Where the Wild Things Are

If you enjoyed the book, don't expect to find that same thing in the movie. I read a while ago that the author had written the book about dealing with divorce in the family, and to that end it truly stands up and keeps that issue alive in the story. But when dealing with a book that's twenty pages, and trying to turn it into a movie that's an hour and a half you start to run into a lot of problems with filling in the blanks.

Spike Jonze who directed this I think did a phenomenal job with writing it as well, and with keeping the feel of the story through out the film. At times though I felt mostly disturbed by what I was seeing (It's Spike Jonze, why am I surprised?) but for a kids story to be so bothersome makes me feel they took a wrong turn somewhere.

The story is simple, Max a young boy living in middle America is acting out because his parents are divorced, Mom's got money woes, his big sister is sort of a bitch, and Mom's back on the dating scene. After a rather funny confrontation with his Mom he runs away, takes a little sail boat and lands on the place where the wild things are. After lying to them about who he is they make him their king, and he promises he'll make it all better. One of the Wild things, named Carol (a boy) is upset that one of the other wild things named KW (a girl) has left their family and made new friends. This issue is tearing the rest of the family apart (hence the whole divorce thing) Well things get better, and they get worse and he eventually has to go home.

As we walked out of the theatre a friend of mine said there wasn't any resolution to either of the plots, his families or the wild things. I can't say I was surprised though, if the stories about divorce that's something that doesn't end, and something you deal with, at least on some level the rest of your life. So even though at the end of the movie he's better, he will never be able to reconcile the fact that his parents no longer love one another.

At times I found it to be inappropriately violent, in one such instance Carol is chasing Max because he's mad at him and is going to eat him, if you take that and view it through the spectrum of divorce, then here is the father figure chasing the child not to eat him of course but to beat him. At least that's how I viewed it. There is a very specific family dynamic amongst the wild things, a Mom, and Dad, ones that are more like the children, and when the father is upset that the mother left and chases the child for lying....seemed to me pretty obvious.

Also another thing that kind of bothered me was just how sad it was. It has its funny parts and its more up beat parts, but over all it was very depressing, as the kid tries to wrap his mind around the divorce, and how to deal with not having a father figure we see just how sad being a kid really is. It is, being a kid is a sad experience. People like to gloss over how fun it was, and it was, but there is so much sadness to, and this film is just over flowing with it.

Now for all my seeming complaints, I really did like it, plenty. The voice acting was great, I sat there most of the movie trying to figure out who was doing the voices because I had heard them before. The Jim Henson Company made the costumes for the wild things, and they did the faces with CG since the heads weighed to much with all the animatronics in it. So you can clearly see that the kid is there, standing next to these things and not standing alone talking to a tennis ball on a stick. The kid was great, I never got the feeling he was acting, they auditioned thousands of kids, so I would hope they would find the right one.

It was a really touching movie, and like I said before a little disturbing at times, but I think Spike Jonze did a very good job with it, if perhaps he took a few to many artistic licenses with it. I suppose though how upset could I get if the author saw it and said it was great, but then again, that book belongs to us now, not him...really. Its the property of any person who read it as a child and liked or loved it. Its not exactly what I would have done with the story, but was still thrilling.

There was way to much hand held camera shots, it was pissing me off, I don't get a headache from that, or nauseous, but when its over used to this point its just stupid. When you have a budget of 70 million use it, you have the equipment and toys to make it as fluid or as shaky as you want it, but not that shaky!

Overall it was great and everyone should check it out, but not necessarily in the theatre. 7/10 stars.

Director: Spike Jonze

Starring: Max Records, Catherine Keener, James Gandolfini, Paul Dano, Catherine O'Hara, Forrest Whitaker, Chris Cooper, Lauren Ambrose, Paul Ruffalo

Thomas in Love

I cant really say that the description of this movie was wrong, but they ignore a huge part of the way they tell the story. Its a strange one to say the least.

It's the story of a man who in the near future has become agoraphobic (fear to go outside) and has remained in his home with out going out and no one coming in for the last eight years. Well his state appointed psychiatrist wants him to try and get out there and meet people, in a way of speaking. He has to talk to people and interact with a form of video phone they call visiophone. The entire movie in fact is told through the visiophone, and all you ever see is what our main character Thomas sees on his video screen.

So he's looking for love, dealing with his insurance company, his poor mother who just wants to talk to him, a call girl service and so on. The story only picks up what we see on the screen, so hours days or even more go by in a second as one call ends and the next begins, very strange. He meets a few women that interest him, and he eventually has to decide if he wants to venture out into the real world once again. The thing is is that all his needs are met, including his...other appetites, he can have virtual relations with a CGI girl though the phone and a suit that allows him to feel it like its real.

It's a cool look into the future, everyone has these tattoos or make up on their face making them look very hippie, but also futuristic. There is, I'm sorry to say very little personal growth from Thomas the entire movie, which makes it hard to really care about him because he doesn't do anything to really help himself. He's sarcastic and mean at times, he doesn't want help, but if something doesn't go his way he complains, a lot. I still cared for him, but not as much as I could have.

It starts out with a bang (literally) as he has sex with this virtual girl....which was....strange to say the least, but for an indie movie the effects were better than I would have thought. It was a different kind of movie and for that I have to give it some respect, but it felt largely underwritten and poorly constructed plot wise, still enjoyable though, but only appeals to a small amount of people, not commercially. 7/10 stars.

Director: Pierre-Paul Renders

Starring: Benoit Verhaert, Aylin Yay, Magali Pingluat

The Tunnel

When I read the description for a movie and it says that its two hours and fifty minutes it makes me a little careful of when I want to start the movie since I would want to see it all in one sitting. Problem with that is other obligations that I have to deal with as well as the possibility I might get....dun dun dun...bored!

That was not the case with this, the time flew by with it, and I liked it a lot. Its the true story of a national athlete from east Berlin who escapes and then with the help of like minded people dig an extensive tunnel under the newly constructed wall in the sixties to get people out. Its slow and played out, there are several "oh shit" moments in it, and the "villains" who are, don't get me wrong very bad people are still just that, just people. One of them even says if we just had the same ideals we wouldn't have to be like this, wise, and obvious, but also self aware enough for me to say "that's enough" but they don't.

The acting was great, with a really amazing cast, no one of which I recognized (maybe the sister) it was German anyway, so it's not like I would. The film and the actors for their part are really good at showing the pure desperation that they must have felt at the time, and the real danger of what would happen to them if caught. People turn on one another, they back stab, but for no other reason than to save themselves.

They did some very cool things with the lighting and certain shots, and they really understood how to fully use the frame to their advantage. They weren't afraid of the dark, they use it in moderation though. The colors were spot on, it was crisp and clear, very impressive all around.

It was a great telling of a story that is, not largely ignored but certainly less played up than other events of the last century. It was very good, and I highly recommend it, if you don't like subtitles then stay away (and you might be an idiot) 8/10 stars.

Director: Roland Suso Richter

Starring: Heino Ferch, Nicolette Krebitz, Sebastian Koch, Allexanda Maria Lara, Claudia Michelson, Felix Eitner

Secrecy

It had been a while since I had the time to sit down and actually watch a movie, so this whether it was good or bad wouldn't really have mattered, just the act of viewing a movie would have been enough to make me a little happier. Even more on the plus side, it was very good.

This documentary takes a pretty simple stance, America has become a very security and secret orientated government, people on all sides of the issue agree on that. Now the question is as follows, is that a good or bad thing? It's good when we have the technology to listen to Osama Bin Laden's satellite phone calls, which that secret was leaked by a news paper and low and behold he stopped making phone calls with it. There's an example where secrecy was a good thing. A place where its not good would be Guantanamo Bay, or the secret prisons we have set up in other countries.

The documentary is smart, it doesn't try and judge what is right and wrong but simply lets the players tell their side of the story. We go from the conception of the Nuclear bomb through the events of 9-11 and the WMD's. A really cool, and sort of scary bit of information was this, when they made the A-bomb they had to keep it secret for five reasons and they are as follows: The Germans, The Japanese, The Russians, All other countries, and last but not least, the American people! The had to keep it secret from us, and congress, most of the rest of the government didn't even know about it. Since its inception was against the law at the time it had to be withheld from the public's knowledge and the other parts of government.

The documentary was very well made, it had parts that reminded me of another great doc. called "The Corporation" It had music that sounded like Phillip Glass from "The Fog of War" It had these little animated sections that tied the movie together, they were black and white and sort of morphed and changed depicting things that the doc. was talking about, it really added to it.

I really enjoyed this and would recommend it to anyone who considers themselves an American, it deals with the core principles this country is based on. If a democracy is of the people, then how can we have people in the government deciding what to keep secret from us about our own country? A tough question. 8/10 stars.

Directors: Peter Galison, Robb Moss

American Drug War: The Last White Hope

As far as drug documentaries go this one was in my opinion pretty even handed. It gave the spot light to people on both sides of the argument while still leaving enough room for the film maker to put in their own spin.

Ive seen a few documentaries about weed, and they all seem to take the same stance: Weed is the best thing that's ever been discovered and its the evil corporations of America trying to hold it down. Well I'm in the boat that believes that weed isn't good for you, but neither is drinking alcohol. But even though it isn't good, that doesn't mean that its as bad as heroine or crystal meth. Which in our country it is categorized as being that bad, basically public enemy number one.

Its pretty obvious that its not as dangerous as they make it out to be, and that comparing it to the synthetic drugs of the last 20 years or so is crazy. The documentary focuses a lot on that, how weed isn't as bad as they said. It also spends a good chunk of its time dealing with the new drugs that have come about in the last few decades, the drugs that people can cook up in their own basements that is much more deadly and potent than weed ever will be. There were certain things they said it in though that was just plain wrong and a little naive, such as weed has never killed anyone. That's bullshit, there is no way that no one has ever gotten some form of cancer from smoking weed. If you can get it from inhaling any other type of smoke then that goes for weed as well. And on top of that, when people drive while high and plow into a brick wall, its the weed that impaired them enough to do that. Just like with alcohol.

The doc. points out that when the drug war in the US started they had a federal budget of 2 million dollars a year, now we are well into the tens of billions. If a persons job relies on getting rid of something for good, why would they ever do the job fully? If you do a job the requires getting rid of something then you put your self out of a job that pays well and gives you power over billions of dollars. The drug war as well as claiming lives also is a business.

There are agencies set up only to deal with drugs, there's the DEA, vice squads, and so on. As well as the majority of people who are in prison are there on drug charges, so now you have the companies building the prisons and the people needed to run it, it helps the economy and turns peoples lives into a commodity. Plus this commodity you can make work for you inside the prison, like a slave. Its a business unto itself, and if you shut that down you lose a lot of money.

It was an interesting documentary, seemed a little amateurish at times, but was overall very well done. It wasn't saying drugs are good, and wasn't demonizing all of them either. 7/10 stars.

Director: Kevin Booth

XXY

Human nature is such a disturbing notion. There are many things that upset me, and there is a scene in this that really pushed me to the edge and it deals directly with the way humans react to certain things.

The story is about a 15 year old girl named Alex, well not really a girl, but not really a boy either. She is a true hermaphrodite, which is actually extremely rare. She has both sex organs, there are several different types of hermaphrodites, and this one is the rarest. A world renowned surgeon and his family are coming to visit Alex and her family to determine what the best course should be for their odd situation. Alex is not aware that she is being observed. Her parents made the right choice to not perform any surgeries on her before she knew exactly what she wanted to identify as, but that in itself is causing a new set of problems since she is starting to become very interested in sex, and she wants to be the dominant aggressor, during sex she acts as the man. The surgeon and his wife brought their son Alvaro who is a little older than Alex. He is interested in her, but is sort of stand offish, I think he's gay and that her ambiguity throws him for a loop, hes attracted, but not to her as being a girl.

People outside of this little group start to find out what she is and things turn bad. There is rarely a happy ending for people like this. And it comes down to the difference between a persons individual nature and human nature in general. Men impregnate women, its the simplest thing in the world, and that's what our nature revolves around. Alex's nature doesn't fit that, she is neither the feminine nor the masculine, she is both, so where does she fit in? The answer is simple and rather sad. She doesn't, and never will. Even if someone does accept her for as she is, she will always be untrusting of people, and her behavior will always cause a problem. She appears to be a girl, but acts as a boy, but not in a "Butch lesbian" sort of way. People like this are a gender unto themselves, she isn't even intersexed, she is a perfect combination of the two sexes, and she cant decide her gender.

The sad part is that society will expect her to choose one, or she wont fit in. Alex is beautiful, but she is a different animal than us entirely, she acts by a nature above our own, basic and yet complex, primitive and yet light years ahead of us. She is a perfect marriage of all that is man and woman, and for that people will try and destroy her.

The acting is incredible all around, its all very underplayed and desperate. The two fathers (Alex's and the surgeon) are butting heads, but they only really come head to head once. The same thing goes for the mothers. Their stories are certainly interesting, but Alvaro and Alex are the real show. The whole movie is very wet and gray, cold even. it all seemed very real, with the help of some well placed and executed hand held shots.

It was a very strong movie, and troubling not only because of some rather upsetting scenes but also because it turns the mirror on our own nature when it comes to people who are different, and its not a flattering image. 8/10 stars.

Director: Lucia Puenzo

Starring: Ines Efron, Martin Piroyansky, Ricardo Darin, Valeria Bertuccelli, German Palacios, Carolina Pelleritti

Open Your Eyes

Most remakes tend to be...crap, for the most part. There are times though of course where I am delighted to find that another filmmaker has improved on an already great idea. That's what brings me to the movie I just finished watching which is the original that "Vanilla Sky" was a remake of.

A young rich man (Cesar) throws a party for himself since its his birthday, he is being harassed by a very beautiful, but maybe a little obsessed girl (Nuria) that he had a one night stand with. He tries to escape from her by using Sofia whom his best friend Pelayo brought to the party as his date by pretending to be with her. Cesar ends up spending the night with Sophia, and its obvious that they both really like one another even though they keep it pretty innocent. When Cesar goes to leave the next morning Nuria is waiting for him, he is coaxed into her car, and she purposely drives head first into a brick wall killing herself and disfiguring Cesar's face.

This is the point in the story that things start getting more surreal. Whats real, and whats a dream become very confused and played with. The themes are simple, Reality is bended, and what is real happiness? The acting is great, and Penelope Cruz who plays Sophia reprises her role in "Vanilla Sky" Its certainly visually stunning, but I think that "Vanilla Sky" took it to a whole new level. I think this version spends to much time talking about reality and less time showing the lines blurring.

One thing I loved about both versions is that no matter what anyone says about the end I consider is pretty open to what you think. The last voice you hear is that of Sophia, if you haven't seen either of these then that means nothing to you, but if you have then its a very strong argument for a certain interpretation of the ending. If its the ending that they push the hardest in the film then it saddens me so much. To me this sort of ending is so much harder to watch than a lot of other movies that are supposed to be sad. But I wont say any more about that for people who aren't familiar with the films.

Cameron Crowe I think did a great job remaking this, and I do like his version better, but there is no doubt that this movie isn't incredible. It spawned a lot of other movies like it, obviously "Vanilla Sky" but also movies like "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" This movie I think is a hard sell but they certainly hit a home run with it. I recommend it to anyone, this version might not be great for kids though. There is nudity (not a problem for kids, I think) but the make-up they use in it is very upsetting to even an adult, so I think a kid might be a little frightened by it.

The more I sit here and think about it the more I think there might have been things I haven't considered about the story that add even more to it, there are several layers to say the least, but easy to follow. Dense but not overbearing. A really great movie, beautiful and sad. 8/10 stars.

Director: Alejandro Amenabar

Starring: Eduardo Noriega, Penelope Cruz, Chete Lera, Fele Martinez, Najwa Nimri

The Bridesmaid

I had been meaning to watch this movie for a while, based on the cover art it looked like something that would be up my alley. It is a pretty simple image, a women is checking her makeup in the bathroom mirror, shes all wet and a man is watching her.

The movie starts very slowly, and on a strange note, we spend around 20 minutes getting to know the characters and watching how they react to their mother dating a man who turns out to be somewhat of a dick. They give him a gift of a statue head, which means a lot to the son, our main character named Philippe. I see why they put this part in because the man that their mother is seeing ends up being important later, but they didn't need to stretch out this part so long. The story moves on that the man stops calling the mother and they get ready for the sister Sophia's wedding. At the wedding Philippe meets "Senta" her real name is Stephanie, she stares at him, but when he speaks to her she is generally cold. He leaves the reception and she shows up at his house soaking wet from the rain, she disrobes and....you get the picture.

So they start this affair, and it is intense, she says she loves him right away, that he is hers and she is his. I'm talking about hours after they've met. He as well like her is pretty smitten and seems to be playing along some what so then she wont feel weird. That's when we start finding out more about her, and after a while she starts to get a little scary, she wants him to kill for her to prove his love. I'll leave it at that.

It was mixing of genres that was both fresh and painfully strange, don't get me wrong, I certainly liked it, but he was just as sick as she is to go along with her insanity and obsessions for as long as he did. The title either refers to Senta, or one other person who you "meet" right towards the end. Either works, the second of which being a little more twisted. If Senta wasn't such a nut it would be a beautiful and romantic love story, and perhaps it still is, but it's doomed.

They mix Romance and Thriller and barely blink an eye, instead of trying to meld the two genres they just shoot it as if this was already a normal genre unto itself. There werent any exceptional shoots, it was mostly just coverage. There are such romantic notions in it, at one point in the middle of the night she says take me to the beach, and they get in the car and drive to the ocean and sit on the beach together, terribly romantic, if only she would have stayed that way.

I enjoyed it, but its not for everyone. If you are looking for a romance you will not like this, but I think if you like understated thrillers this might do it for you. 7/10 stars.

Director: Claude Chabrol

Starring: Benoit Magimel, Laura Smet

At the Death House Door

Can you imagine sitting in a small cell with a person for 13 hours maybe more, knowing that at the end of that time the person you're there with will be killed. Carroll Pickett, the subject of this documentary sat with, and witnessed the execution of around 100 people.

After each execution he would go home and take out his tape recorder and describe the days events and how he felt about what had just happened, he did this for every person he sat with. A tape for each life he ushered into the chair. The documentary looks at how he went from being just a regular minister in his town to being the minister of a prison. During a prison riot a few women were taken hostage who belonged to his church, and they told him over the phone what they wanted for their funerals because they knew they wouldn't survive it. 18 year later he sat with the man who had shot a member of his congregation, one of those women. The man told him that he had confessed to that sin everyday since it happened. When asked if he had any last words he turned to the witnesses and said, "I'm innocent"

Part of the documentary focuses on a young man named Carlos De Luna. He was put to death for a crime that has most of the evidence pointed away from him. Another man even confessed to the crime around their neighborhood. Now was he innocent? Was he guilty? I couldn't say. But on the chance that he was innocent it seems like a mute point to decree his innocence to his family years after hes been killed. Nice as it is to know that he was (maybe) innocent, it seems hurtful to bring that all back.

My views on the death penalty swing and change. After watching this and hearing from those who have seen death, over and over, it makes me think it's the wrong thing. People claim it's a deterrent for crime, utter falsehood. I have reevaluated my stance, and I think capital punishment should only be for the most capital of offenses: genocide. Throw Hitler into the chair and zap him forever. Same with Stalin and Polpott. There are monsters in this world, but they are rare. Have a set procedure above the laws of our country. For someone like Hitler, they should be not only judged by one society, but all. A world court, and If they think to end his/her life, then so be it. Just a thought. I mean how often would we have to use it? I'm hoping not often. Other than that extreme I think I'm less for the death penalty. Truth and fact aren't the same thing. There is no way for us to know for sure someones guilt.

Especially since even if you commit a crime that doesn't make you guilty. The person has to feel the guilt. Guilt is subjective for the person. Pickett describes a few of the people that he watched die, including the mentally retarded who didn't get what was going on, how can you put to death someone who doesn't even know they've done something wrong? For those accused and convicted of these crimes let them sit in solitary for the rest of their lives, so if there is new evidence they can be set free.

Its a very well made documentary, and even for those in favor of the death penalty can't argue that killing isn't wrong, and that sitting at home knowing someone is dying is one thing, being there when it happens is entirely different. 8/10 stars.

Director: Peter Gilbert, Steve James

Encounters at the End of the World

I respect Werner Herzog, the director of this movie. I have seen a few of his other movies, and for the most part I like them. In this documentary he tackles a sort of strange subject: Antarctica.

We follow Herzog through the continent of ice as he meets the people who call it home, even if temporarily. Roughly 1000 people are there at any given time. We follow the history of trying to conquer the harsh extremes of the place from when they first landed there 100 years ago through now. Even though today we can handle it much better with technology our bodies are still the same as they were 100 years ago. It is obviously a very dangerous place, temperatures at times 70 below, or more, pure white out conditions, a very scary scenario.

The people there are very diverse and interesting. The shots are gorgeous, from volcanoes with open magma lakes sitting in them to the ocean frozen 8 feet thick you see how the place is not some stagnant frozen waste land but an organic being just like any other part of earth. Herzog briefly goes on a tangent about insanity down there, specifically among penguins who go the wrong way, away from the ocean, thus committing suicide by being forced into the elements. I wish he would have explored that more. Can you imagine a place where if you fall down and die your body will remain like that....forever? It wont rot.

My only problem with it, and Ive noticed this in other Herzog documentaries is that he seems to have a contempt against people or things that is entirely unfounded. Or he passes judgement on people for no reason. That aside it is a beautiful film, and an interesting and alternative look at the icy mystery of Antarctica. 8/10 stars.

Director/Narrator: Werner Herzog

Paranormal Activity

Up until I saw this last night at 11:30 I hadn't even heard of it. I'm not really into horror movies, to many stupid cliches and red corn syrup. You can see the scares from the parking lot, and they just are mostly....stupid. This movie though....was a nicer change of pace.

But even though it was a nicer change of pace it also was barely scary. I felt gooses bumps once, and yawned through out most of the rest of it. The story is really simple, two people (Katie and Micah) think that their house is haunted so they buy a camera and start trying to record as much of their lives as they can looking for any sort of proof that it isn't just their imagination. It stays pretty slow for a while as they play with the camera and we get to know a little about their relationship. So that's when the weird shit starts going on, creaks as they sleep, the door moves a little, you get the drift. Well of course it starts escalating to the point that Kate is pulled out of the bed and down the hall by an unseen force.

The theatre was surprisingly quiet during the scary scenes, I was very impressed with the crowd. The screaming and hollering were kept to a minimum, but I couldn't help feeling like a sore thumb. Everyone in the theatre was freaking out a little, and I looked around as I heard people gasp and scream. I didn't get why they were so afraid. Now I know when seeing a movie such as this you have to suspend your disbelief, and I do that regardless of the movie, but this just wasn't all that scary. I was much more upset by "The Exorcist" or "The Broken" than I was by this.

Ill give it to the film makers though, they made this for pennies and still impressed me. They knew how to use negative space and make a slight shadow on the wall seem extremely ominous and threatening. They used darkness well, and if I hadn't known it wasn't real might have bought it...for a while. It wasn't necessarily a "smart" horror movie which I would prefer, but it also wasn't stupid. It was a nice middle ground, there were things I thought they could do to make it more scary. There were things the two actors were doing that made it better. Katie at one point smiles and does something with her eyes that chilled me a little.

If your into scary movies you'll most likely enjoy this. If your like me and expect a little more out of a movie you might leave somewhat disappointed. Knowing that ghosts and all that isn't real made it hard for me to freak out, when I know its a string, or a fan they are using to do some of this why would I get scared. 7/10 stars.

Director: Oren Peli

Starring: Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat

Away We Go

In the fallout of Little Miss Sunshine came Juno, and out of that spawned a whole slew of cute, mostly over written indie comedy-dramas. This looked good, but I mostly expected it to disappoint, and to my surprise it didn't.

A couple both in their mid thirties (Burt and Verona) find out that they are having a baby. They are of course excited up until his parents who are their closest living relatives tell them they are moving to Belgium for two years. So they start traveling around the country looking for a place to live since they have to reason any more to stay near his parents. As they travel they meet a lot of different friends and family who have much different takes on child rearing and the family dynamic than their own.

It is quirky and funny, but also at times incredibly sad. In particular a scene where they are in a bar/strip joint and one of their female friends is dancing and her husband tells them that she just had another miscarriage, as he continues to talk it just breaks your heart. There are also the wacko and funny parents in it who you see in the trailer, and they certainly kept other parts of it moving and funny.

There were a few scenes, and I don't think I'm that picky about dialogue and sexual references, but there were a few times it seemed they talked a certain way, or did something simply because it was more indie. That makes me a little uncomfortable, but a very minor objection. The way its shot wasn't anything grand, the camera is really just capturing the action, and there isn't much character growth as the story goes on, its more viewing the world through these peoples eyes, if just for a while.

At times it was very funny, and other times fittingly sad. Like Juno its about being pregnant, but this is more about family, than the need to grow up. There are tons of cameos by bigger stars, and they are all great. Knowing that they had a short amount of time on screen you could tell they were trying to get the most out of it, which was good. It was one of the better Juno wannabes that came along, and when viewed independently of that works very well. 8/10 stars.

Director: Sam Mendes

Starring: John Krasinski, Maya Rudolph

The Station Agent

People had told me for a long time that this was a really good movie, and truth be told I had no reason to not watch it, there just always something else on that I would watch. So I moved this to the top of my list and watched it as soon as I could.

As everyone said it was good, very good. I can really appreciate character driven and character centered plots. The story is about a man who is a dwarf named Finbar (Peter Dinklage) who after his only friend and boss dies moves to an old train depot left to him in the mans will. He isn't a shut in per say but certainly just wants to be left alone. He is immediately befriended by Joe, who for the time keeps the friendship pretty one sided. Finbar is also introduced in a rather extreme manner to Olivia, who after trying to smooth out some initial problems they had together admits to him that her son died a few years earlier. Most of the story ambles along with two basic things happening, Finbar slowly starts to come out of his shell while Olivia slowly goes into one of her own, with Joe keeping the movie fairly light, while still having problems of his own.

Its basically about three lost souls who find each other and find a bond between them that has each of them lean on the other thus keeping them all propped up. The performances are great, everyone in it certainly puts forth their best efforts to portray these delicate and passionate characters. One thing I really liked that, and that I was very impressed with is that Finbar is a dwarf, but if you changed him to be someone with Turrets Syndrome, or a disfigurement....or anything that would make him different it would only take minor changes to the script to make it keep working. It's of course important that he is a dwarf, but it makes a very good point for anyone who is different and how their lives are.

Its funny but still really sad, and its quiet. There's even a scene where Olivia says that they don't need to talk, they can just eat. Finbar and Olivia are just naturally like that, but you get them, and Joe never seems to stop talking, but he is by no means flat, he is just as complex as the other two. Its a great indie film, and shows that you don't really need a lot of money to succeed when making a movie. 8/10 stars.

Director: Thomas McCarthy

Starring: Peter Dinklage, Bobby Cannavale, Patricia Clarkson, Michelle Williams

The Ring Finger

Just based on the cover art I had a feeling that I would like this movie. The description of it from Netflix lives up to this very strange movie.

A young woman named Iris loses part of her ring finger in an accident at a lemonade bottling plant. She starts looking for work else where which leads her to a very mysterious building where she gets a job with a man who conserves objects. People bring in the stuff that hurt them the most, or reminds them of the worst part of their lives, have it preserved in a green fluid and then left there so it will always exist, but will be separated from them. Many strange people come in and out of the story as Iris seems to have trouble figuring out whats real and whats not (that is if anything is supposed to be real in the story)

There are a ton of dead ends, unexplained actions and scenes. Metaphors that are out of the blue, and basically beyond me. The Art direction and props were great, it certainly made the story complete with its feel with the set dressing they used.

Its a very quiet movie, empty even. Mostly she is sitting alone in this office space, and the camera several times pans to find the scientist who hired her watching her as she works. There is a lot of time used up revolving around shoes, water, ships, her roommate whom she never meets. The thing is that none of this is really explained, and I think I'm pretty astute, and I don't think any of this had any real meaning. I could try and work the pieces of the puzzle into a complete picture but I'm sure if there is meaning to this stuff I would not get it right.

Its very erotic, but not in a way I'm used to. I wasn't turned on by anything I saw, I was more just caught up in the feel and the mood of the images. The story to me seemed like a mixture of "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and "Everything is Illuminated" all in a dream world. The Cinematography was calculated and timed. We so often are watching her through doorways, or cracks in a window that you cant help but feel like a voyeur which is another large part of the story.

There is very little dialogue, one of the semi-important characters doesn't speak at all (named Costa) There are some really gorgeous shots in it. The end threw me for a loop because I honestly didn't get it. Aside from all that, which I don't consider negative, I really liked it. I like to see when someone takes a chance, but still keeps it grounded enough that you can follow it (Go home Davis Lynch, your not welcome) 8/10 stars.....but not for everyone, just be warned its an acquired taste.

Director: Diane Bertrand

Starring: Olga Kurylenko, Marc Barbe, Stipe Erceg

The End of America

Right off the bat when you compare just about anything to the Nazis you lose me. There are things comparable to the third Reich, but America in the last 8 years is far from it. This documentary takes a look at 10 issues that exist in America today, and for the last couple of years that point to a trend of a totalitarian society.

Our narrator and the author of a book by the same title (Naomi Wolf) starts off with her worst argument. It is the compare America now to Germany in the 30's road. Right away I'm sure she loses a considerable part of her audience, because nothing is like that. Once she gets into her actual argument it is thought provoking and seriously scary. People being arrested and detained for years only to be released and never charged, no explanation, no apology, just go back to your homes. The most terrifying thing about that is they are doing that to AMERICAN citizens, not the evil brown people hiding out in the desert.

Can you imagine going to the airport to get on a flight to go home, and the next time your heard of is when you return home, beat and sore 2 years later. Appalling. Once she is in her element and she goes through the ten points she had me all the way. Suspending habeas corpus, the patriot act, all of it takes the Constitution and spits on it. Bush and his gang made the office of the President the most powerful its ever been, and that's including the years of Nixon, not even he would be ballsy enough to pull the kind of shit that Bush did. In my opinion he should be arrested and charged for all the laws he broke which he did, a lot. That will never happen, but it should.

Overall its a pretty good documentary, it does show the way our government has traipsed over our right and we for the most part let it happen out of fear. And of course we should fight it tooth and nail, but what I think Ms. Wolf doesn't want to see is that America has a less than perfect past. I mean really, when has this country ever been the shining beacon on a hill that she claims it once was. When the country began white men could vote, and we held slaves, nearly 100 years later did we free the slaves. It more than another half century before women could vote. Hell, even during WWII we put Japanese Americans into camps. I think though that we are constantly moving forward, we take three steps forward and one step back. In the course of our countries existence there has always been someone doing something shitty.

See I think she doesn't want to see that there is a balance of power in our country that will always work to our favor, and its term limits. Bush can stack the deck however he wants, but once those eight years are/were up he has to give that power to someone else. So for as much damage he did and the people it hurt, we can now bounce back.

It was a well made doc. but if I had to complain about something it would be that its 75 minutes, when dealing with such a heavy and complicated issue how can you get that across in barely over an hour. 7/10 stars.

Directors: Ricki Stern, Anne Sundberg

Narrator: Naomi Wolf

American Pit Bull

How much can you really blame an animal for being what it is? Pit bulls in my opinion are dangerous, now don't get me wrong, I didn't say mean, I said dangerous. A gun isn't mean, but it is dangerous in the wrong hands, or when handled without the proper respect.

This documentary I had expected to go over the history of the pit bull, and at least sort of go into its present incarnation, and in a way they did. It wasn't proper though, I would have wished that they would have given a full picture of the stigma of this kind of dog instead of just the current views on ownership. A lot of the people in this documentary were just pissing me off, for example: A yuppie looking older couple didn't see why they should be forced to spay/neuter their animal. Not theirs! Their dog is good. Well they are missing the point, if your dog gets out and meets another and they have...relations...what are you going to do? A doggie abortion? These jackasses are above the lower scum that own these dogs. What a crock of shit.

Others claim to be training the dogs, but one of the "tricks" they make them do it to attack a man with a sleeve on, or full body pads. They kept saying that the dogs are naturally mean to other dogs, they are "Bully" but not to humans. If that's the case why are you teaching them this "trick" Total bullshit. Now I say they are dangerous because if I get bit by a chihuahua I think ill be fine, by a border collie, Ill survive, a German Shepard...I'm in some trouble, if its a Pit bull...if it doesn't let go....I'm lucky to live. They have a PSI bite power of 3000, the next closest dog is 1000 pounds per square inch. A Hyena is only a little above 3000 PSI, a crocodile has 4000 PSI. If these animals bite they are capable of total damage, death, easily. So like a gun, they might never go off, but if they do...they will kill.

Should they be out lawed? No. Should we stop dog fighting? Of course, and take those ass holes to court and give them the maximum. Should we put down pit bulls that might be aggressive? With out question. And I love animals, but not everyone is allowed to own a bear, or a wolf, not everyone should have this privilege either. Owning animals is not a right. The documentary goes to soft on many of these points, but does show the culture of the Pit Bull, from the fighters to the people who have them as show dogs and everything in between. It was fair to owners and protesters alike. Could have been longer and more in depth. 7/10 stars.

Director: Marylin Braverman

The Garden

Morals and the law are not the same thing, or at least very rarely. This documentary is a good example of what I mean. Its a very well done documentary that as it slowly unravels you find out who the villains are.

The story is that after some of the riots in L.A. some of the people of South Central were given a plot of land to act as a community garden, and they turn it into a lovely little green patch in an otherwise gray concrete setting. Well the city sells the land back to the old owner who wants them off the land...now. So it turns into a legal battle, and turn some of the workers of these little mini farms against one another. For most of the movie you can see both sides of the fight, the man who owns it has every right to do with his property as he wants. But these people did something good with the land, put their sweat and blood into it, all they get is a quick kick to the ass?

It shows one of the many things that is wrong with our country. The farmers aren't all innocent people, many of them are undocumented workers, so why should they get the same privileges as those who pay taxes, that I do think is unfair. It also seems that the workers have done all they can to keep other races out, but perhaps I'm wrong, they never address that point. The owner of the land shows his true colors in the last few minutes of the film, and he is slime. Its a sad state of our way of life when you see what they do to these people who are as poor as the dirt that they grow this amazing produce out of. 7/10 stars.

Director: Scott Hamilton Kennedy