated Version) - **+ out of ****
Megan Fox plays Jennifer, a hot high-school girl who has a secret; a crappy indie band took her after a local tragedy, and when she returns, she starts acting strange. She vomits some kind of black liquid, she seems to get increasingly unattractive during certain times, and boys start showing up dead. Her best friend, Needy (Amanda Seyfried, a rising star with a killer comedic edge) watches from the outside as tragic events unfold. We open with Needy in an insane asylum, kicking an orderly in the face for no good reason as she tells us what brought her there. If you saw a trailer, you know what happened, but in case you haven't, I won't spoil it. I wish I didn't know before I saw it, but alas, I did. This isn't really worth mentioning as a flaw within the movie (and it didn't have a bearing on my star rating), but it's hard to maintain a sense of mystery when we know all the secrets.
Perhaps Diablo Cody is her own worst enemy. She wrote the excellent, Oscar-winning "Juno," and when I heard about the concept behind "Jennifer's Body," I will admit that I was excited. Some of the best post-Oscar career choices go into projects like these. I mean, Philip Seymour Hoffman went from winning the gold man for "Capote" into being the villain of "Mission: Impossible 3," and now he's proven that he's one of the best actors on the planet. Martin Scorsese directed the documentary on the Rolling Stones, "Shine a Light." I could talk about other choices, but the point remains that almost always, one who wins an Oscar's hardest decision is the project after.
In this, the script really only has some sporadically amusing moments and no really interesting supporting characters. "Juno" won audiences and critics alike because where "Jennifer's Body" failed was where "Juno" soared. The characters were fascinating, and the story was told in a way that made it a very special film. In opening in the insane asylum, we immediately get a sense of dramatic irony which serves as a fault in this particular genre. We know that Needy will most likely survive the carnage that ensues, so any tension where we fear for her life just doesn't work.
What I had hoped for was a somewhat campy horror/comedy. There's some great humor when Jennifer is asked out by an emo-kid ("My dick is bigger than his"), and the general set-up seemed golden, but the final product felt unfinished and in need of some retooling. Mostly what it needs is a single genre focus. We can't be scared by overly bizarre circumstances, and when the movie is imitating it should be parodying. There was an amount of gold that could have made this something of a genre classic, but it felt like a "Juno" nightmare rather than its own move.
All my bitching aside, the movie wasn't all bad. I could go on about how the trailers (which are the fault of the advertising, not the writer/director) seemed to leave absolutely nothing to discover except the final five minutes, but you get my point by now. I simply feel that the movie's biggest weaknesses exist in the script. If you have an idea of what you're getting into and you want to take the trip, you'll probably enjoy yourself. That's really the bottom line here.
I wish I could say more about Megan Fox's skill here and what her potential is, but I've only watched her in this and "Transformers," both movies with bad scripts. If I didn't do some research before I wrote this review, I'd say that the role of Jennifer was written for her, but it wasn't. She shows a certain darkly comedic flair here, and she makes Jennifer a somewhat mysterious character (all spoilers aside). Perhaps if we didn't see her killing the boys as it happened, there would be a great whodunit present. Sure, you can show the gore from those scenes later in flashbacks when Jennifer tells Needy what the hell is going on, but it feels like walking the track before riding on it.
I wish I could say better things about this movie, but I really can't bring myself to. It might be easy to get dissuaded by the fact that Megan Fox was nominated for a Razzie for this, but I don't think it was deserved. If Diablo Cody was nominated (although I don't see any room between "Transformers 2," "Old Dogs," "Twilight: New Moon," "All About Steve," and "G.I. Joe"), I wouldn't fret. Maybe Megan has some deeply felt passion for film that could serve us well in the future. Since she's out of the "Transformers" franchise; I think now's the chance to see.
Note- Is it just me, or was Diablo Cody's dialogue really only suited for "Juno"? Instead of "Cheese and Fries!" it's now closer to "Cheese and Fuckin' Cock Fries!".
Theatrical Version was rated R for sexuality, bloody violence, language and some drug use.
But it here.
Perhaps Diablo Cody is her own worst enemy. She wrote the excellent, Oscar-winning "Juno," and when I heard about the concept behind "Jennifer's Body," I will admit that I was excited. Some of the best post-Oscar career choices go into projects like these. I mean, Philip Seymour Hoffman went from winning the gold man for "Capote" into being the villain of "Mission: Impossible 3," and now he's proven that he's one of the best actors on the planet. Martin Scorsese directed the documentary on the Rolling Stones, "Shine a Light." I could talk about other choices, but the point remains that almost always, one who wins an Oscar's hardest decision is the project after.
In this, the script really only has some sporadically amusing moments and no really interesting supporting characters. "Juno" won audiences and critics alike because where "Jennifer's Body" failed was where "Juno" soared. The characters were fascinating, and the story was told in a way that made it a very special film. In opening in the insane asylum, we immediately get a sense of dramatic irony which serves as a fault in this particular genre. We know that Needy will most likely survive the carnage that ensues, so any tension where we fear for her life just doesn't work.
What I had hoped for was a somewhat campy horror/comedy. There's some great humor when Jennifer is asked out by an emo-kid ("My dick is bigger than his"), and the general set-up seemed golden, but the final product felt unfinished and in need of some retooling. Mostly what it needs is a single genre focus. We can't be scared by overly bizarre circumstances, and when the movie is imitating it should be parodying. There was an amount of gold that could have made this something of a genre classic, but it felt like a "Juno" nightmare rather than its own move.
All my bitching aside, the movie wasn't all bad. I could go on about how the trailers (which are the fault of the advertising, not the writer/director) seemed to leave absolutely nothing to discover except the final five minutes, but you get my point by now. I simply feel that the movie's biggest weaknesses exist in the script. If you have an idea of what you're getting into and you want to take the trip, you'll probably enjoy yourself. That's really the bottom line here.
I wish I could say more about Megan Fox's skill here and what her potential is, but I've only watched her in this and "Transformers," both movies with bad scripts. If I didn't do some research before I wrote this review, I'd say that the role of Jennifer was written for her, but it wasn't. She shows a certain darkly comedic flair here, and she makes Jennifer a somewhat mysterious character (all spoilers aside). Perhaps if we didn't see her killing the boys as it happened, there would be a great whodunit present. Sure, you can show the gore from those scenes later in flashbacks when Jennifer tells Needy what the hell is going on, but it feels like walking the track before riding on it.
I wish I could say better things about this movie, but I really can't bring myself to. It might be easy to get dissuaded by the fact that Megan Fox was nominated for a Razzie for this, but I don't think it was deserved. If Diablo Cody was nominated (although I don't see any room between "Transformers 2," "Old Dogs," "Twilight: New Moon," "All About Steve," and "G.I. Joe"), I wouldn't fret. Maybe Megan has some deeply felt passion for film that could serve us well in the future. Since she's out of the "Transformers" franchise; I think now's the chance to see.
Note- Is it just me, or was Diablo Cody's dialogue really only suited for "Juno"? Instead of "Cheese and Fries!" it's now closer to "Cheese and Fuckin' Cock Fries!".
Theatrical Version was rated R for sexuality, bloody violence, language and some drug use.
But it here.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Das Laben Der Anderen ("The Lives of Others") - **** out of ****
"The Lives of Others" opens in that infamous year, 1984, with title cards informing us of the German Secret Police and their intentions. Their goal is simply put yet knowingly impossible; they want "to know everything." We are informed that they wiretap, phonetap, place some video surveillance, and have some agents listen in on those they deem suspicious. They are in their lives. The surveillance is down to an art- they know when someone is lying, when they're trying to hide information, and they use this knowledge to get what they want.
So far, it seems like the groundwork for a conventional conspiracy thriller, but where the film ultimately succeeds is where most like it go soft. There are no chases, no secret killings, and the one listening in is the main character, not the other way around. It's very easy to make a villain who serves his corrupt organization down to his last breath, but gradually, Hauptmann Gerd Wiesler (the late Ulrich Muehe, playing what many call the role of his life) becomes an unknowing force in their lives. He isn't a double agent, and he's never spoken to those he's monitoring, but despite his extensive training, he feels a strange connection. These people are human, and their beliefs have merit.
This could have been a dreadful film. I try not to think about the choices it didn't make, but what I'm consumed with is writer/director Forian Henckel von Donnersmarck (he's set to direct Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie in next year's "The Tourist"). This is a subtle film with brave choices that never feel out of the ordinary- they're that subtle. It doesn't pull a 180 with genres here, it just serves to tell a story.
The story- Gerd Wiesler is invited to attend playwright Georg Dreyman's new show. Gerd was motivated by some kind of suspicion or more personal reasons (Georg is arrogant, one of the types of people Gerd advises his students about), and like clockwork, his flat is monitored. In the attic above, Gerd listens with large headphones but hears nothing concerning attack on East Germany's socialist government (the real kind of socialism, not the scare tactic used by bullies in America). Thus, Gerd continues to listen, awaiting a whisper of something so they can tear his flat to shreds.
Wiesler isn't your typical character in this context. He is not something you'd find in your stock. I watched and re-watched his face throughout certain scenes, and it was like looking into a blank slate. He was constantly thinking, processing information, but even during certain exchanges, not as much as a smirk escaped his face. He would be impossible to read if it weren't for later developments where we realize just how lonely this character is. It's not maudlin, but again through some scenes where all we do as an audience is simply watch, just like he does.
You probably haven't watched this film and may not even know of its existence, but I strongly recommend finding it for several reasons.
-As mentioned before, Ulrich Muehe passed away after this film's release, and his performance is a brilliant one. Unless you start watching German film, you won't see him again.
-This is the movie that beat the equally brilliant "Pan's Labyrinth" for Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars. "Pan's Labyrinth" is one of the most widely watched foreign films today, but it seemed as though the Academy didn't want this one to go unnoticed. After all, "Pan" took home three Oscars and was nominated for six. All "Das Laben Der Anderen" was nominated for and took was Best Foreign Language Film.
-It seems as though this will be remade by American studios next year. This is a perfect movie with no need for a remake- see the original before Hollywood ruins it.
We must remember that this movie wasn't made for American audiences otherwise it would have been translated into English, but the gift it gives to us is the same it gives to humanity in general. In the times of The Patriot Act, people unsure of whether or not they're being watched, and general paranoia, Forian Henckel von Donnersmarck gives us hope. Hope that if we continue to live our lives in honesty that nothing will stop us. In the words of a great man, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
Note- Isn't that strange? We have a period piece without wigs, a queen, and an Oscar for Costume Design.
Rated R for some sexuality/nudity.
But it here.
So far, it seems like the groundwork for a conventional conspiracy thriller, but where the film ultimately succeeds is where most like it go soft. There are no chases, no secret killings, and the one listening in is the main character, not the other way around. It's very easy to make a villain who serves his corrupt organization down to his last breath, but gradually, Hauptmann Gerd Wiesler (the late Ulrich Muehe, playing what many call the role of his life) becomes an unknowing force in their lives. He isn't a double agent, and he's never spoken to those he's monitoring, but despite his extensive training, he feels a strange connection. These people are human, and their beliefs have merit.
This could have been a dreadful film. I try not to think about the choices it didn't make, but what I'm consumed with is writer/director Forian Henckel von Donnersmarck (he's set to direct Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie in next year's "The Tourist"). This is a subtle film with brave choices that never feel out of the ordinary- they're that subtle. It doesn't pull a 180 with genres here, it just serves to tell a story.
The story- Gerd Wiesler is invited to attend playwright Georg Dreyman's new show. Gerd was motivated by some kind of suspicion or more personal reasons (Georg is arrogant, one of the types of people Gerd advises his students about), and like clockwork, his flat is monitored. In the attic above, Gerd listens with large headphones but hears nothing concerning attack on East Germany's socialist government (the real kind of socialism, not the scare tactic used by bullies in America). Thus, Gerd continues to listen, awaiting a whisper of something so they can tear his flat to shreds.
Wiesler isn't your typical character in this context. He is not something you'd find in your stock. I watched and re-watched his face throughout certain scenes, and it was like looking into a blank slate. He was constantly thinking, processing information, but even during certain exchanges, not as much as a smirk escaped his face. He would be impossible to read if it weren't for later developments where we realize just how lonely this character is. It's not maudlin, but again through some scenes where all we do as an audience is simply watch, just like he does.
You probably haven't watched this film and may not even know of its existence, but I strongly recommend finding it for several reasons.
-As mentioned before, Ulrich Muehe passed away after this film's release, and his performance is a brilliant one. Unless you start watching German film, you won't see him again.
-This is the movie that beat the equally brilliant "Pan's Labyrinth" for Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars. "Pan's Labyrinth" is one of the most widely watched foreign films today, but it seemed as though the Academy didn't want this one to go unnoticed. After all, "Pan" took home three Oscars and was nominated for six. All "Das Laben Der Anderen" was nominated for and took was Best Foreign Language Film.
-It seems as though this will be remade by American studios next year. This is a perfect movie with no need for a remake- see the original before Hollywood ruins it.
We must remember that this movie wasn't made for American audiences otherwise it would have been translated into English, but the gift it gives to us is the same it gives to humanity in general. In the times of The Patriot Act, people unsure of whether or not they're being watched, and general paranoia, Forian Henckel von Donnersmarck gives us hope. Hope that if we continue to live our lives in honesty that nothing will stop us. In the words of a great man, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
Note- Isn't that strange? We have a period piece without wigs, a queen, and an Oscar for Costume Design.
Rated R for some sexuality/nudity.
But it here.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Horror Movies
To me, true horror comes from the realization that something could truly happen to you or those you love. While it’s much easier to make a film with graphic torture scenes, is there anyone in the world who is actually truly frightened that they’re gonna be abducted, tied to a chair, and have their eyeballs ripped out by some big silly machine while they have to eat a live puppy? Yes, if that was common occurrence, it would be frightening, but who really has the resources, mechanical knowledge, and sadistic power to actually pull off something that overly elaborate and complex? Violence is easy- no one wants to be harmed, but that’s alright on the surface. Horror movies have the potential to be THE genre that can at once comment on human nature by showing us who the enemy truly is, and by forcing us to see that, we’re left with a conclusion which we’ve known all along but refuse to accept.
The films I’m going to mention aren’t all horror films, but some cause me to analyze something deeper than many others through…well, scariness. I almost typed the word “fear,” but that is incorrect. What motivates me isn’t necessarily fear but instead a combination of everything that makes me uneasy. There are certainly many, many more films other than the ones I analyze here that could be categorized as effective scariness and many other horror films I enjoy, but these are the ones most present in my mind tonight.
King Kong- We go to a place we don’t understand and encounter a creature that isn’t too difficult to understand; it’s a big, smelly ape with a big, hairy ass. However, a normal sized ape can be fatal to humans, so it’s quite frightening to think about something that makes what is normal look microscopic in comparison. After battling with this creature that we accept as wrong and a murderer on the basis that we intrude in its homeland and it retaliates, one person, Ann Darrow, accepts the creature as a living thing and doesn’t quite begin a romance with it as much as she sympathizes with its beauty and humanity. The humans’ reaction is to exploit it for material gain, and when the plan backfires, we force the creature to go with its animal instincts and climb the beacon of hope in times of uncertainty (the Empire State Building during the Great Depression) and then we kill it. Am I fearful of a giant ape ripping me out of my dorm room and making me an afternoon snack? No. Am I afraid of people exploiting something for money and fame with tragic results? You bet your ass.
The Mist- this movie was definitely a “love it or hate it” film. It’s easy to dismiss it as an attack on Christianity, but it truly wasn’t. There is something poignant in a film that shows isolation of a group of some strangers, some friends, but mostly acquaintances during a time when they must bond to fight a common enemy but instead form into groups trying to use scare tactics to make everyone else join their side because although there’s no way of knowing, they truly believe what they think to be right. Yes, one character uses religion to “convert” others (not the kind for self-improvement and the betterment of mankind but the kind that makes everyone so afraid that if they do A. they’ll go to hell and must do B. in order to not make God angry so he won’t punish them that they forget that they need to be loving of their fellow man and take time to listen to others and try to understand what they believe), but the way she uses it is what is used commonly in politics. She has no interest in what anyone else besides she believes, and as a point of fact, she despises other people. All of these beliefs aside, the movie was an effective suspense play and an analysis of fear. As a result, the gore didn’t have to be overly elaborate to be scary; it just had to say what it needed to say and instead focus on characters that are far scarier than any alien creature with tentacles. As it was also said in The Host, the creatures were moderately scary, but what will truly make you pessimistic of human nature is everyone’s (the government in The Host’s) reaction to adversity. Disaster movies should take note.
Bug- here is a film that I truly love. Although it’s basically a filmed version of the stageplay, the point remains clear. In one sentence, the movie is an analysis of psychoses that makes you question what is real and what is propaganda by blurring the lines and making everything, regardless of how bizarre, make some sense. Perhaps it’s a little too gory, but I didn’t care (then again, I’m the guy who sat through Inglourious Basterds without as much as a twitch from the scalpings). The violence wasn’t meant to be the scariest part but instead what is scariest is what people would do to each other and themselves when they believe something to be true. The best part of the movie was its reaction on me after it was over. I itched and felt detached from reality.
The Truman Show- if you know nothing about this movie at all, do yourself a huge favor and skip over this paragraph and watch it with fresh eyes. For those of you that have seen this masterwork, you know that like Bug, what makes the film scary is that something elaborate and bizarre could be true. A television company takes something as personal as someone’s life and exploits it. This movie takes it a step farther and has the company actually convince people that this is something that gives hope to the world. Perhaps it does, but at what cost? While life would be simpler if we were able to accept everything we know as fact to be real the movie challenges us to think differently. The studio becomes so paranoid that this man can live the life he wants that they attempt to murder him. Will the executive who creates a situation that almost kills him be put on trial for attempted murder or even reckless endangerment? I think not. They may even give him another Emmy.
Milk- The first time I saw the trailer for this beautiful film, I remembered being completely on edge before Harvey’s address when he received the postcard that the first bullet would enter him when he went up to the podium. What makes the film effective is its sympathetic view not only of its hero but also its villain. While there were those who opposed homosexuality because…well, they were scared of it and didn’t want to accept it in their perfect world, Josh Brolin’s character was driven to murder rather than unfulfilled physical threats was because he didn’t want to accept something within himself he knew to be true. I’m just gonna say it- homosexuality is not a big deal, and I hope people begin to realize this in the current day.
The Thing- I know not many people have seen this movie, so in the interest of maintaining a readable paper, I will not plot spoil except what is necessary. We’ll start with the concept: A shape-shifting creature begins to attack a group of people and discovers that the best way to kill them is to make them kill each other, namely, taking the form of those they know. This belief isn’t original (for other references try reading up on the witchcraft trials or the Red Scare), but never before has it been made this simple yet complex. In the days of the witchcraft trials and Red Scare, all you had to do was accuse someone of being a witch/communist, and they were dead. It was that simple. In The Thing, the thought that the enemy was walking amongst you was actually true. There are dozens of other motifs I could explain, but it’s more fun to discover them on your own.
The Silence of the Lambs- The human mind is a powerful thing. Hannibal Lector is locked in a cell with no way of contacting others, but what made the arrogant character the scariest villain I have and probably will ever see is that he knew that while his body was locked up, his mind wandered the world. He even managed to kill an inmate in another cell because he was disrespectful to Clarice, a woman he didn’t respect at the time. How he kills the inmate who informed Clarice that he could “smell [her] cunt” is unclear (well, he choked to death on his tongue, but how will never be known), but what is known is that the human mind is a powerful thing that will never be fully understood. Hannibal understood it more deeply than most people and used it to punish those who offended him.
The human mind is what will always scare me more than anything else. When people ask why the Saw movies will never keep me up at night and why torture porn has no effect on me, I wish I could explain this elegantly. While it’s simply easy to use physical and emotional pain to get an effect out of people, what has always frightened me is the result when people are forced into a situation to enable their baser instincts. I’m already detecting the belief, “that’s exactly what the Saw movies were about! The Jigsaw made people go into a situation where they were forced to sacrifice some personal part of their being to live!” I must differ. In the first film, yes, a woman was given the option that she could either cut a man’s stomach open or have her head explode, the way that scene was done (and you can tell by the director’s focus on the gore rather than the character) was not scary. The only thing we knew about her was that she was a drug addict. That’s it. Perhaps if she was a mother and upright citizen with a drug problem, that might be scarier, but alas, that kind of writing is quite difficult to pull off. While my thought could have been more effective, it would have taken a complete refocusing of the plot and situations to pull that off. Still, some people were kept up at night with the writing the way it was, but as someone who is attempting to explain himself, this is what I think and what I think isn’t universal and never will be. If the movie was more focused on making me sympathetic to characters rather than appealing to my dislike of being tortured, I would have been scared.
To me, the point of horror isn’t to make you piss your pants, but instead to make you question existence and analyze what would happen given a certain situation. Another one that I realize is either love-it-or-hate-it is The Descent. To me, it showed three levels of horror: loss, isolation, and the unexplainable. By the time the creatures show up, I was already on edge, but what had set up the third act to work for me was that the creatures could or could not have been real. Yeah, they mauled some of the spelunkers, but think about it. You didn’t see them in the beginning, and they didn’t show up until the problems amongst the group of women were made into an issue. In my belief, the creatures represented those problems consuming them and becoming impossible to outrun. I didn’t stay up late worrying about being caved into my room or being mauled by sound-hunters, but what moved me about the movie was the thought that like many other horror films that worked for me, it shows how people react and what their priorities became.
This is totally off-subject, but one of my on-and-off favorite films is Scream. To me, it was what a parody truly should be- it showed you how the genre was supposed to be done while poking fun at the logical fallacies and inevitable formulas present. There were some classic ‘slasher’ scenes present, but it didn’t frighten me other than making me think twice about answering the phone when I’m alone. It was a movie for movie lovers, and I loved it. Like The Descent, there were clear references to other films, but ultimately, it becomes the filmmaker’s movie, not an offspring of the best ideas of others.
If a horror movie is able to move me deeply like the above movies did, then I will be running to the theater to see it, but I’m not above having fun. I feel that a good horror movie should be like a good musical in that, in the end, you don’t feel mauled; you feel energized and ready to move. Certain scenes remain in my mind and occur to me at a time when I don’t think of them. An excellent example of a movie like this was a recent B-horrorfest called Drag Me to Hell. It was a morality play, and although the basic logic of religion tells you that someone can’t just bypass judgment and be shoved into hell, you have to sacrifice some personal belief and go with what the movie tries to say (the part where it’s a morality play changes a lot with the film in that *SPOILER* over the course of three days, this perfectly kind woman does whatever she can to avoid going to hell and warrants an eternity *NO SPOILER*). There were so many scenes I loved, such as the classic slasher showdown in the parking garage when the curse is first placed on her, The Evil Dead gore, and the fact that so much of the movie was really, really, really funny. Why was it funny? Well, that would be because the movie keeps its sense of humor and allows us to remain outsiders and watch the events unfold from an outsider’s perspective. As a result, the movie is stylized, fun, and kind of scary. I will admit it- after seeing the movie, one night, while alone, I heard a sound like the demon’s hooves clicking on the ground outside of my room, and I had to keep the light on for a little while.
The fact that I’m watching the episode of South Park entitled “Pandemic 2: The Startling” reminds me of one last belief I would like to share. Startle horror isn’t scary. Having something suddenly BUMP! jump in front of a camera isn’t scary to me. You jump, but how long does that jump last? The length of the scene. Certainly there are some startle-scares in The Descent, but they worked for me because they kept me absorbed in the scene while the film maintained a much deeper level of horror that couldn’t be summed up in any eye-gouging scene. Horror should, in my belief, not make me necessarily want to vomit (upon reading a spoiler for a film that I cannot remember the name of, I discovered that a killer cages a woman and at one point, force-feeds her a blender-made milkshake of blood, eyeballs, a nose, and other body parts) but instead give me a deeper reaction to the gore. If you’re going to make me sit through something like that, there had better be a damn good reason for it. That movie, I’m sure, had no reason for the gore other than to see what it could get away with.
Everyone’s motivated differently. I was told that Cloverfield was an epic film, but after seeing it, I was totally underwhelmed. There was potential, and its advertising campaign was borderline brilliant, but when I was left with the final result, I was disappointed. I saw stylized startle-horror.
I understand that it might be easy to throw out ways in which I seem to contradict myself, but I know what I like and what I don’t like. I’ve said it before, but my beliefs are not universals. I have a stomach for gore, but I think it should move the plot in some way such as the creature’s attack in The Mist or Hannibal’s escape plan in The Silence of the Lambs instead of forcing me to react to something so I can get a false sense of horror. There are movies that have torture scenes that are amazing films (the nail ripping part of Syriana is something I can’t ever shake), but there is always a purpose to that, I feel. What can I say? I’m always up for being moved above being startled.
The films I’m going to mention aren’t all horror films, but some cause me to analyze something deeper than many others through…well, scariness. I almost typed the word “fear,” but that is incorrect. What motivates me isn’t necessarily fear but instead a combination of everything that makes me uneasy. There are certainly many, many more films other than the ones I analyze here that could be categorized as effective scariness and many other horror films I enjoy, but these are the ones most present in my mind tonight.
King Kong- We go to a place we don’t understand and encounter a creature that isn’t too difficult to understand; it’s a big, smelly ape with a big, hairy ass. However, a normal sized ape can be fatal to humans, so it’s quite frightening to think about something that makes what is normal look microscopic in comparison. After battling with this creature that we accept as wrong and a murderer on the basis that we intrude in its homeland and it retaliates, one person, Ann Darrow, accepts the creature as a living thing and doesn’t quite begin a romance with it as much as she sympathizes with its beauty and humanity. The humans’ reaction is to exploit it for material gain, and when the plan backfires, we force the creature to go with its animal instincts and climb the beacon of hope in times of uncertainty (the Empire State Building during the Great Depression) and then we kill it. Am I fearful of a giant ape ripping me out of my dorm room and making me an afternoon snack? No. Am I afraid of people exploiting something for money and fame with tragic results? You bet your ass.
The Mist- this movie was definitely a “love it or hate it” film. It’s easy to dismiss it as an attack on Christianity, but it truly wasn’t. There is something poignant in a film that shows isolation of a group of some strangers, some friends, but mostly acquaintances during a time when they must bond to fight a common enemy but instead form into groups trying to use scare tactics to make everyone else join their side because although there’s no way of knowing, they truly believe what they think to be right. Yes, one character uses religion to “convert” others (not the kind for self-improvement and the betterment of mankind but the kind that makes everyone so afraid that if they do A. they’ll go to hell and must do B. in order to not make God angry so he won’t punish them that they forget that they need to be loving of their fellow man and take time to listen to others and try to understand what they believe), but the way she uses it is what is used commonly in politics. She has no interest in what anyone else besides she believes, and as a point of fact, she despises other people. All of these beliefs aside, the movie was an effective suspense play and an analysis of fear. As a result, the gore didn’t have to be overly elaborate to be scary; it just had to say what it needed to say and instead focus on characters that are far scarier than any alien creature with tentacles. As it was also said in The Host, the creatures were moderately scary, but what will truly make you pessimistic of human nature is everyone’s (the government in The Host’s) reaction to adversity. Disaster movies should take note.
Bug- here is a film that I truly love. Although it’s basically a filmed version of the stageplay, the point remains clear. In one sentence, the movie is an analysis of psychoses that makes you question what is real and what is propaganda by blurring the lines and making everything, regardless of how bizarre, make some sense. Perhaps it’s a little too gory, but I didn’t care (then again, I’m the guy who sat through Inglourious Basterds without as much as a twitch from the scalpings). The violence wasn’t meant to be the scariest part but instead what is scariest is what people would do to each other and themselves when they believe something to be true. The best part of the movie was its reaction on me after it was over. I itched and felt detached from reality.
The Truman Show- if you know nothing about this movie at all, do yourself a huge favor and skip over this paragraph and watch it with fresh eyes. For those of you that have seen this masterwork, you know that like Bug, what makes the film scary is that something elaborate and bizarre could be true. A television company takes something as personal as someone’s life and exploits it. This movie takes it a step farther and has the company actually convince people that this is something that gives hope to the world. Perhaps it does, but at what cost? While life would be simpler if we were able to accept everything we know as fact to be real the movie challenges us to think differently. The studio becomes so paranoid that this man can live the life he wants that they attempt to murder him. Will the executive who creates a situation that almost kills him be put on trial for attempted murder or even reckless endangerment? I think not. They may even give him another Emmy.
Milk- The first time I saw the trailer for this beautiful film, I remembered being completely on edge before Harvey’s address when he received the postcard that the first bullet would enter him when he went up to the podium. What makes the film effective is its sympathetic view not only of its hero but also its villain. While there were those who opposed homosexuality because…well, they were scared of it and didn’t want to accept it in their perfect world, Josh Brolin’s character was driven to murder rather than unfulfilled physical threats was because he didn’t want to accept something within himself he knew to be true. I’m just gonna say it- homosexuality is not a big deal, and I hope people begin to realize this in the current day.
The Thing- I know not many people have seen this movie, so in the interest of maintaining a readable paper, I will not plot spoil except what is necessary. We’ll start with the concept: A shape-shifting creature begins to attack a group of people and discovers that the best way to kill them is to make them kill each other, namely, taking the form of those they know. This belief isn’t original (for other references try reading up on the witchcraft trials or the Red Scare), but never before has it been made this simple yet complex. In the days of the witchcraft trials and Red Scare, all you had to do was accuse someone of being a witch/communist, and they were dead. It was that simple. In The Thing, the thought that the enemy was walking amongst you was actually true. There are dozens of other motifs I could explain, but it’s more fun to discover them on your own.
The Silence of the Lambs- The human mind is a powerful thing. Hannibal Lector is locked in a cell with no way of contacting others, but what made the arrogant character the scariest villain I have and probably will ever see is that he knew that while his body was locked up, his mind wandered the world. He even managed to kill an inmate in another cell because he was disrespectful to Clarice, a woman he didn’t respect at the time. How he kills the inmate who informed Clarice that he could “smell [her] cunt” is unclear (well, he choked to death on his tongue, but how will never be known), but what is known is that the human mind is a powerful thing that will never be fully understood. Hannibal understood it more deeply than most people and used it to punish those who offended him.
The human mind is what will always scare me more than anything else. When people ask why the Saw movies will never keep me up at night and why torture porn has no effect on me, I wish I could explain this elegantly. While it’s simply easy to use physical and emotional pain to get an effect out of people, what has always frightened me is the result when people are forced into a situation to enable their baser instincts. I’m already detecting the belief, “that’s exactly what the Saw movies were about! The Jigsaw made people go into a situation where they were forced to sacrifice some personal part of their being to live!” I must differ. In the first film, yes, a woman was given the option that she could either cut a man’s stomach open or have her head explode, the way that scene was done (and you can tell by the director’s focus on the gore rather than the character) was not scary. The only thing we knew about her was that she was a drug addict. That’s it. Perhaps if she was a mother and upright citizen with a drug problem, that might be scarier, but alas, that kind of writing is quite difficult to pull off. While my thought could have been more effective, it would have taken a complete refocusing of the plot and situations to pull that off. Still, some people were kept up at night with the writing the way it was, but as someone who is attempting to explain himself, this is what I think and what I think isn’t universal and never will be. If the movie was more focused on making me sympathetic to characters rather than appealing to my dislike of being tortured, I would have been scared.
To me, the point of horror isn’t to make you piss your pants, but instead to make you question existence and analyze what would happen given a certain situation. Another one that I realize is either love-it-or-hate-it is The Descent. To me, it showed three levels of horror: loss, isolation, and the unexplainable. By the time the creatures show up, I was already on edge, but what had set up the third act to work for me was that the creatures could or could not have been real. Yeah, they mauled some of the spelunkers, but think about it. You didn’t see them in the beginning, and they didn’t show up until the problems amongst the group of women were made into an issue. In my belief, the creatures represented those problems consuming them and becoming impossible to outrun. I didn’t stay up late worrying about being caved into my room or being mauled by sound-hunters, but what moved me about the movie was the thought that like many other horror films that worked for me, it shows how people react and what their priorities became.
This is totally off-subject, but one of my on-and-off favorite films is Scream. To me, it was what a parody truly should be- it showed you how the genre was supposed to be done while poking fun at the logical fallacies and inevitable formulas present. There were some classic ‘slasher’ scenes present, but it didn’t frighten me other than making me think twice about answering the phone when I’m alone. It was a movie for movie lovers, and I loved it. Like The Descent, there were clear references to other films, but ultimately, it becomes the filmmaker’s movie, not an offspring of the best ideas of others.
If a horror movie is able to move me deeply like the above movies did, then I will be running to the theater to see it, but I’m not above having fun. I feel that a good horror movie should be like a good musical in that, in the end, you don’t feel mauled; you feel energized and ready to move. Certain scenes remain in my mind and occur to me at a time when I don’t think of them. An excellent example of a movie like this was a recent B-horrorfest called Drag Me to Hell. It was a morality play, and although the basic logic of religion tells you that someone can’t just bypass judgment and be shoved into hell, you have to sacrifice some personal belief and go with what the movie tries to say (the part where it’s a morality play changes a lot with the film in that *SPOILER* over the course of three days, this perfectly kind woman does whatever she can to avoid going to hell and warrants an eternity *NO SPOILER*). There were so many scenes I loved, such as the classic slasher showdown in the parking garage when the curse is first placed on her, The Evil Dead gore, and the fact that so much of the movie was really, really, really funny. Why was it funny? Well, that would be because the movie keeps its sense of humor and allows us to remain outsiders and watch the events unfold from an outsider’s perspective. As a result, the movie is stylized, fun, and kind of scary. I will admit it- after seeing the movie, one night, while alone, I heard a sound like the demon’s hooves clicking on the ground outside of my room, and I had to keep the light on for a little while.
The fact that I’m watching the episode of South Park entitled “Pandemic 2: The Startling” reminds me of one last belief I would like to share. Startle horror isn’t scary. Having something suddenly BUMP! jump in front of a camera isn’t scary to me. You jump, but how long does that jump last? The length of the scene. Certainly there are some startle-scares in The Descent, but they worked for me because they kept me absorbed in the scene while the film maintained a much deeper level of horror that couldn’t be summed up in any eye-gouging scene. Horror should, in my belief, not make me necessarily want to vomit (upon reading a spoiler for a film that I cannot remember the name of, I discovered that a killer cages a woman and at one point, force-feeds her a blender-made milkshake of blood, eyeballs, a nose, and other body parts) but instead give me a deeper reaction to the gore. If you’re going to make me sit through something like that, there had better be a damn good reason for it. That movie, I’m sure, had no reason for the gore other than to see what it could get away with.
Everyone’s motivated differently. I was told that Cloverfield was an epic film, but after seeing it, I was totally underwhelmed. There was potential, and its advertising campaign was borderline brilliant, but when I was left with the final result, I was disappointed. I saw stylized startle-horror.
I understand that it might be easy to throw out ways in which I seem to contradict myself, but I know what I like and what I don’t like. I’ve said it before, but my beliefs are not universals. I have a stomach for gore, but I think it should move the plot in some way such as the creature’s attack in The Mist or Hannibal’s escape plan in The Silence of the Lambs instead of forcing me to react to something so I can get a false sense of horror. There are movies that have torture scenes that are amazing films (the nail ripping part of Syriana is something I can’t ever shake), but there is always a purpose to that, I feel. What can I say? I’m always up for being moved above being startled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
