TRON: Legacy

When at the theatre to see "Black Swan" I was waiting for the person I was seeing it with to show up. As I waited I noticed a table set up with a few people sitting behind it, just giving away tickets to TRON. As I am a fan of free stuff I couldn't pass it up. (especially since a single ticket at that theatre is $12.50, fuck that!)

Having never seen TRON I didn't really know what to expect from this sequel. I knew there were motorcycles in it, that The Simpsons and Family Guy had both made fun of it, and that it was all just special effects.

Kevin Flynn was a computer programmer twenty years ago, and a video game maker. He disappeared right on the verge of a break through, something big enough to change everything about our world and solve its problems. His son (Sam) now an orphan is left to watch the company his father started become everything he was against. After a page comes his way from a number long disconnected he looks into it. That's when he accidentally transports himself into the world of TRON.

There's not much to say for the story, its basic, easy to follow, and leaves the narrative open to have tons of action and special effects battles to keep everyone entertained. That though was part of my problem with it, we get into this virtual world much to quickly. The story of Sam being an orphan and fighting the system was interesting, enough to keep the movie afloat with just that. But they rush it so then they can get into the "bread and butter" of what people came to the theatre to see.

When seeing a coming attraction for this my interest was piqued. Not so much in the story, I could care less, or the action, how much different could it be? No, I was interested in the lighting. Their suits although mostly dark latex or leather is contrasted by the lines of literal light they have going over them, they are lighting themselves. In a world that has no sun that makes their suits vitally important. When alone in a room its darker than if there are fifty people, interesting, and fun to play with. Sadly they don't push it hard enough, they don't use it to its full potential. In a world that is an ideal virtual world it doesn't have the room to be gritty, everything is slick and even. Which itself was really cool, every surface is polished and clean.

The acting is incidental to the story, it doesn't really matter, and Kevin Flynn, Jeff Bridges playing the character he did in the original is just having fun with the role. After winning an Oscar, and playing the U.S. Marshal in the up coming and for me very highly anticipated Coen brothers film "True Grit", I say let him have a little fun. Sam, played by Garrett Hedlund is adequate, he doesn't have to do much but be good looking, look confused most of the time, and then kick a little ass, but mostly watch other people do it. For me the real star of the movie was Olivia Wilde, for no other reason than she is gorgeous, and looks so in this movie. They must have had to pour her into her costumes. She also kicks a lot of ass, she does more fighting than anyone else in the movie, and was good at.

The effects at parts were pretty awesome, and seeing it in 3D, the second film I've seen in 3D in the last twenty years (The other being Alice in Wonderland) was interesting. I am not a fan of 3D for the most part, for to many reasons to start listing in this entry. But the 3D fit this well, and for the most part didn't mess with my eyes to much other than a few shots that were strange to have in 3D. Another problem I had with the effects was that there is a character called CLU, he is a computer version of Bridges, but hasn't aged at all since his creation. So he is basically a complete computer creation (funny right) since Bridges is to old for the role now. But his skin looked waxy, his lips didn't seem to move right, it was just generally a bother to watch him since I could tell so much that he was fake, surrounded by real actors.

The landscape of the virtual world was also problematic, instead of letting us see it for as it was, they just hid it behind mist. Mountains, oceans, everything but the city was obscured by this mist, and since there's no sun, and the light never changes, neither does that. Perhaps I'm putting to much expectations on a movie that's merely meant to be a spectacle, and a movie I didn't really care if I saw anyway. I can say that I was entertained for the most part, so I guess it worked and did the job it set out to do.

My few complaints aside I was amused while watching it. This was not meant to be much, cringing at the dialogue and throwing my hands into the air when the plot didn't make sense is merely a side effect of expecting it to be as good as other movies I've seen, its not going to be. Turn your brain off, stare at the pretty lights and girls and just enjoy it for what it is. 6/10 stars.

Director: Joseph Kosinski

Starring: Jeff Bridges, Garrett Hedlund, Olivia Wilde

P.S. Either have TRON be a main character, or at least important, or don't have him at all. He was a tacked on character that didn't make sense. With a story arc that was as bad and short as I've seen in some time.

Talhotblond

This will make you think twice about who you talk to online, maybe even make you think three or four times about it. We've all seen "To Catch a Predator" this is.... not that, the damage done here goes so much deeper.

I don't want to give away to much about this documentary, but I'll do my best to explain what it is. A man named Thomas Montgomery is bored with his life, his middle aged wife and two daughters, he works at a factory making guns. There is not much exciting about his life, that is until he meets a girl in a chat room, shes 18 and looking for an escape from the little town she lives in, in West Virginia, her screen name, Talhotblond, who says her name is Jessi. Thomas becomes Tommy, a fellow 18 year old, who's a sniper in the Marines, and they fall in love. When Montogomery's wife finds out she sends a letter to Jessi telling her the truth.

An online fight ensues, but they end up talking again. Jessi now is talking to a coworkers of Thomas' a younger man in his early twenties. She is stirring up a jealousy and hatred in Thomas. He ends up killing this younger man, like a sniper would, and a man hunt begins as more secrets are revealed and the stakes become clear.

This is the real story of three people who had a love triangle with the two men never actually meeting the girl. They became so enthralled with their own online story they killed for it. It is a very well made documentary, it looks good, and keeps up a nice pace. They got access to people involved with this story that I wouldn't have thought they would have been able to pull off.

Its a scary thought that there are so many people out there who do this sort of thing, they build up these fantasies in their minds that they think it's real. Thomas actually thought that if he wished hard enough he could reenter youth, become 19 again, even have a bigger penis. Disturbing in so many ways, and so sad. What makes a person so delusional that they start to believe that sort of thing? Because of two peoples actions, someone ended up dead, lives in two different families were ruined, and for nothing, for absolutely nothing. They never met each other, how could they become this enraged, this homicidal from a chat room, from reading some misspelled writing scrawled in an IM window. Even taking into account this went on for months it still doesn't explain it all.

They do run into a few problems in how they have to tell the story, they need to have the conversations from online for us to see, there's no audio, just at times words coming up on the screen telling us what they were saying to one another. It was what they had to do, and they couldn't help it, but it still bothered me after a little while.

An interesting and sad watch. I wish that there weren't people out there like this, to many people that seem normal have this deep rooted psychosis, and its scary to me. 8/10 stars.

Director: Barbara Schroeder

A Taste of Cherry

It is very hard to care for a character when you know almost nothing about them. You don't know what their central conflict is, you don't know anything about their life, and they insist on using people like they have no feelings or right to express their opinion.

Mr. Badii is driving around his city looking for someone to help him, the job he has is simple and the pay is good. He wants some one to come to a hole that he has dug near a tree in the outskirts of town, yell his name twice, if he doesn't respond fill the whole with 20 spadefuls of dirt and leave. If he does answer, help him out of the grave. As he drives around and meets people he sees a cross section of the country he lives in. Immigrants, low income laborers, and a man who works at the natural history museum.

We spend almost the whole time in the car as he drives around, he is rude to people, short with them. If they express their opinion at all he tells them he doesn't want to hear it, he just wants them to do this job. He calls these people his friends, he manipulates them, and asks so much of them for a monetary compensation. To everyone he talks to the money is meaningless, they only want to help him. Badii is a selfish, and careless man. He gets frustrated when people wont do his bidding, people who would be more likely to kill themselves than him, they live sad and hard lives where he seems well off. We never know why he wants to kill himself though, so I cant say much about that.

It has a terrible non-ending, I'm sure you can guess from reading this where the story ends, so we get no closure on the story. There are some great moments in it, but because of the ending those moments are meaningless, if the whole story is about the last day of his life, or a day he nearly made a huge mistake we need to know that, this cant be left open.

They do some very interesting stuff with lighting and composition, but because the film is almost entirely in his car it becomes repetitive quickly. They also put in hints for things that never happen, what a waste. Example: Whenever he gets to the site where he dug the hole we can hear an injured or lost puppy somewhere nearby crying. To me it would seem like to end it he would save the dogs life, thus saving his own, but no. Its never referred to.

I cant really recommend this to anyone, it drags to often, and it not story enough to be a feature length, I think as a 45 minute short it would work very well, but at more than double that it simply flips about trying to run the clock out. 5/10 stars.

Director: Abbas Kiarostami

Actors: Homayoun Ershadi, Abdolrahman Bagheri, Afshin Khorshid Bakhtiari, Mir Hossein Noori

Trembling Before G-d

I was in the mood for a documentary last night, and one that felt familiar enough that I could passively watch and not get lost at all. So I picked this one, which in many ways felt similar to other docs. on the same subject, but with one glaring difference.

I've seen a lot of docs. about how Christians treat those who are homosexual, and this was the first one I saw about how Jews treat members of Judaism who are gay. Specifically it deals with how Hasids and Orthodox deal with this "problem." I was sad to see how those who are ultra religious can all act so similar, I've prided myself in the way homosexuality is viewed by the Jews, but was always looking at Reform, not Orthodox. Just like how Christian people are pushed out of their faith, so are religious Jews. A big difference though is that Jews keep to themselves, they don't try and force anything onto anyone, and thank G-d for that.

Its sad to see people pushed away like this, for something they cant help, and is just a part of them. It was important that they show this, Christians and Muslims shouldn't be the only ones bearing the brunt of the blame for being on edge with homosexuality. Listening to these people talk just reminded me of how far we've come, but also just how far we still need to go. Religion may never change, but at least on the government side we can fix the inequality.

It was straightforward in its message, it wasn't shot great, but docs. don't have to be, so long as the message is strong and well supported I can overlook the way something is shot. 7/10 stars.

Director: Sandi Simcha Dubowski

The Horseman

I was in the mood this morning for something that wouldn't require a lot of brain power to watch, just something with action and some fighting, so I popped in "The Horseman" It indeed had action, but was much more gruesome than I had expected.

Christian is a man on a mission, his teenage daughter had disappeared and when she turns up in the morgue with cocaine, and heroine in her blood, as well as several semen samples on her, he goes out to find her killers. He systematically makes his way through the people who had anything to do with his daughters death, and last few hours. He is sent a tape in the mail, it is a porno, with his daughter being the doped up star just hours before she was dead. He uses this as a frame to work off of to find all involved. Along the way he comes upon a girl (Alice) who needs a ride down the way he's going, and as they drive together they share little bits of their lives. You would think that this is a story of redemption, or at least eventually, but it never gets to that point.

They get stuck on the revenge aspect of the story, and all the different ways someone could torture another person before finally killing them. This was an extremely violent movie, I'm not often caught off guard, or will wince when something happens, but I many times in this had trouble keeping my eyes on the screen. There are buckets of blood in this, and I'll have trouble thinking about an air pump for athletic balls again without this movie coming to mind.

The acting is all around okay, nothing extraordinary, but nothing overly amateur about it, it is obviously an indie film, so they work with what they have. Peter Marshall who plays Christian does a great job as the father out to find the killers, and is scary in the role. He plays the homicidal maniac at times with yells and screams, his eyes intense and glowing, and at other times plays it with a quiet smoldering when he tortures and kills people you might think he was merely doing the dishes. In both of these ways he is very successful, but because of that it makes the character work for me a little less. There are anti-heroes of course, but this man is cold and calculated, so it makes it hard for me to like him, let alone be on board with what hes doing.

They shot digital, and it works for the film, they keep the contrast high, and are unafraid to let black take over the frame. The makeup as well did a great job, and in that same vein the FX crew did a great job, it must be fun to work everyday with that sort of blood and gore...and fire.

If you aren't in a good mood, this will not help, I don't actually know what mood you would have to be in to want to watch this. The story is okay, nothing great, and I hate to say it, but not in the least original, they don't even bring something new to the table, or add some twist, it is just like so many other movies Ive seen about a father out for justice.

There is only one way for this sort of story to end, so from the first few minutes you know exactly where its headed, not to say the ride isn't one that takes you places. Enjoyable as it could be, but wish there was more differences than other movies of the same story. 6/10 stars.

Director: Steven Kastrissios

Starring: Peter Marshall, Caroline Marohasy, Brad McMurry, Jack Henry

Batman: Under the Red Hood

I was a little sceptical going into this movie, I was excited to see it, don't get me wrong, but there were a lot of ways that this could have went wrong, and just happy to say that I didn't run into many.

Batman is continuing his effort to rid Gotham of the criminals who call it home, when trying to stop a few thugs from delivering "Amazo" to Black Mask (the current Gotham kingpin) he watches as they are assassinated at long range by a sniper. Following the sniper and chasing them down only enhances the mystery. He moves like someone that Batman has known in his past, he's been trained, and been trained by the best. As Batman discovers more about the identity of the Red Hood, the sniper who killed the thugs, he finds a new enemy. The Red Hood is setting himself up to be the new kingpin in town, but not for the reasons you might think.

The story here is a combination of two separate Batman stories, one an older and very well known one, the other newer, but still a nice addition to the animated Batman film library. The older story is that of the loss of the second Robin at the hands of the Joker. Batman was unable to get to Jason (Robin) in time. The Joker beats him to near death with a crow bar, and then blows the building up. The second story they bring into this movie is the reemergence of the Red Hood. Many criminals have taken up the mantle of the Red Hood to hide their real identities at times, even people like the man who would eventually be known as the Joker. A man calling himself the Red Hood is in Gotham, and he is taking no prisoners as he rises to the top. I wont go into detail on that much further lest give away key elements of the story.

As I said I was a little wary going in, trying to take these two stories, one of them being very iconic and putting it to celluloid is a difficult notion considering the fickle nature of fans like me. With this in mind I can say that they certainly satisfied my idea of what this story should look like. I was so glad they had Black Mask in this, he is often ignored because he is a new villain and not well know, but in the last several years has been a very important character in the nature of how Gotham and its underbelly functions. The Joker is beefier than I would have expected, and I was not a fan of his voice. The voice wasn't bad, it just wasn't the Jokers voice, I can understand they wanted to distance themselves, even if only slightly from "Batman: The Animated Series" but they should have kept Mark Hamil as the Joker, his voice is the perfect fit for it, and he has been doing it for the last twenty years, I'm sure they would have been happy with his performance.

Gotham is just as dark as it should be, with a little more color than we saw in "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm" but not pushing the limits like they very easily could have. The architecture of the buildings was spot on, as was the design of the Batcave and the various other locations we see in the film. I didn't like the look of Ras al Ghul's lair, but that's a minor complaint. The voice cast did a fantastic job, other than the Joker they all perfectly fit as I thought they should. The is a violent movie, and at times very bloody, the Joker cuts a mans throat with a shattered glass, a mans head explodes when attacked by the Red Hood, a few people are brutally set on fire, in that way it pulled no punches, pun intended.

The story (thank God) is not a look at super villains, or how bad ass Batman is, (and he is) but delves deeper into the psychology of Batman and all the thought that has went into building these characters for the last several decades. What makes Batman who he is? What makes the Joker what he is? And how are these two connected? Is it a mistake that Batman doesn't kill? All questions that they play with in this story, this film is by no means a children's movie simply because its animated, I still think for the most part its okay for kids to watch this, but like Harry Potter it wasn't originally intended for children.

Batman's greatest failures are on display here, should he ever have let the second Robin be Robin in the first place, and what if there was no changing him to begin with? These are the kinds of stories that they should be putting in these smaller animated Batman movies, and they do, at least for this one. Because of the Animated Series, and Mask of the Phantasm this movie had a groundwork of other dark Batman animated shows and movies to help it along. Without the other animated works that have been made in the last 15 years this story wouldn't have surfaced, and if it did it wouldn't have been the story it is here.

This was a well made and well timed venture, and I'm really glad not only that I saw it, but that someone allowed them to make it. 8/10 stars.

Director: Brandon Vietti

Starring: Bruce Greenwood, Jensen Ackles, John Di Maggio, Neil Patrick Harris, Jason Isaacs, Wade Williams, Jim Piddock

Cropsey

Everyone has heard the urban legend of the killer who grabs kids from the streets and from their neighborhoods and takes them away. He chops them up and buries them, sometimes with a hook for a hand, sometimes a blunt and bloody ax. This is where that legend originated.

Two filmmakers, both of which grew up on Stanton Island, and who both grew up with this story come together and try and piece together the truth. We start out with a quick history of the island, and how it was a dumping ground for the rest of NYC. After hearing peoples interpretation of the story from those who live on the island we move on to the actual story of the missing children on Stanton Island. The disappearance and ultimate discovery of the body of a young girl with down syndrome is the spark that ignites the fire which illuminates the other disappearances that had been happening, but some how kept quiet for a decade.

The introduction of the center of the island brings a big piece of the puzzle together. In the center of the island is a large wooded area, the only one left on the island since it had been suburbanized. Two groups used this land, one was a hospital for those with deadly infectious diseases, mainly tuberculosis, and the other was a mental institution known as Willowbrook. Seeing footage of how the mental institution was run, and how its "patients" were treated we get a very good idea of the horrors that must have went on there. Children who were mentally and physically challenged left in their own filth, sometimes naked, or bound so they couldn't move, all of this exposed by Geraldo (believe it or not) Even after this terrifying expose, the hospital continued to run for another decade before it was finally shut down.

People started to live in the abandoned building, many ex-patients, which brings us to Andre Rand, the man arrested and convicted with the abductions and murders. At this point in the film it quickly became like many others I've seen, the story of a wrongfully accused man being incarcerated and how the train was rolled against them. They never push the idea hard that he's innocent, but they certainly hint at it a lot, (Odds are he's guilty) but there are and were so many problems with the prosecutions case, so many holes and strange occurrences that he should never have been found guilty. With there being so much inconclusive evidence and conflicting statements its a shame to see someone lynched out of social justice, even if he is guilty.

The interviews in it aren't great in terms of ascetics, in content they were great. There was little lighting, the camera was either to close, or two far, and made people look not as nice as they might otherwise have looked. The backgrounds were distracting and to busy. The story twists and turns at the beginning, and I was glad to see that, in the second half when it turned into the "mind of a killer" thing, mixed with the "Trial gone crazy" I started to tire of it a little.

Its a very interesting story, and they did a great job with it, there weren't to many points that I felt they went off topic, or took unnecessary tangents to explain anything. The whole idea of urban legends is that they arise questions instead of answer, and this movie is like that, at the end I have more questions than when I went it. Having just finished reading "Devil in the White City" which has a very unique Chicago serial killer, it was interesting to see this uniquely NY serial killer, and even more specific Stanton Island killer. I give it 8/10 stars.

Directors: Barbara Brancaccio, Joshua Zeman

Creation

For as long as Darwin has been controversial I'm surprised it took so long to make a film about him, other than documentaries.

Charles Darwin has hit a wall while writing, "Origin of the Species" He is being pushed onward by friends and supporters, and as they push on him, his marriage continues to fall apart as does his fragile psyche. As he tries to write he is haunted by the memories of his daughter who had recently died.

Its hard to explain all that happens in the story because it is simply his descent into a form of madness. He is distraught over the death of his daughter Annie who out of his children is the most like him, and understands the natural world much like he had come to. As he remembers how things went wrong with his daughter his grasp of reality is slipping though his fingers. There are several scenes where he is hallucinating, as well as some very interesting dream sequences.

What I was really impressed by is when Darwin starts to focus on something and it shows how things really work, example: He watches a rat running through a field, it goes into some long grass where there is what is left of a cows skull, we go inside it in a very David Fincher style and see the maggots growing, as time goes by quickly they eat and then are eaten by a bird. The bird accidentally knocks its chick out of the nest and it dies on the ground, alone. It is then eaten.

The classic view of the natural order is the Biblical one where a lion is lying down with a lamb, not only a representation of the natural order but also the religious implications that arise in the New Testament. Jesus is referred to as both a lion and a lamb in the Bible and in other scriptures. As well as he is God, but yet the son of God, etc. So how could he be both the lion and the lamb? This misguided view of nature is deeply ingrained through religion, and is wrong. The world is brutal and unforgiving, and everything is a struggle merely to survive the next day and pass on the genes.

In this we find the conflict going on in Darwin's brain. He wants to believe in God, but he is also a man of science. As he sees truths and facts and reports on them he is essentially refuting the accepted way that things came to be that is described in the Bible. He cant ignore them, they are facts, but he also cant openly believe in them because it goes against so much of what he wants to believe in.

If his daughter died, and there is no God, then where did she go? His wife Emma takes comfort that she will see Annie again, while Darwin is struggling to believe that and has to see her in his waking dreams. Much of his troubles arise from the fact that he married his first cousin, there were things that were wrong with some of his kids that might have been genetic, caused by breeding to close in the family. So it is ironic that he is coming up with the idea that shows how mistaken he was by marrying his cousin, in essence he is removing his genes from the pool by having kids that wont survive. Hes committing his own natural selection.

The cinematography was carefully planned and it showed. Bettany and real life wife as well as movie wife Connelly were terrific in their roles. I wish that Connelly had a bigger part and that we got to know her better. So much of it seemed like they were at odds simply because she wouldn't listen to him, and it was more complex than that. I wish we could have gotten a better handle on her like we do in the end of the film so we could appreciate her more.

I'm disappointed that this wasn't shown in the states, it is British made and went all over but didn't show here. Simply because ignorant people worked hard to get them to not release it here because of the implications of Darwin's ideas. The thing is though is that it is about a mans redemption and acceptance of the way life is, it is in no way at odds with religion. Considering all the stuff that they make here this should have been able to play.

Overall I really enjoyed it, it is not a controversial film by any stretch, and if Ray Charles can get a bio-pic then why not Charles Darwin who was a million times more important than Ray Charles ever will be, no offense Ray, but so is life. It was very well made, and had some really inventive moments. 7/10 stars.

Starring: Paul Bettany, Jennifer Connelly, Martha West, Benedict Cumberbatch, Jeremy Northam

Director: Jon Amiel

A Serious Man

I have to give it to the Coen brothers, they always bring something new to the table, while still keeping it familiar.

Larry Gopnik has problems, a lot of them. His wife wants a divorce, his job is on the line, he's got South Korean people wanting to sue, or bribe him...and on and on it goes. As he tries to look for answers he keeps coming up empty handed without anyone able to give him a straight or acceptable answer. When it comes to the plot there isn't to much more I can say, it really is just a series of bad things happening to Larry over and over again, with seemingly no end in sight.

In that way this is a very Jewish film, there are many references to that within the film, besides it having almost all its characters as Jews there is also the obvious correlation between Larry and Job of the Bible. Larry is essentially a good man, so why is he punished so? The same goes for Job, he does nothing to anger God, he just happened to be favored, and when Lucifer called that to God's attention, that perhaps he wouldn't be so loving of God if he took it all away. The difference comes about towards the end, Job breaks down and curses God, Larry on the other hand never actually turns to God, I don't think he even believes in God.

Larry is a professor at a near by University, and he teaches math, the kind of stuff that goes right over my head, he thinks the world can all be explained with math. So when these things happen to him with no answer to "why?" he is dumbstruck. When counseled by the Rabbis at his temple he gets the Jewish answer from years of wisdom, "there is no answer to your questions, you just have to go with it" This film asks the questions that Jews must ask themselves always and have been since they were first persecuted which was, well pretty much right away, and has been non stop through today.

The Rabbis are willing to accept that there is a way of life of the Jew, and that part of that involves being tormented and torn down, its something that makes us what we are. Even when given a sign by presumably God, there might not be a reason for it that we can ever understand.

Roger Deakins shot this, like he has done with the Coen brothers for many of their films and it reads as such. There is a certain simplicity to the way he shoots things, and by that I mean he makes it look simple and easy, but it is anything but. He is one of the current masters and shows it in his work always. Something I loved about this film was the parallels they make aside from the Biblical ones. Such as when two characters are driving their cars, at the same time, across town and we continue to cut between the two, one we see gets into an accident, but everyone is fine, while the other car seems to get to its destination without a problem, we only find out later that they didn't get there, they were also in a crash and died. Funny way to show things happening and to essentially trick the audience over and over again.

There are also several dreams that take place in the film that trick you for a moment. All I could do after finding out it was a dream was smile and laugh a little, that's what the Coen's do best, make me chuckle uncomfortably a little while deep down I'm laughing hard. Lots of people wont see this as a comedy, much like "Fargo" is a comedy, even if that evades most people.

The way this ends was one of the best I've seen in a while, or should I say non-ending. You can basically figure out the rest for yourself, even if you'd prefer the filmmakers to finish it for you. The film like the story of it leaves you with no answers just like it began, merely questions. They purposely don't give you answers because like the question of "Why?" for the Jews, there is no answer that will ever suffice. Why does this have to happen to us? It just does, the story never ends, it just keeps going, there is no happy ending. Dark, yes, a comedy...yes, and a funny one at that. Its hard for me to recommend it though, its not for most people, it will feel like you wasted an hour and forty minutes if you are the kind of person who doesn't like the Coen brothers.

For someone who gets them and likes them this is a good addition to their film repertoire. 7/10 stars. It could have gotten more stars if I had been given an answer, sorry, but I wanted one.

Starring: Michael Stuhlbarg, Richard Kind, Fred Melamed, Sari Lennick, Aaron Wolff

Directors: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen

A Single Man

This film is a very valiant attempt to take a novel and make it work on screen. They do a lot in terms of color and sounds to fully bring about a very novel feeling.

George is a professor at a college in Los Angeles, a few months earlier his long time lover of 16 years died in a car accident. As the time the film takes place in is the early sixties homosexuality was frowned upon. George wasn't invited to the funeral (family only) He goes about his day in the film, and as we watch we start to realize he plans on this being his last. he's getting all his ducks in a row and he plans on killing himself.

Much of what we experience on screen is simply trying to turn what we would have read in the novel into something tangible: The smell of a dog, the sounds of an empty house. These things are easy to imagine while you read, but to watch them is very different. In that sense they were truly successful, they worked hard on picking just the right color, the right angle and timing of everything in the film. In that way it is a novel, along the lines of "The Hours" it goes slow, chooses its words carefully.

George is a man who loves life, and its accentuated by explosions of color on screen when we see something he lusts for or is interested in. All else seems to literally pale in comparison. But even for all that he loves life he is in pain every day without his partner. The music fits perfectly with every scene, in fact it felt like most of the narrative is pushed along by the music, it seems that the music is the driving force behind everything that happens. The cinematography in that same sense is perfectly planned and works its way though the story and pushes it along. They described this as a stream on consciousness narrative, and I don't exactly disagree with that, but its a lot more than that. It is truly how a mind works, it's the little things in George's life that sets him off on a look at the past.

Little things like him telling his close friend Charley (a woman) that he is going to forget the past, totally and forever, is interpreted by her as one thing when he is in fact talking about his own death that he plans on very soon. I imagine this story being a loaf of bread soaked in scotch and sadness, there is a reality to this film that hits me in a very real place.

Colin Firth is always a pleasure to watch, and it's no wonder that he was up for an Oscar for this role. Julianne Moore was also very good, although not in it nearly enough to fully appreciate her. Tom Ford, the director, seems to be a force to be trifled with, this is his FIRST movie, ever, very impressive.

I very much liked this movie, I loved it. The trailer gave me an impression of what this film was about, and it was sort of a lie, but then again the trailer was just images and music, no actual words, which by the way is a great way to make a trailer. Even though this film isn't quite as out there as some other "gay or lesbian" interest movies I think it fits the way life is more than those others do, for gay or straight people. 8/10 stars.

Starring: Colin Firth, Julianne Moore, Nicholas Hoult, Matthew Goode

Director: Tom Ford

The Matador

Two fighters enter, and only one can leave. That is the basic idea behind bullfighting, both are in the fight for their lives, and the winner is almost always man.

David Fandila is a bull fighter in Spain, and is the next up and comer. With only 6 or 7 good years of bull fighting, he is in the pressure cooker of getting his life long dream accomplished. The dream being that he wants to fight, and kill 100 or more bulls within one bull fighting season. He would be only the 13th to do so in the centuries old tradition.

Tradition: They like to throw this word around, as if that makes what they are doing okay. David explains that turkeys are raised to be slaughtered and eaten for Christmas, so why not fight bulls? They at least have the opportunity to defend themselves, and the thing is, is that he has a point. But they don't tell you the full story. The Matador takes on the bull only after it as been antagonized to the point of foaming at the mouth, and then he further injures it by sticking sword like weapons into its spine to weaken it. The animals are bleeding profusely. If something goes wrong for the Matador then 10 other people run out to protect him from being gored. I don't see anyone helping the bull. Once the bull is weakened and injured, only then will the Matador try and kill it with a sword into the heart. They try for the clean kill and to end the suffering of the animal and for that I am happy, but its only after they cause the suffering.

David sees the bulls as most do in the bullfighting community, he is dancing with the brutal and pure nature of the natural world, and in that way it is beautiful. He truly does dance with the bulls, but in that same note, the bull is not dancing, it is desperate to stay alive, which it almost certainly will not. At any point David can turn around and walk away, the bull doesn't have that option.

David is an admirable young man, at 21 he is already chasing and nearly succeeding at his dream. He works hard and has given up much of what makes being 21 a fun age. Although I feel even more sorry for his brother, who gave up being on the national ski team of Spain to be David's "assistant"

The soundtrack is incredible and really makes the fights a spectacle to behold. It's well shot and well edited, its slick enough that you can merely pay attention to the story and not be bothered by poor production values while not being so flashy that it takes away from the film as a whole.

No matter what way you slice it, this is a brutal and savage "sport" When you see blood pouring out of the mouth of one of these animals as they just try and stay on their feet, the ballet, and the art of it all melts away and you see it for what it truly is: People wanting to see blood. As a documentary it is very interesting, and I would highly recommend it, but it is difficult to watch as an animal lover. 8/10 stars.

Starring: David Fandila

Directors: Stephen Higgins, Nina Gilden Seavey

Fantastic Mr. Fox

The charming children's movie still exists. Pixar of course fits into that grouping, and as much as I love what Pixar does with the animation none of it is physically tangible. Unlike this film which is all stop motion, and far from perfect in its animating type.

Mr. Fox is a chicken thief, and not a particularly great one, he spends more time talking and plotting than he does actually being good at what he does. When him and his pregnant wife get caught by some farmers and have to escape quickly he vows to her he will stop. And he does, for many years, but that old creeping feeling is coming back, he's tired of being poor, he wants the adventure back. He schemes up a plot to steal from the three scariest farmers around, and so ignites a war between the animals and the people with each new move upping the stakes.

The stop motion is great, the fur moves from frame to frame since they had to physically handles the models a few pieces of the fur would move and thus you get this very organic effect. The color palette like so many of Wes Anderson's films is vibrant and dense but some how feels artificial. But then again that is what he does, that's his style, and we take it for what it is. For people in film that are part of the Art Dept. this is a real treat, everything is built, it is all planned to a T.

The voice talent spans Anderson's usual cohorts to new and interesting people, Clooney and Streep do a great job, as do smaller characters like Bill Murray and Jason Schwartzman. The list keeps going. The characters are cute and mature, yes unrefined at the same time.

A problem with this film is that it is made by someone who understands Generation X, and Y, but not the children of today. I am almost 25, and am part of Y, so I see this and find is familiar and likable, where as I feel most children will not like it, or not get it. It isn't as wild and colorful as Shreck, or some of these other icons that are so steeped in pop culture its hard to see where one begins and the other ends. As well as I don't know if kids know these characters, or get Roald Dahl's writing, perhaps those books are outdated and have been replaced.

This is a film for people who like Wes Anderson and what he does. I like it, but I feel his work as of late has become repetitive and increasingly underwritten character wise. This on the other hand was different, it had room to breathe and places for the characters to grow. I feel this was possible because Anderson directed this film by E-mail, he was almost never there for when they were shooting it, so the crew was able to take some chances and let things happen like they should have without him planning every single second of the film.

This was fun, I had heard it was good, it fits his style perfectly, it is silly and strange, and adult. Even though they are sure not to swear (all the characters say "cuss" in the place of actual swears) it still isn't kid friendly. Not in content, but in the fact that I think most kids wouldn't like this, or get it for a few more years. Those kids who do will like it. Worth renting, 8/10 stars.

Director: Wes Anderson

Starring: George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, Eric Chase Anderson, Michael Gambon, Willem Dafoe, Owen Wilson

I Have Never Forgotten You

I watch way to many documentaries, and I watch way to many docs about the Holocaust.

Simon Wiesenthal walked away from the death camps at the end of WWII little more than a skeleton. Just a few days after his release he saw U.S. soldiers talking in an office about hunting down the Nazis responsible, he immediately volunteered to help them. He had lost every single person in his family, he was the only one left and demanded justice. He worked with them for years, and after the Nuremberg trials the English and the Americans left, the sad truth of the matter is that the Nuremberg trials only convicted some of the guilty, some were let go, and some went to prison. Once the trials were over the rest of the Nazis, some being high officials were just forgotten about, but not by Wiesenthal, he set up his own group to hunt down these criminals who were responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Throughout his life he tracked down the worst of the worst. Was painted as a villain by some (shame on those who did) while he was celebrated and honored by others. He was called a hero, which he always fervently denied, to try and understand why he wouldn't want that you have to put yourself in his position. All of your loved ones are dead, and you live, the guilt must have been so heavy. Yes, he sought justice, and tracked down real monsters, but he didn't want to be the hero.

To those who painted him as a villain, for trying to ruin peoples lives by exposing them all I can think is how anti-semitism is the same, year after year it keeps coming back. Him being a Jew wanting justice is somehow wrong, and the actual wrong doers are now mearly innocents, just following orders, or deserving of a second chance? I don't think so. Are there crimes in war?

How could someone not say yes to that. I think that the German people as a whole now are a good people, but still there is an under belly of anti-semitism, and its sad. It must be a hard legacy to live down and a terrible past to overcome, but to fix that would be to have expelled the guilty after WWII, instead of hiding them and defending them.

I want to call Wiesenthal a hero, or at least a great man, but I know he would have disagreed with me, so for that I respectfully say he was one out of many who sought to right wrongs, and for that he should not be forgotten. 8/10 stars.

Director: Richard Trank

Narration: Nicole Kidman

Starring: Simon Wiesenthal

Surviving Crooked Lake

There have been a lot of films like this. "Deliverance" "Mean Creek" even to a certain extent "Lord of the Flies" That by no means makes this film any less enjoyable, or in its way new, or fresh.

Four girls go out on a canoe trip (Alysha, Candice, Morgan and Steph) along with Steph's older brother Jonah who is a counselor at the summer camp they all attend. Everything is going well for a while, Jonah tries to get Steph over her fear of water since she had witnessed her father die in a water accident. Alysha has her eye on Jonah, after disappearing together for a little while the other girls start to suspect something. Later that night Alysha and Jonah nearly kiss, when they are discovered Alysha runs into the woods, and Jonah follows. There is an accident and Jonah dies. The rest of the film is the girls struggling to survive, to find a way out of the wilderness and what to do with Jonah's body.

Something that stuck out to me, is that since it was a true accident there was no turning on one another going on, which you tend to see in this kind of film. Instead the conflict is brought upon with the problem that Steph doesn't want to leave his body behind, and all these girls are pencil thin(not going to be easy to carry him). As well as Steph has just lost her brother, and had lost her father, so she isn't doing well. There are many films that depict realistically the way we as a species have forgotten how to survive in these sorts of situations. They don't have food, there are animals out there and they are getting weaker and weaker.

There is surprisingly little dialogue in certain parts of the film, and I was very happy with this. The conflict boiled under the surface and only reared its ugly head once in a while, but the tension was always there. For the girls being so young in this the acting was very good, there were of course moments that were over the top, or the inflection in someones voice wasn't quite right, but easily over looked. I saw a movie a while ago called "Paranoid Park" it did well at festivals and was directed by Gus Van Sant, so I thought it might be good, it wasn't, no one should ever watch this movie. Anyway, the cast in that is about the same age as the girls in this, and the acting was so God awful. So to compare the two is like comparing apples and a rotted orange.

The direction as well was spot on, it played out slowly, and wasn't trying to shove to much in, but let it be realistic. The Cinematography at times was gorgeous, but since they were working outside the use of lights was minimized and so didn't have the dramatic flair you might want to see. Although during night scenes, specifically when Alysha is running away and Jonah is following the lighting was great. They used flash lights so you'd only see her for a moment at a time and then gone, very cool. As well as a scene with Steph and something in the woods, all she has is a small flashlight, that's a pretty narrow scope when something is stalking you.

Overall I liked it. Since the story wasn't all that original, and they didn't bring much to the table in terms of new material I cant give it to high a rating. But that's not to say it wasn't good. If there was anything in it I would say would push someone to see it would be the narration by Steph, especially the last monologue, it wasn't over written, it just was the thoughts of a 14 year old girl, raw and sad. 7/10 stars.

Directors: Sascha Drews, Ezra Krybus, Matthew Miller

Starring: Stephannie Richardson, Guy Yarkoni, Alysha Aubin, Candice Mausner, Morgan McCunn

Dirt! The Movie

Dirt is a movie now, just so you know. Like the string of docs that have been coming out the last few years this film follows suit with a blanket concept and tries to cover it as best they can in a small amount of time.

There are times this works, but things have to be sacrificed. Such as with "The Corporation" Its long, really long, so you possibly lose the audience along the way since there are no explosions or tits. This one they kept fairly short at an hour and a half, and they actually covered most of their bases. What the film is trying to say is that dirt is a living thing, and should be respected, as we lose top soil we lose the ability to feed ourselves (we cant grow crops in rock) and as we cover it up in cities we mess up the natural order of things.

Think of dirt as a sort of filter for the world, it cleans waste, it turns garbage into itself. It is what allows life to happen, and we are the only known planet to have it. So as we do things that destroy it we in turn destroy ourselves, and its at this point that it gets very familiar. Ive watched plenty of docs in the last few years with this message, if we destroy life in the oceans we do the same to ourselves, if we pollute the world we do it to ourselves, so one and so forth.

Now does the fact that Ive heard it before make it any less true? No, and I actually agree with them. The way they produce these are very smart and manipulative, they aren't liberal minded, or left wing but simply pro-human and pro-life (not the abortion kind of pro-life) So since the message is a good one, and done well people should watch this and try and make changes to their lives. Film is a powerful medium, but sometimes I feel like it fails, people see them and want to change but just don't. There's the saying that land is valuable, since they aren't making anymore of it, and that holds true. Where there are draughts, and where the land turns to desert we lose something. Yes we can bring water in, but it wont change that fact that at one time the land took care of itself, we did something to hurt it and it basically died. The great thing is that we can actually bring it back to life.

This film wouldn't be for everyone, its preachy at times, but has a good message and a hard one to disagree with. If you are someone who already does what they can for the environment then there is little else to learn, if not maybe watch this and think about changing. 7/10 stars.

Directors: Bill Benenson, Gene Roscow, Eleonore Dailly

The September Issue

Everyone has heard of the movie "The Devil Wears Prada" Well this is the real life woman that the Meryl Streep character is based on. And as scary as Streep played her...well it doesn't really transfer over to the real life.

Her name is Anna Wintour, and she actually wasn't all that bitchy, granted she had a camera on here, which I'm sure made a difference in her disposition. The doc. focuses on the creation of the most important issue of the year for Vogue, which is of course the September issue. So we see as they get the shots and clothes that they want, or don't. The petty squabbling between the people who want one thing and the others who disagree. In that way it's so run of the mill. Nothing that they argue about really matters. Oh! she likes this scarf, but I don't, gasp....someone's about to open up a can of....snide backstabbing remarks.

They are all snarls and hisses but none of these people have any claws. Their art makes no social statement, it doesn't better anything, it just is. Which is fine, if you are someone who hates fashion then you are putting to much stock into it. If that's what these people want to do then so be it, I'm sure there are people who scoff at my chosen career path. There is one thing that these people do that upsets me, and they should be socially punished for. Apparently, and they mention it several times in the doc. Wintour is responsible for the reemergence of fur in the fashion community starting in the mid nineties. They proudly talk about this, they should be ashamed of this. Will some one throw some red paint on this lady, she has it coming, don't worry about her snarl afterwards, shes harmless.

I did pity some of the people in this, they don't realize there is a world outside of fashion, they exclaim they are going to kill themselves because a dress wasn't liked. Turn the drama dial down to like two on the scale. Wintour explains that her siblings do humanitarian work in their careers, even her daughter wants to be a lawyer. There are people who wish to follow in her footsteps, but the people who know her and love her see there are more important things to do with their lives.

I wish they had paid more attention to her family life and dynamic, and her as a real person, but they don't and opt for a glossy high style look at the behind the scenes of Vogue (should I be surprised) The meaningless fights are brought to the forefront, not the real peoples lives, not the cost that the fashion industry has on other countries and groups of people. I wish they had taken it another direction but it was still mildly entertaining. 6/10 stars.

Director: R.J. Cutler

Starring: Anna Wintour

Redacted

This is just plain lazy and ignorant story telling. Now don't get me wrong, I am against war, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars we have been fighting, I am very much opposed to, but this film attacks the soldiers instead of the real people to blame.

Angel Salazar has a small video camera and is recording things as they happen around him in Iraq, okay, not a bad start. He shows the way they live, sort of what their day to day life it like. After an IED is detonated and kills one of their own a few of the men from the platoon decide to go and rape a 15 year old innocent girl, and commit multiple murders. Then the rest of the film is dealing with the after math.

Every soldier in this is just despicable, which to me is just stupid, they aren't really like that. I'm sure there are some not so nice people over there, and I do believe actual murders and rapes have happened at the hands of US soldiers and its really sickening. What this film doesn't seem to grasp is that is what happens during war, not that that makes it okay, and not that we shouldn't have a problem with it, but the filmmakers make it seem like a uniquely American trait. They bring up Vietnam and even call Americans Nazis, that offends me personally. Brian De Palma wrote and directed this, and he should be ashamed, not only on the message but it is just horribly made. I was led to believe this was a documentary and it was far from it.

This kind of film making is angry and ignorant in the way it handles everything, from the way the characters talk, to their action and "missions" I had no idea it was so easy to just leave the base in the middle of the night to go raping. The story goes off on random and rather stupid rants trying to make our army look like the worst people in the world.

They bring up the thousands who have been killed at checkpoints and how only some of those turned out to be insurgents, but in the same breath talk about the rules of engagement. If a car doesn't stop at a check point, and gets past a certain line the soldiers are supposed to open fire. Is it really their fault if the person doesn't stop like they are supposed to, its their lives at stake, you would open fire as well if you thought the car speeding towards you and your fellow soldiers is filled with explosives. So for that little bit of argument I say "drop it, you have nothing, cant blame someone for not wanting to die"

The dialogue in this was very poorly written, from them using purposely brash names to just the small talk they went through was inane. The picture they paint of a US Army private is as follows: Large, Stupid, Racist, Ignorant, Angry, Rapists, Murderers, Trigger happy, and so on.

This story is one that people should know, people who are innocents are getting hurt and killed over there, but this was the exact wrong way to tell it. For shame De Palma, you took a rather delicate subject and turned it into the worst middle school kids film about how much war sucks. Sorry De Palma but its a little more complicated than that, you cant just slap dash this and think you are being prolific, or exposing some age old injustice the Americans are committing.

The way they depict filmmakers is just as stupid, this is the second movie recently that made a filmmaker into a leech, willing to latch themselves onto anyone that they could get a good story out of. I'm a filmmaker, a lot of my friends are filmmakers, and none of them are like this. Don't see this film, it was a really pathetic attempt, 3/10 stars.

Director: Brian De Palma

Starring: Izzy Diaz, Rob Devaney, Ty Jones, Patrick Carroll, Daniel Stewart Sherman

Women in Trouble

I understand how good films get made, they are good thus people are interested in making them happen. I even understand how bad films are made, the people making them are morons and have no idea what they are doing. So my question is, how do mediocre films get made?

They could be good if they went back and rewrote things, reevaluated it. They could be bad easily. This film was so medium gray, so boring and so mediocre. There are a series of stories being told, all interconnecting in some way (like Magnolia, all takes place in one day, all characters are connected to as least one other) All of the women are having particularly bad days, one pregnant and just finding out, one gets into a car accident after being caught having an affair....etc.

The writing though is so overly dramatic, and fake its hard to take much of it seriously, its trying so hard to be "Crash" and just failing. It is not nearly as gritty, or dark, the connections people have in "Crash" are real and grounded and infuriating and transparent. In this they care for one another for no reason, they tell one another secrets right after they meet them, and then they are suddenly best friends.

The dialogue was not good, way to quirky and melodramatic, as well as whoever wrote this cant write women well at all. The male characters as well are paper thin. The Cinematography was decent, but nothing good, lots of medium close ups, and cutting from shot A to shot B, again and again and again. The lighting was fake in a bad way, to much inappropriate uses of color, and random. It also looked rather ugly and cheap.

It was a bunch of little things that really turned me off, Example: One of the hookers in this is walking around the entire movie in a bra and thong, during the day, outside and no one seems to notice, care or even mention it. Really lame guys. None of the characters really had any development, it was cardboard.

This film was medium of the road, not good, but not bad, no one really needs to see it, and I'm surprised they got as many bigger names in it as they did. 5/10 stars.

Director: Sebastian Gutierrez

Starring: Carla Gugino, Adrianne Palicki, Connie Britton, Simon Baker, Emmanuelle Chriqui, Josh Brolin

Bitch Slap

After seeing "Black Dynamite" I was on a bad B-movie kick, and knowing that a girl who is in this also posed for Playboy a few months ago, and is absolutely gorgeous made up my mind to rent it.

The plot is so over the top it doesn't even matter if its described or not. Three women, Trixie a stripper, Hel a secret agent and Camero an ex-con are trying to find 200,000,000 in diamonds. We start with them in the desert trying to get answers out of a guy about where the diamonds are hidden. The structure is set up that as we see whats happening with them in the present, as well as it keeps going further and further back in time to show us how they got to that point and who they are. So at first we go back 3 hours, then 3 hours and 3 minutes, then 24 hours...etc.

Most of the film makes little to no sense, there are entire sections that are simply gratuitous, in both violence and girl on girl macking, not that I'm complaining. The three girls who serve as main characters, or caricatures of characters are all gorgeous. Surprisingly there are two brunettes and a dark red head, no blonds, interesting, and nice to see the darker girls getting some action for a change.

The film is not meant to be taken seriously, not in the least, they know the effects are cheesy and cheap looking, they know that the guns look plastic and the action is so over the top its insanity. That's where the charm of this film lies though, because as an action movie, its not very good, and as for actual sex there is none. Its all alluded to, and teased. Watching a girl on a motorcycle take a guys head off with the rear tire, or a scene in the "Department of Homeland Security" which is filled with Washington fat cats watching strippers dance, you just have to go with it and smile.

The dialogue is what saved it for me from being another "Grindhouse" type film. The "Grindhouse" films are badly written, this on the other hand was overly written, so every line was snappy, and planned to a T. They know where their tongue is and its directly in their cheek, example: The girls start digging looking for the diamonds, their shovels never get more than 6 inches into the ground, the slo-mo is meant to excite, with tight close ups of their ample cleavage, and then showing it in real time in a wide shot you burst into laughter because its so funny.

You have to be in a mood to watch this, or unlike me easily entertained by anything, this though I was looking forward to, and cleared my mind of all internal critiques as I could and just sat back for the ride. Lots of girls fighting, lots of bullets flying, and lots and lots of push-up, and water bras. Fun for a night, repeat viewing...maybe in a few years. 8/10 stars.

Director: Rick Jacobson

Starring: Julia Voth, Erin Cummings, America Olivo, Michael Hurst

P.S. You got to love it when mid film, with no time to be wasted the girls start having a water fight, pouring buckets of water all over each other.

Broken Embraces

I'm really glad to see that Penelope Cruz still makes films in other countries. To often when someone gets big in Hollywood they end up only making Hollywood films.

Mateo (aka Harry) is a blind screenwriter. He used to be able to see and when he could he directed films. He meets with a young filmmaker (says his name is Ray X) who wants to direct a film idea he has and he wants Harry to help. Harry doesn't buy it, and with the help of the son of his friend they find out that he is actually the son of the man who produced the last film Harry directed. He was more than that though, the producer (Ernesto) was also with the lead actress in the film (Lena) Harry and Lena start having an affair and Ernesto finds out, he has a violent side and hurts Lena.

We eventually find out how Harry became blind, what happens to Lena, and why their film ended up failing so badly. Unlike American thrillers this is underplayed, as scary as Ernesto might be there is a deep well to be tapped there with how scary the obsession of a lover can be. We see him get sort of violent, but never really push the boundaries of scaring me. The film felt longer than it should have, the story even though it sounds complicated is fairly straight forward.

Penelope Cruz is adorable as always, is there anyone out there who couldn't like her? As one of the most beautiful women in Hollywood currently she still takes risks with films like this. Not that this film was that risky of a notion, but it did require some nudity on her part, and possibly taking her away from other more lucrative projects.

This film properly showed how films are made, it wasn't as accurate as it could be, but was pretty close. Always exciting to see a C-stand in the frame, or lights just sitting around, its as if the stuff I work with closely is suddenly the star of the film. As in "Holy shit, look how big that green screen is!" I liked the way it was shot, there was a lot of movement in the frame, as well as some very cool shots that move corresponding to the characters, nothing overly complicated, but just looked good.

The lighting stayed pretty dramatic most of the time, sometimes it would be hard, day time in Madrid isn't going to look overly dramatic, the warmth and sunlight sort of drown out with happiness anything too negative. It was a good film, but nothing anyone would need to run out and see. 7/10 stars.

Director: Pedro Almodovar

Starring: Penelope Cruz, Lluis Homar, Blanca Portillo, Jose Luis Gomez, Ruben Ochandiano, Tamar Novas

Home

A while ago I watched a film called "Genesis" I actually wrote a review of it here, and gave it a pretty good review. This film is in many ways the same. There are no talking heads, no real human interaction whatsoever, and are just left with the images of our earth and explanations on it's importance.

For the first 25 or so minutes of the film all we see are landscapes, some plant life, but no animals or people. The narrator (Glenn Close) tells us about how the Earth began, where our minerals and metals came from, how the earth created rock and water. Going through the billions of years it took we understand that this is nothing short of a miracle. Not to close to the sun, not to far, but the perfect medium where life can become possible. When they do get to life they don't lavish it with praise, but more a deep interest in the intricacies of how every bit of life has a meaning and a place in the world, nothing is trite or without rhyme and reason. From the smallest bug, to the biggest whale they all fit into the puzzle.

It's at this point that we get to humans, and our mere 200,000 years of existence, and how for only 20,000 years of that have we actually been doing something other than nomadic wanderings never really leaving much of a mark anywhere. Once we settle down, usually near coasts our real genius comes into play, we make boats, we figure out how to use the water to our every advantage, but we live directly off of mother natures bounty. Not really taking more than we need. That was until we discovered the "pockets of sunlight" already here. I'm referring to oil, and coal and all the fossil fuels we take advantage of now. How in the last century we changed the face of the earth 100 fold more than we did in the other 20,000 years of actually doing something here.

From tilling the earth by hand, and creating only what we needed to exist we jumped to being able to make machines that could till the earth for us, and making everything under the sun, useful or not simply because we can. Thinking about the health care debate, and watching the news they were talking about what will the Democrats tackle next? Maybe jobs, or the economy, and as important as those things are I think the more important subjects actually involve our own destruction and the livable world with us. So what's the point of making sure someone has a job if we are all dead?

The doc. is far reaching, it covers many places and a lot of subjects without ever feeling really rushed. perhaps it's because most of the film was shot from a helicopter or a small single engine plane. They use a lot of slo-mo that keeps everything pretty grounded and rather graceful. There were a few problems I had with it, which were minor and simply factual based information they gave which was not true, and it seemed that it was a problem that occurred because of the film being translated. Other things that were said just seemed wrong, but for everything they said that might not have been true there was 100 things they said that are absolutely true.

It is very beautifully told and thankfully ends on a high note. The format that the film was in was marvelous, we never get closer to a person in the film than a few hundred feet, and the only voice we hear is that of the narrators. It's so beautiful and like I said earlier it was graceful. It should really be watched by a lot of people, not just doc. geeks like me. 8.5/10 stars.

Director: Yaan Arthus-Bertrand

Narrator: Glenn Close

Capitalism: A Love Story

I have been a fan of Michael Moore's since I saw "Bowling for Columbine" in the theatre. I know many people don't like him, and I understand that, often when his name is mentioned people bring up Communism, since Moore's views contradict most of the current, or at least the last 20 years social changes he is taken to be a trouble maker and radical.

In my opinion he is anything but, his views are pretty middle of the road. The thing is, is that many of the blue collar people of the country don't think he is on their side, since "Roger and Me" he has pretty much cemented himself of being in the corner of the working man, and the underdog. With other issues examined by him, such as health care in "Sicko" and now the economic state of the country in "Capitalism: A Love Story" he shows just how much he cares about the average middle class, and lower class member of our society.

Problem is, he is also a self promoter, he likes to appear in his own film, and why not? But showing issues that the conservatives disagree with, and doing so in such a grating manner attracts attention. So if he is standing in the center of the frame then he makes an easy target. He smartly in this, like he did in "Sicko" removes himself from much of the movie, his narration comes into the movie after a while, its another few minutes before he steps in front of the camera. When he does it is mostly as a humble observer, or comic relief in an otherwise seemingly hopeless picture.

The movie is not kind, it takes off the gloves and hits hard. It names names, literally pointing out the people he thinks are at fault, and basically painting a bulls eye on their back, and I say more power to him for doing it. Here are men who while the rest of the country and world are suffering are on the flip side worth hundreds of millions of dollars, are taking tax money as bail outs and using it to give themselves bonuses.

The film in that way is very upsetting, but luckily for me as an observer I watched it today, they only passed the health care bill days ago, so part of this doc is already being taken care of in the social realm. So the film is already a little dated, but only slightly. There are still many other problems that the film brings to light that need to be resolved. Clocking in at only over two hours it leaves a lot out, or doesn't in my opinion spend enough time on certain things. Other films do a good job, and at times a better job of really coming full circle and showing a much larger section of the whole issue. An example is "The Corporation"

It was pretty good, it has all the familiar things in it that Moore's films have, so if you've seen any of his others then this will feel the same. It had a good message, but lacked a solution, but he didn't really need to give one I guess. 8/10 stars.

Director: Michael Moore

The Vicious Kind

I watched this a few days ago, so some of the details of the story or of how it was shot might allude me. I usually keep a note pad with me when I watch a movie so then I can jot down notes about what I like or dislike, as well as thoughts that come to mind. This time I didn't have that.

Caleb has picked his younger brother (Peter) up from the university that he goes to and is driving him back to their hometown for Thanksgiving. On the way they stop off at Peter's girl friends house (Emma) because she is coming with them. Caleb makes it pretty clear what he thinks of Emma, and for all women, they are whores. He was recently cheated on and has now developed insomnia which for the most part can explain his strange behavior for the rest of the movie.

Caleb goes from hating Emma and threatening her to being infatuated with her, I think that can be chalked up to the fact that she looks a lot like the girl who had just cheated on him. We meet the brothers father Donald who seems a little lecherous, but mostly harmless. Caleb's actions threaten to mess up the relative calm that has existed in their dynamic for the last 8 years. He stays away from his father, and Donald does the same.

The acting was pretty good, it's a little over the bench mark of the "This is an indie movie, do you get it?" It fits all the things that someone thinks an Indie feature should be, overly melodramatic. Certain characters aren't fully rounded simply because the writer thought that the crazier the character, the more interesting they are, thus why write the more normal ones better. In this way the script sort of failed in a way. Caleb is not likable for the most part, even the nice things he does have ulterior motives, and everything he does hurts someone else in some way. He is not at all mature, and not someone that's easy to get behind, and I didn't.

The girl who plays Emma is to cute, when they cast like this and write this sort of character they are just looking for the male members of the audience, and some of the women to fall in love with her. She is a little to perfect, just barely messed up enough that she needs saving, a little rebellious, but the girl that everyone wants. I did like the twists they did with her though, you think you know her and what she's about but you don't really.

It's not shot any great way, parts of it were to bright for it being night, other parts screamed needless quirky, but overall that didn't really take away from the story at all. My main sort of problem with it was it didn't really do much for me, I don't really care that I've seen it, it was merely mediocre.

The writing and the directing show promise, and the actors did a good job with the limited characters and story they had. 6/10 stars.

Director: Lee Toland Krieger

Starring: Adam Scott, Brittany Snow, Alex Frost, J.K. Simmons

The Time Traveler's Wife

I love Rachel McAdams, I love her. I could just leave the review at that because, well that's just really important.

Henry is only a child the first time he time travels, and it's during the car crash that kills his mother. The rest of the movie is spent trying to avoid time traveling to much, as well as making his to be wife Clare fall in love with him before he meets her. Sound a little confusing? It kinda is. To try and describe it would be to much, what with him traveling so much and being mostly unaware of what his future self is doing he discovers things that he's done when he's older, but happened in the past. Clare does fall in love with him, and he for her, and since she's the one that tells him that they meet and fall in love when she sees him at the library, it makes you wonder who chose who. If he meets her as a young man, but doesn't know her, but she knows the future him, then where did it start. In that way it seems they were meant to be together from the start, a sort of "chicken or egg first" scenario.

As a couple they actually deal with his involuntary traveling in much the same way as if he traveled for business excessively, or had to be away from home a lot. As well as problems conceiving children. All of their problems stem from his "problem" but are real world enough that they are actually the problems that almost all couples have to go through.

Since they deal with so many real world issues it's easy to become emotionally drawn in and possibly tear up a bit, I did. McAdams and Bana are a good match, I fully believed that they could be a real world couple, and there were so many points in the movie that they would look at each other and I saw love in their eyes.

Henry for most of the movie is beat down, and run ragged from the traveling. Like gravity he is drawn down. "Down" being important moments in his life: His mother dying, his wedding, his future home, etc. So since he is drawn to moments that could possibly hurt, such as watching his mother die hundreds of times, and being powerless to stop it he has become understandably bitter. So when he meets Clare, and she is already in love with him its a great juxtaposition of her giddiness and his deep sadness.

They shot in Chicago, and do a great job showing off the city and its landmarks. In that same note the Cinematography is invisible, it's not bad, but it also doesn't stick out as being really good. With a film that is so drenched in drama to begin with it's fine to just let the story push itself along and not worry to much about the shots. But like I said, it looked good, very clean, and very well done.

In the same vein as a film like "Butterfly Effect" we take the usual time traveling gimmick and throw it away and start with a blank slate, and really think about what it would mean to travel through time such as this. Not for gain, not to change the future or past, but just trying to survive and get home again. Since when he disappears he does so naked he ends up some where else naked not knowing the date or time and having to quickly find clothes so then he can fit in.

I had been looking forward to when this came out and just didn't get a chance to see it in the theatre, to busy, and it strangely didn't play at many places. Which that is a complaint for another post. This film might not be for everyone, it's not the cool time traveling story, and is mostly a romance and drama. I felt it was very well done, and a rather touching story. There were some unanswered questions, and some not fully formed characters that I wish they had fleshed out more and added more time to the movie, but I could see people getting bored. I still think another hour would have been just fine, I was intrigued and pulled in the entire time.

8/10 stars. I could see myself owning this.

Director: Robert Schwentke

Starring: Eric Bana, Rachel McAdams, Ron Livingston, Arliss Howard, Brooklynn Proulx

Dark Streets

I have never really been a huge fan of the film noir, they all tend to play out basically the same, and are fairly predictable. That was the case here, but surprisingly I liked it.

Chaz is a night club owner who isn't doing so hot at the moment, he took out a loan with some sharks and now they want to be paid back, but he doesn't have the money yet. When a police lieutenant helps him out by shooting one of the goons sent to collect the loan, he allows for a friend of the cop's to audition to be in the nightclub as a singer (Madeline). She is of course amazing, and he falls in love with her quickly, leaving behind Crystal the other singer of the club who is in love with Chaz. Chaz's family is fairly well off, in fact they own and operate the power company that powers the unnamed city they live in. As rolling blackouts occur tensions rise, why are they happening? Chaz starts to stumble over clues that his late father was murdered and didn't commit suicide, and someone near him is responsible. As he delves deeper he finds out things he'd prefer not to know.

The script is not very good, there are a lot of loose ends and things that just don't make sense.

-Why does he need to take money from loan sharks if his family is so rich?

-At one point he finds some money that his father had hidden, but we never see it or refer to it again.

-The police never get involved other than the one lieutenant who doesn't actually seem to do any police work anyway.

I am willing to overlook this for the most part, because like I said before, all these noirs tend to play out the same anyway, you'd be hard pressed to find one that doesn't fit into most of the earmarks of what makes a noir a noir. If anything this is a love letter to the film noir and not so much a noir itself.

Chaz is only just barely likable and it's because he seems to be just stumbling through the story with the plot moving around him, even when he does find out some rather upsetting news, he doesn't really seem to care, he's to in love to see the actions around him.

The saving grace was the way it was shot, and the music and dance numbers, in fact they could probably have done a whole movie of just that and left the plot out and been okay. This film is a great example of being atmospheric. The club is an animal of its own, its lighting, the smoke in the air, the vibrant colors all focusing on the difference between the hard stage and the soft flesh that is on it. The dancers are gorgeous, and the camera really plays to them and to that.

They did some interesting things with focus, coming in and out at times, or purposely making parts of the frame out of focus so only maybe a quarter of the actual frame is in proper focus. The lighting as well was very purposely conceived and handled. The light was directional, that's the simplest way to put in, they wanted only certain things lit up, so that's the way they did it. Whether it was a candle on a table, or sunlight spilling through a window and onto a chase lounge they kept it contained. Many parts of the image were just ignored because it just wasn't all that important to what they were trying to do.

The dance numbers are...fun to say the least, as well as the music which is Blues. The dancers and singers (both Crystal and Madeline) are a treat to look at, the way they move, and like I said before, the camera knows right where to go, the right speed to really make the shots work. Also I liked the casting of those two girls, Crystal is olive skinned with nearly black hair, she is sweet and yet a little threatening, she is independent, but so into Chaz she allows herself to get screwed around some. Madeline on the other hand is blond with pale milk skin, she is more angelic, but of course appearances are deceiving, and always are in film noirs.

I want this type of night club to come back, it is truly cool. Unlike the clubs of today this one was filled with adults, coming to drink and have a good time, the sex was only just under the surface, there was a coyness to it that you don't find today. The clubs now are techno hormone filled dance parties where the young and stupid gather to rub on one another. The clubs of old were dark and warm, there was a theatre quality about it, the show and the girls, and the live music, Maybe one day all that will come back.

Overall the film had problems, mostly writing wise, image wise I loved it. You could tell they were fans of "Chicago" and "Moulin Rouge" and it comes through. If you like Blues music, and like this time period then it's something you might enjoy, but isn't a must see. I only wish to see the kind of atmosphere and girls from this in a better written movie, then they would really have something. The film gets a low 7/10 stars.

Director: Rachel Samuels

Starring: Gabriel Mann, Bijou Phillips, Izabella Miko, Elias Koteas, Michael Fairman

Sidenote: It's good to see more female directors making movies.