Phil's Movie Blog

Writing Is Re-Writing

2011-05-27T02:01:00.001-07:00

I recently finished a first draft of my screenplay and now I’m faced with the question: What do I do next?

I’ve heard several idioms and quotes about what it is to be a writer, but the one that has always stuck with me is that a script is never finished, it is rewritten. This has always been the step I have feared the most. It takes so much work and effort and time to finish a script, and once your done it’s time to do it all over again?!?! But where do I start?

I know there are lots of areas of my script that need reworking, but just the thought of having to go through it all again is extremely daunting. Do I completely restructure my script? Is it just characters that need more developing? Do I just redo all of the dialogue? Or is it all of the above?

Seeking some motivation I decided to read some older drafts of some recent films and compare them to the final film to see what changes they made and why. I’ll be discussing some areas of the stories that might be considered spoilers so read on at your own risk.

The first script I read was “Source Code” by Ben Ripley.

I got a hold of this script over a year ago after seeing Duncan Jones’ first film “Moon” and learning that this would be his next project. The script had been reviewed on a couple of other blogs I read and was featured on the 2007 Screenwriting Black List as a highly regarded unproduced script. The copy I have is undated but it is definitely not the shooting script. I held on to the script and did not read it until after seeing the film so I wouldn’t be spoiled.

“Source Code” tells the story of a military captain named Colter Stevens who is transported into the body of another man who is a passenger on a train that will be exploding within moments. Colter is sent back repeatedly to try to find the person responsible for the attack so that they can prevent a second attack. The film is a fast paced thriller that keeps you guessing with a clever take on time travel and alternate parallel universes.

The script is a fast read, especially through the first act. The plot moves along fast with wonderful descriptions and detail. A lot has happened by the 30 page mark and the story is in full swing at this point. It tends to slow down a bit, taking time to let things play out before coming to a quick end. The script is 120 pages, far longer than the final 93 minute run time of the final film, but a lot of that could be from the long descriptions of fast action sequences.

For the most part the story is exactly the same from the script to the final film. The structure is in tact, and many scenes that take place in the film are in the script, but there are details that are changed. First, let’s focus on the characters.

There are essentially four main characters to the story. Colter Stevens is the main hero of the story. Then there is Christina, the girl on the train with him. Goodwin is the main controller at Beleaguered Castle, the unit in charge of running the Source Code mission, and there is also Rutledge, the inventor of Source Code and the man in charge. Colter remains the same from script to screen. His goals and arc are pretty much in tact with perhaps some fleshing out of his relationship with his father in the final film that was sort of passed over in the script, but for the most part he remains untouched.

The other characters, however, go through some changes, especially Christina. In the film, Christina and Sean, the man who’s body Colter is occupying, are acquainted. In fact there seems to have been some flirting but it hasn’t materialized into anything yet. In this earlier draft they don’t know each other, or at least they haven’t spoken before, but there has been some quiet attraction. In the earlier draft Christina is also portrayed as an angry goth girl who is an aspiring artist, not much like the final take on the character. Not having Sean and Christina really know much about each other makes things harder for Colter to gather information since he’ll have to work harder to help convince her to help him, which is good for conflict. Having them know each other some, though, helps raise the stakes for Colter. In the early draft he begins to feel for this character and thus want to help her, but it seems a bit forced and happen kind of quickly and suddenly. In the film there is an obvious relationship developing and she wants to help him. Colter is hesitant at first but after a while warms to her. His wanting to save her seems a bit more realistic, especially since she is invested in him already. He now has a reason to want to complete the mission: to save the girl of course. The relationship between them is more fully developed in the final film.

Goodwin and Rutledge have some minor changes to them as well, but it’s mostly in fully developing them into more full characters. For one, Goodwin is a male in the script but female in the film. Goodwin’s sex doesn’t really play a part into the story, so that might have changed mainly for casting reasons. The character’s tone changes some though. In the script he’s pretty cold and strictly there to do the job. His sudden change and sympathy towards Colter’s situation is a bit sudden at the end and felt forced. In the film Goodwin is there to do the job, but it seems she’s uncomfortable with the situation, and feels for Colter and would really like to help him. She’s in a tough spot, stuck between doing her job and doing the right thing. This is an improvement by far for the character. Rutledge on the other hand felt like the more sympathetic character in the script and suddenly turned cold at the end. In the film he’s pretty mean and driven throughout. He’ll do whatever it takes to get his goals which makes him a pretty formidable antagonist for Colter.

There are more minor characters added to the train in the film that add more suspects for Colter to investigate. In the script it’s pretty much just Guzman the middle eastern guy, the college kid, Derek the stock broker, and the computer engineer. In the script there is no comedian riding along on the train, which is fine because I didn’t feel his character was really necessary in the film. There is no office manager, the lawyer angry about being late, the older nurse on the upper deck, and a few others. Adding more characters, and more for Colter to suspect, increases the conflict and mystery of who is guilty. Derek the stock broker is actually split into two characters. Derek, the normal looking guy that leaves his wallet behind, and the stock broker who is always on his computer and phone and a general dick to everyone. In the script his character seemed a bit obvious, and splitting him up and making Derek a character that just blends in and seems oblivious to everyone else is a much better choice.

Aside from the characters, there are location changes and minor plot details that are deleted or improved for the final film. The story is moved from New York to Chicago. New York has had enough terrorist attacks and would have seemed in bad taste. Chicago is fresh and different and makes for a pretty good choice. Colter’s time in the source code is also shortened from seventeen minutes in the script to eight minutes in the film. Shorter time means faster pace, more tension and conflict, which makes for better drama. There is a scene where a video is shown with a terrorist group taking claim for the terrorist attack that seemed a bit cliché. It’s far more scarier thinking that a normal looking American is responsible for the attacks.

There are also some changes to some of the key action scenes. For example, in the film Colter gets off the train to confront Guzman with Christina, where as in the script it’s just him. Having Christina there trying to stop him helps with the tension. Again when Colter confronts Derek off the train Guzman is there and Christina is not. The scene in the script was quite sudden, and it served the purpose of showing who’s behind the attack, but having Christina there added to the tension, especially when Colter see’s what his actions have done to her. That scene in the film also revealed the twist of the two cell phones on the bomb, which was not present in the script. And Colter’s final confrontation with Derek in the end is far different. In the script, Colter calls 911 and the police are there waiting for him at the first stop, and Colter saves the day. He’s not really involved though in it, where as in the film his confronting him on the train, locking him to the train, and showing him the phones and his plan has been foiled and he’s lost is more of an active role for Colter. As a rule, the hero should always be active rather than passive. He should be the one doing what it takes to save the day, rather than standing back watching it happen and smiling at his good deed.

There are a few other minor changes. For example, his discovery of what really happened to him, his conversation with his dad, and the use of the source code itself. The film explains it and uses it more as parallel universes being created each time, where as it seems more like plain time travel in the script. Especially with the scene of Colter speaking to Goodwin within the source code and Goodwin being fully aware of it when he returns back to the main reality. There is a similar scene in the film, but Goodwin is not aware of it because it happens within a different reality. It’s a more clever and appropriate take on the concept in the final film, especially in relation to the ending. All of these scenes exist in the script and make it into the film, they are just developed more and improved for the film.

Overall, comparing script to film the thing I noticed is that the plot and structure are intact. Characters were better developed and dialogue and scenes were polished to make it more tight and suspenseful, but the basic skeleton of the story remains the same. Many teachers and authors of screenwriting preach on the importance of structure. Screenwriting is structure. Once you have that figured out, the basic outline and plot of your story, than the rest will fall in place. “Source Code” had that figured out, it just needed some slight improvements, even though the script was a really well written story, but the improvements served the story much better and made for a strong film.

The second script I read was a much different experience, and that is Mark Protosevich’s draft of “Thor”.

The draft I read was from April 2007. Protosevich is the only credit listed on the draft, and he is one of five writers credited on the final film, and he’s only credited with story, which is about all this draft has in common with the final film.

Thor is the God of Thunder, son of Odin, and heir to the throne of Asgard. He’s an arrogant egomaniac with no discipline, and he’s cast out of Asgard and sent to Earth as a mortal where he must learn humility before regaining his powers and allowed to return to Asgard. That summary quickly sums up the story of Thor, and that is where the similarities between this first draft and the final film end.

One thing to consider with this draft is the date it was written. It was dated more than a year before the first “Iron Man” was released which was the first film to set up the bigger plan Marvel had with wanting to do an “Avengers” film. Any solo hero film that came out after “Iron Man” would have to be set up in the same universe that was created and established in that first film. So that means you would have to include S.H.I.E.L.D. as well as references to the other characters that would be appearing together. I’m not familiar with the origin story of the character of Thor in the comics, and this first draft might be more accurate to the comics, but it would not work to help set up an Avengers film.

The main aspect that comes up between this draft and the final film is the portrayal of Earth. In the film we have a quick exposition set up of the Gods and how their worlds relate to Earth and then we quickly begin in modern time on Earth. We meet Jane, played by Natalie Portman, who is a brilliant scientist who has discovered a possible worm hole event in the dessert of New Mexico. While investigating it and witnessing the event first hand she runs into Thor, who has just been banished to Earth. We then go back to see how Thor came to be outcast and quickly return to Earth for the rest of the story to take place. The tone, characters, and goals are set up quite quickly with good action and pacing and we know where things are heading. It’s a strong first act that never confuses.

The beginning of this first draft of the script is quite long with exposition, going back to the beginning of time, showing the various worlds that were created, and the Gods created for these worlds. There are quite a lot of complex names introduced, and it tends to be bogged down in it’s own weight of self importance. There is way too much information that is being given to us that really isn’t relevant to the story other than trying to set up the world. It felt like way too much information and I was quickly confused as to who was who and why I needed to know that. What really stood out to me, and what I kept waiting to see, was how they incorporated Earth. My first read through I did not notice it’s mention until much later when I realized that Earth was being called Midgard. When I realized the new name that was given to Earth I went back to read the beginning introduction to see if it was mentioned, and it was in passing, quickly passing over that the Gods created man and woman, giving different names than Adam and Eve, and how Midgard wasn’t as important as the other realms and the inhabitants, the humans, weren’t worthy of the Gods. Then it quickly moves on. Not knowing the origin, and the names of the various Nordic Gods and myths, I was really lost in this history that was being piled on. When the story finally does move to Earth, or Midgard, it’s about 46 pages into the script. If we follow the rule that one page equals one minute of screen time than 45 minutes is far too long before we finally get to Earth and finally get to the main bulk of what the story is and will be taking place.

Now that we’ve finally gotten to Earth it’s time to bring up Jane again, who was one of the main focal characters in the film, and I know was a main character in the comics. Jane is not present at all in this first draft. In fact, she probably won’t be born for another thousand years or so. When Thor arrives on Earth, he lands presumably in Scandinavia around 1000 A.D. during the time of the Vikings. This would probably most definitely work with the history and myth of the character of Thor, but not in our modern day comic book universe. The tone of the story in this script was more along the lines of films like “Lord of the Rings”, “Braveheart”, or “The 13th Warrior”. Not bad movies at all, just not what I was expecting from a comic adaptation.

Once Thor is on Earth, he is taken in as a slave for the main governor of a local village. When the village is attacked by enemies known as Berserkers and Thor kicks butt, some see him as different and special. Soon word comes from some of the clerics that they’ve had a vision of the weapon of the God of Thunder is on Earth, and anyone who finds it will take on his power and become a God. Thus begins a long chase between the governor, some local men, some of the Berserkers, and Thor in a quest to be the first to find the weapon and become a God.

Once we got to this section of the script I was finally getting involved. It was fast paced, action packed, and full of tension. My main problem is that it takes too long to get there. Up to this point I was having a hard time staying focused and interested in the story. In the first act there is the set up of Thor by his brother Loki which leads him to being outcast. It’s pretty similar situation to what happens in the film just handled much differently. In the film Loki already seems to have his plan in motion, just his motives not revealed until much later. In the script he finds out about his past in the beginning, struggles with what to do about it, and decides to exact revenge against Odin and the people of Asgard. It takes a long time to set up and was quite boring. There are more characters involved and in his way than in the final film, and that helped to weigh things down. Overall it still plays out with him waging war with Thor eventually returning to save the day.

As a stand alone film this version of “Thor” could have made an exciting movie with some tightening of the plot and focusing the story more on what is needed, getting rid of some of the heavy exposition. Trying to fit it into the “Avengers” universe however would not work, and the changes that wear made were necessary. I strongly prefer the final film version to the first draft of the script. The basis for the story is present in this draft, it just needed to be fleshed out more. And that is what the rewriting process is for.

So did I learn anything from reading these early drafts? I’ve read in several books on the process that screenwriting is structure. Once you have the structure figured out, the rest will work itself out. For the most part, both these drafts had their structure figured out. More so for “Source Code” than for “Thor”, but the skeleton was there. The flesh just needed to be massaged and tightened to make it work properly.

It took me a really long time to figure out the structure of my own script, but I think it works for the most part in my first draft. A few scenes will need to be added to clarify some things, a couple that just don’t work will need to go, but for the most part the important part of the script, the structure, is there. Now I just need to keep developing the characters some more and improve the dialogue and improve the scenes. Easier said than done.

Reading these drafts has just reinforced that notion that Structure is the most important part to writing a script. Once that is figured out, the rest will come together. A script is never done until it is being projected up on the big screen. Until you get there, as someone once said, a script is never finished, it’s rewritten. And then it’s rewritten. And then it’s rewritten. And then it’s rewritten.

Unwatched Movie Pile: Dexter – Season 1

2011-02-15T02:31:00.001-08:00

A good portion of my unwatched movie pile are TV sets. Most our shows I’ve either wanted to watch or were recommended to me and so I just picked them up blindly at various sales. Now that I have some time on my hands I decided to dive into a season of something I hadn’t watched before, so I began with season 1 of Dexter.

It seems most of the good shows on TV these days are on the paid cable channels, especially HBO. However, Showtime has made a big push with their programming as well. Not having any of the paid channels I’m forced to wait till DVD release.

Dexter had been recommended by several people so I picked up the first two seasons and just sat them on the shelf figuring one day I would get to it. After finishing the first season I’m ready to get the rest of the seasons and quickly catch up with what I’ve been missing.

The premise is pretty unique. Dexter, played by Michael C. Hall, is a forensic officer that specializes in blood splatter. During the day he investigates murders, but at night he’s a serial killer that uses his psychotic urges to hunt and kill bad people. Dexter is a very complex character and needs to walk a fine line to balance his two different personalities. Hall does a great job portraying the title character. He puts on the facade of a normal person with just the right amount of oddness and calculating persona to hide his true nature. And when he switches roles into his true personality it’s a frightening portrayal.

Within the first season Dexter has to investigate a new serial killer that wow’s him. He is truly impressed with his technique, which quickly turns to jealousy and feelings of inferiority. Soon the killer begins to leave clues specifically for Dexter, letting him know that he is aware of his true nature. He is teasing Dexter, and this drives him nuts. It also puts him in a very complex situation because to reveal the true nature of the clues would require Dexter to reveal his true nature to his colleagues at the police force. The storyline makes for some very compelling drama with lots of tension leading up to a very tense conclusion as the game of cat and mouse between Dexter and the Ice Truck Killer intensifies.

The supporting characters for the most part and pretty one dimensional and offer enough to further along Dexter’s story line. This doesn’t make them bad, there are plenty of interesting stories to be told, but none of them seem as fully developed as Dexter. The look and direction of the episodes doesn’t offer anything new or unique as well. In some ways it almost looks like something made by a film student, but again it doesn’t detract enough from the episodes. The real reason to watch is simply for the character of Dexter and the performance of Michael C. Hall.

The episodes weren’t as graphic as I thought they would be, but there is still plenty of blood and gore that could be tough for the squeamish.

Once I started I really didn’t want to stop and I got through the first season pretty quickly, and I’m ready to start the rest and get caught up. Dexter is simply a fascinating character and fun to watch. I’ve had a few elements of future seasons spoiled for me so I have an idea where it is heading, but I’m still ready for the ride.

If you haven’t seen the show I would highly recommend checking it out. If you are interested in purchasing it you can click on this link to Amazon to purchase it:Dexter: The First Season .

Favorite Films of 2010

2011-01-26T01:36:00.000-08:00

It's been a while, but it's a new year and it's time to get back up on the horse. But before we move forward, it's time to take a look back.

I enjoy and hate doing top 10 lists. They are fun to do because it creates a snapshot of what my tastes were like at this given moment of me writing this. I hate doing them because my tastes are constantly changing. There is still quite a bit of movies released in this last year that I still need to see, which could dramatically change my list. My list has already changed quite a bit over the past 4 weeks. If I were to look back at some of my previous lists I'm sure they would be totally different if I were to write those now. That's the nature of film.

Last year was the first in a while I didn't write a list. Mostly because I didn't see much, and from what I did see I couldn't come up with five films that I really liked, at the most there were maybe 3 looking back that I still feel are pretty good films.

This year, however, there were quite a number of good films that I saw that I wish I could have made room for them all. It wasn't a particularly strong year in terms of films that could be looked back at down the road as classics, but there were a number of really good well made entertaining films.

With that let's jump into my list of my favorite films of the year. These are by no means the best of the year, just the one's that left a strong impression on me, that I will watch or have already watched multiple times, and that I would personally recommend to all of you.

10) KICK-ASS

This film took a lot of grief for it's portrayal of violence, especially with regards to kids, but that was sort of the point of the film. It's a fresh take on the superhero genre with over the top gratuitous violence and vulgar language. It is extremely graphic, but it's also really funny. If it were adults that were doing all of the action in the story the movie would have just been a tired rehash of things we see at the cinema every summer. When the words come out of the mouth of a 12 year old girl while she's beating up thugs to a bloody pulp, that is where the movie finds it's charm. I'd be interested in a sequel to see what directions these characters go in, and apparently that's what is in the works.

9) THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT

Two teenagers with lesbian mothers seek out their biological sperm donor father and forever change the dynamics of their family structure. How can you not find humor in that? The movie's a great character driven story lead by fantastic performances from Julianne Moore and Annette Benning in Oscar worthy performances. There is a great blend of humor and dramatic tension that keeps the plot moving fast and feeling fresh which is a wonderful relief for a character piece. A great independent film.

8) THE KING'S SPEECH

Colin Firth gives a great performance as King George VI during the period of his ascension to the throne while dealing with a crippling speech impediment during the breakthrough of radio. It's a wonderful look how technology was effecting the way the people are governed, and still does to this day. If FDR had to appear on TV he would never have been elected president, and that's just a shame and the reality of our time. Having to speak to the people of England during the threat of war over the radio with a bad stutter must have been humiliating and Firth's performance shows the agony he dealt with. Just as good as Firth is Geoffrey Rush as his speech therapist. The real heart of the film is the relationship between these two men, a commoner and a member of the royal family, and the dynamic of their relationship is what drives the film. The two performances drive the story and make for a wonderful film.

7) UN PROPHETE

This film really surprised me and deserves to be set beside some of the great gangster films of all time like Goodfellas. The story centers around a young Arab man who is sent to a French Prison and must find a way to survive. He doesn't fit in with the Arabs that have their own gang, and he doesn't fit with the old time Mafia types. He soon finds himself being used by both sides and must find a way to adapt to get by, but ends up doing so much more. It's a great story with fine acting, and some really tense action scenes. The ending created some great points for discussion that is just fascinating. Truly worth searching out.

6) THE TOWN

Ben Affleck is creating a great career for himself with his directing. I really liked his first film Gone Baby Gone, and his follow up is even better. He probably knows Boston better than anyone else and uses the location as an important character to the story. The story is a fresh take on the bad gone trying to go good formula. There's a strong supporting cast including Jeremy Renner and Jon Hamm. Renner's character in particular could have been a stereotypical thug but he brings some quiet complication to the motives of the character that helps push the drama. Affleck has created a thrilling and action packed film and he's left me wondering and waiting for whatever he does next.

5) THE FIGHTER

Another Boston based film, this is the true story of brothers Micky Ward and Dicky Eklund and Ward's rise through the boxing ranks with the help of his brother. As far as boxing films go, or sports films in general, it really doesn't do anything new or fresh to reinvent the genre, but it's the performances of the cast that make this film so wonderful. Christian Bale is amazing as the crack addicted burn out that keeps his family down. The whole cast in general is really strong with stand out performances all around, but it’s Bale that drives this movie with a strong counter balanced performance from Wahlberg that really makes the movie work.

4) INCEPTION

I wrote a review about this movie when I first saw it. I’ve seen it several more times and I still don’t have ending figured out. I’ve heard several different theories about the movie and what it’s about, and what happens in the end, and all of the theories can be strongly supported. That is what I love about this film. It’s a strong original concept that is wonderfully photographed. I love that the stunts are done in camera without hardly any CGI. The hallway scene alone is just amazing. I love smart original work that makes you think and Christopher Nolan has definitely supplied that. This is a film you need to see with others so you can have a long philosophical discussion afterwards about what it all means. Hollywood needs to make more of these.

3) TOY STORY 3

I have no problems admitting that I cried with this movie. If you didn’t then you have no soul. This movie made me want to go to my parent’s house and dig out my old toys from the garage and play with them one last time. I’m always weary of sequels, especially to films where the original is so well done that it would be nearly impossible to replicate. In the hands of a lesser studio it would be a recipe for disaster, but Pixar continues to impress and push the boundaries for great film making. Woody, Buzz, and the entire gang are my favorite characters from the Pixar universe, and the final film is a worthy addition to the series, if not maybe the best entry.

There is plenty of laughter, thrills, and tears to fill several movies. And of course the animation is so detailed and amazing. The trash compactor scene is some of the best photography of any film this year, live action or animated. And the final scene shows where the real heart of this franchise lies. It’s a moving scene and a worthy closure to one of the best film series of all time.

2) TRUE GRIT

Some people worship invisible beings, or cows, or short fat bald men, or science fiction writers. I worship the altar of the Coen Brothers. If I could write, or direct, or just be like any one film maker, it would be Joel and Ethan wrapped into one genius artist. The dialogue they create, the performances they get from their actors, and the look they create on celluloid is always far better than anyone deserves. I hadn’t seen the original since I was a kid, and I barely remember it, and I’ve never read the book, and I didn’t want to before seeing this film. I wanted to see it with fresh eyes so I could not judge it against any previous version. It’s a great looking film and stands as a solid depiction of the old west. Jeff Bridges is solid as Rooster Cogburn, as is Matt Damon and the rest of the supporting cast, but it’s Hailee Steinfeld as the young girl desperate for revenge that steals the show. True Grit is a film worthy of the Coen Brothers fantastic catalog that keeps growing with masterpieces with each subsequent film they make.

1) THE SOCIAL NETWORK

My love for this film can be summed up pretty easily: it’s the writing of Aaron Sorkin. One of my favorite writers, he’s done some great film and television work, but his writing on my favorite TV show The West Wing is some of the best dialogue and characters ever created. Sorkin’s dialogue has a certain rhythm and pacing to it, mixed with a certain amount of wit and sarcasm, that just flows so brilliantly and is appeasing to the ear. The opening scene in the film is a fine example of Sorkin’s writing, and it does so much to set up the characters and the tone and premise of the movie without having to spell anything out.

David Fincher get’s great performances out of the entire cast and is especially innovative with his choice for the Winklevoss twins, using one actor and lots of camera and CGI tricks that I never knew until afterwards that it was the same actor playing both roles. A story about some guys creating a website doesn’t sound like it would make for an entertaining movie, but there is plenty of tension and intrigue that makes the film entertaining and never boring. Part of that is the editing back and forth between various law suits and the act of the characters leading up to the law suits, and the other is that the characters are just so entertaining. I’ve seen the film several times and have enjoyed it each time, a sign for me of a very good film.

Well there you have it, my ten favorite films of the year. Honorable mentions go out to The American, Black Swan, and Exit Through the Gift Shop, 3 films I really loved but just could not find room for on my list. A dishonorable mention goes to The Last Airbender, by far the worst film I saw this year, and I saw quite a few bad films. I really do hope Shyamalan can redeem himself because he’s a filmmaker I really enjoy, and his last two films have been really bad.

Well that’s all for now. Here’s to hoping for an even better 2011.

The Start of Movie Night

2010-08-05T21:54:00.000-07:00

For a while now I've been wanting to start a movie night group. A bunch of friends get together once a month to watch an old film and discuss it all the while just hanging out and enjoying each other's company. I tried to start one a couple of years ago but it didn't last very long. Now that I have my own place and better viewing equipment I'm more determined to get this off the ground and keep it going.

The first time I really had no plan. I figured I'd just randomly pick films I was wanting to see and we'd go from there. We pretty much covered a wide range in the three films we watched. We started with City Lights, then Spartacus, and finished up with The Usual Suspects. All three great films from different periods in film history, but no real connection.

For the new and improved movie night I've decided to start by focusing on the films included in the AFI's list of 100 greatest American Films. Looking over that list pretty much all of the American classics are covered. Many I've seen, but quite a few important ones I actually haven't seen. And by talking things over with friends who are wanting to participate there is quite a few classics that they haven't seen as well. The whole point of doing a movie night is to expose each other to different films that we haven't seen but probably should see at some points in our lives if we want to be considered film lovers. Eventually I'd like to get into more obscure classics and into some of the foreign masters, but for now we will stick to the American classics. The AFI list covers a wide range of popular and important films. I plan on alternating between older and newer films and trying to hit a different genre each time so we aren't watching serious dramas month after month. I'm really excited about the potential of this "club" and I hope others will get involved.

For our first night it was a pretty obvious choice as to which film to start with. If we are going to watch films from the AFI list then we might as well start at the top, so we watched Citizen Kane.

When AFI first did their list in 1997 Citizen Kane was chosen as the greatest American film of all time. When they revisited the list ten years later it held on to the top spot. In fact it was one of only two films from the original list not to change positions, the other being Best Years of Our Lives at #37. It has for years been considered the best of the best and a widely heralded film by film critics and fans alike.

The story behind the film is just as entertaining, if not more so, than the film itself. Orson Welles was a highly sought after talent. He made his name in theater and on the radio, famously convincing half of the east coast they were being invaded by Martians in his radio play adaptation of H. G. Wells War of the Worlds. He was brought to Hollywood by RKO and given full reign over any project he wanted to do, a power that in those days was unheard of for a director. The result of his first film at the age of 25 was Citizen Kane.

The story focuses on the world's richest man, a newspaper tycoon who had it all and lost it all. He dabbled in politics and entertainment, and built himself the greatest mansion known to man. He died alone and broken, and left this world with his final words "Rosebud", the McGuffin of the story. A reporter sets out to interview the people from his past to discover what the meaning of that word is, to which he never discovers but the audience does and it's all we need to know who the real Charles Foster Kane was.

The life of Kane hit a bit close to home to William Randolph Hearst, who felt he was being mocked by the film. Hearst was a newspaper tycoon that could easily influence public opinion in any of his numerous news papers. He dabbled in politics and had a relationship with a Hollywood actress. He built himself an elaborate mansion in central California that is a tourist hot spot today. He tried hard to get the film blocked from release and set out to ruin the reputation of Welles. The film was released and a critical success but it was a box office failure. It managed nine Academy Award nominations but it only won one, for the screenplay. Welles struggled to get films made after Citizen Kane, often having them taken away from him or changed against his approval, and thus his career for the most part was ruined by his first film. Citizen Kane was rereleased in the 1950's and had much better box office success, but by then the damage was done. Over time it's status has grown and is now considered one of the best of all time, a stark contrast to how it was originally received.

Before watching the film I gave a little bit of this background information to put the film in context to how it is perceived, and after we watched the film I presented this question to the group: is it the greatest American film of all time?

Everyone in attendance liked the film. They all thought it was a really good movie, but did not understand why it's considered the greatest film of all time. Other suggestions were thrown out as films that they would consider better, such as Casablanca or The Godfather. Based on the films they had seen they had a hard time placing it at the top as the best film of all time, and I tend to agree.

I appreciate the technical aspects of the film, and I think it's an enjoyable film, but I also feel it's a bit dated. I still strongly prefer The Godfather and would put that movie at the top of any list. It's hard to watch Citizen Kane today and realize all of the technical achievements the film made and think of them as fresh and innovative after we've been exposed to decades worth of films that has borrowed heavily from the movie and even pushed things forward.

A lot of the techniques used in Citizen Kane weren't entirely new, some had been tried before, but none had worked quite as effectively in assisting the story like they did with Citizen Kane. When talking about the films achievements most people point to the cinematography. The use of deep focus, keeping characters in the background and foreground in focus, helped create a sense of voyeurism, like we are there watching things unfold. The use of sharp angles helps to establish the power of the characters. Kane is often photographed from low angles making him seem tall and menacing while weaker characters like Susan are photographed from above to make them feel small and vulnerable. There is a lot of use of shadows that would go on to heavily influence Film Noir. It is without a doubt a well photographed film.

For me it's the screenplay that stands out and deserves admiration. The film is not a straight narrative told from A to B. We see the title character die in the very beginning, and his actual life is told through nothing but flashbacks. The story jumps around to different time periods based on who is telling the tale. This technique also establishes the unreliable narrator. Each character that knew Kane is telling their story of the time they knew him, and it is from their perspective of the events. If they did not look at Kane favorably then the story they were telling made Kane look to be in a negative light. Nobody really knew Kane but everyone tells their version of him. The only true glimpse we see of Kane is in his dying words Rosebud. The revelation of what Rosebud is tells us everything we need to know about Kane and is the only reliable truth of what Kane was really like. Point of view narration has been used extensively in literature but hadn't really been experimented with in film up until this point. It opened the door to explore all sorts of new and different narrative techniques in future films. For this alone it deserves plenty of recognition.

These are the reasons that Citizen Kane is so widely hailed as the greatest film of all time. It's definitely worthy of the praise and recognition it receives for it's innovation. I certainly have an appreciation for the film but I have a hard time calling it the best ever. Everyone in attendance seemed to agree. It was fun to see the film through fresh eyes and get their perspective on what they saw and how they perceived and understood the film. It was also fun to share what little knowledge I have on the film and it's history with them and to see if that changed their opinion. We have a lot of films yet to watch, and maybe over time as we see a wide variety of films and learn about their history and innovations their opinions might change and they might see this as truly the greatest American film of all time. I might learn a few new things myself through this group and maybe my opinions will change over time as well. Exposure and experience is the goal of movie night and I'm really excited about the upcoming journey.

Unwatched Movie Pile

2010-07-29T23:59:00.000-07:00

So I've been MIA for a while once again. Quite honestly I just haven't watched any movies recently, and what few I've seen haven't really gotten me all that excited. I used to go to the theater all the time, now I've been maybe five times this year. A lot of it is time, and a lot of it has to do with the quality. I also haven't really watched much at home. My Netflix movies still sit around for months before I get to them.

I did finally move though and I've just about gotten settled into my new place. I have an office now with a brand new desk set up to start focusing on my writing. And even though it might not show up here on the blog, I have started to write more, which is a good thing. Another benefit of the move is that I've finally gotten all of my DVDs out in the open. Most of my collection has been boxed up and buried in the garage for over a year, but now they are all out and organized and ready for me to start watching, and I have a lot to watch, which brings me to this article.

A couple of years ago a writer on another website wrote about his DVD collection and the amount of titles he owned that he had never watched. He set out to watch one movie a day everyday until he got through his collection, and it took him over a year to finish. That got me to thinking about my own DVD collection.

Having worked at various movie stores I've picked up quite a bit of movies over the years, many that I have seen and love and want to own, but many that I've always wanted to see so I've bought in the anticipation of watching one day, and many that were pure blind buys, knowing nothing about the movie and taking a risk at purchasing. There are some that I have no idea why I bought, maybe because they were used and cheap and now it sits on the shelf collecting dust.

I decided to compile a list of what I own that I haven't watched and the numbers are staggering. I could watch a movie a day and it would take me well over a year to finish. I'm close to 400 DVDs that I need to watch, and some of those are box sets with several movies, so the actual amount of movies could be closer to 450. Some of these on my list I have actually seen before but it's so long ago I don't remember it and I'm due for a rewatch, but most I have never seen before. Pretty impressive huh?

So to get myself writing again I've decided to devote an article a week to my unwatched movie pile. Unfortunately I don't have the time to watch a movie a day, so I'm only going to hold myself to one a week. Maybe I'll have time to slip in a few more, but if I can get through one a week I'll be happy. It's all about the baby steps. I'm not sure how long each post will be, I guess it all depends on what I thought of the movie. I'm going to title this series The Unwatched Movie Pile report, or UMP Report for short. Together we can discover some interesting and exciting movies, or perhaps some real duds. Either way maybe I can finally make a dent into this large stack of movies that have been begging to be watched for far too long.

For my first venture into the pile I've decided to go with something a little more commercial than I'm used to but with some interesting back story, which lead me more than anything to pick this up used and give it a try, and that film is The Golden Compass.

The movie is based the series of books His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman. I'm sure it was New Line's hope that this would turn into a new franchise for them after being done with the Lord of the Rings series and the success of other children's franchises like Harry Potter and The Chronicles of Narnia. It is the connection to the Narnia series that got my attention for this film.

The Chronicles of Narnia has been widely praised by religious organizations for it's strong Christian values, as the story is a blatant allegory for the Christ story. They organized viewing parties and rented theaters for church groups to support the film. The amount of effort they put into supporting that film is the same amount of effort they put into trying to get people to avoid The Golden Compass because of it's strong anti religious themes. I had never heard of the series of books prior to this film, and based on the trailer I wouldn't have been that interested in seeing the film, but add controversy to a situation, including anything dealing with religion, and my interest is peaked. So if anything, their protests got someone who wouldn't have watched this film to buy it and check it out.

The movie follows a young girl named Lyra who journeys into a parallel world to find her friend who has been kidnapped. Many children are being kidnapped and taken to this world to be held prisoner and experimented on. In this world every one's soul takes the shape of an animal that is with them at all times, connected by a bond. The leader of this group, played by Nicole Kidman, is trying to find a way to separate the children from their souls. It is up to young Lyra to stop her and rescue the children. I think there was more to the story, but frankly I wasn't all that interested.

Other than the soul aspect of the story, I really didn't get any anti Christianity or religion from the material. There was perhaps a theme of anti establishment or authority, which I suppose can be substituted for religious groups since they hold power and authority. Maybe that theme is more prevalent in the books, having not read them I can not tell, but I don't think director Chris Weitz really tries to play that up. It's basically your typical good versus evil story, a theme older than the Bible itself, except this has lots and lots of special effects.

I really wasn't moved one way or another by the story. It relies a little too heavy on CGI effects. There is an armored polar bear that was visually distracting, but it did have going for it the fact it was voiced by the great Ian McKellen. In fact there are a lot of great actors in the film, including Daniel Craig, Sam Elliott, Ian McShane, and Eva Green. The story is geared towards children, and although some of the scenes might be intense for really young ones, I'm sure kids would really enjoy this film, but it didn't really do all that much for me and I'm not surprised that we haven't heard too much about the following books going into production. I like to think that the story just wasn't there enough and the controversy really didn't have much to do with it's successes or failures.

In fact I was pretty let down by the controversy. The things I was reading while this was in production I was expecting long monologues about God being evil and little kids should be burning their Bibles, but there really isn't anything like that at all. If these groups hadn't protested the film I would never have gotten anything remotely close to the themes they had been suggesting. Again, I'm not familiar with the source material, but it's definitely not in the film.

So I'm not disappointed I dropped five dollars on a used copy, but I probably won't watch it again. It doesn't do anything to stand out from the hundreds of other special effect driven adventure stories that are out there, whether they are geared towards kids or not. For my money neither do the Narnia films, and I've read those books and enjoyed them as a kid, but the movies feel lifeless and sort of like a paint by numbers assembly of a film. Kids enjoy them however, and I'm sure kids would enjoy the Golden Compass. It's not Harry Potter, and it's not Lord of the Rings, but then again hardly any film can aspire to that. Hopefully the next film I choose from the pile will be a bit better, for now this goes into the viewed section of my collection where it will sit until someday I have a kid who is bored and has seen everything else, maybe I'll pull this DVD out to distract him or her. I could do far worse. Until next time...

INCEPTION

2010-07-18T14:18:00.000-07:00

In a summer full of traditional Hollywood tried and true retreads, it's nice to see an original be given a chance to succeed. Inception, the new film from Dark Knight director Christopher Nolan, is definitely an original by today's standards. It's a thoroughly engaging and entertaining film that leaves a lot to admire, even if it's far from perfect.

There is no real easy way to summarize the film. To say the story is about a group of thieves that infiltrate their targets dreams to steal information is doing a disservice to the several layers of plot that is going on in the film. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Cobb, the leader of the group who is plagued with a lot of guilt from his dark troubled past. His past is starting to creep it's way into his work which is making things difficult for the team. Because of his past he is no longer able to return home to see his kids, he is forced to go on the run in order to avoid extradition back to the states. Ken Watanabe plays Saito, a powerful business man looking for help with his competition. Saito hires Cobb to do the opposite of their extraction process, he wants them to plant an idea into the mind of his lone rival Fischer, played by Cillian Murphy, to disband his father's empire and sell it off. Implanting the idea will require diving deep into the subconscious of their target by forcing dreams within dreams. If they are able to succeed than Saito can guarantee Cobb his freedom and the opportunity to return home to his family. Sounds simple enough right?

Inception is playing with multiple genres. Where Blade Runner combined Science Fiction with Film Noir, and The Matrix combined Science Fiction with Martial Arts, Inception is combining Science Fiction with a heist film, but mostly it's a character driven melodrama. It isn't the action or special effects that drive the film, it's the characters and the dialogue, and there is a lot of dialogue. Cobb is a complex and broken character. There is a lot going on under the surface, and in a line of work that deals mainly with what is going on under the surface this is a dangerous state of mind to be in. The danger and threat to the characters comes from Cobb's demons. If he can't come to terms with his past then it could kill his entire team. It's a fresh approach for a summer blockbuster and a nice change of pace.

It's a long film but it rarely slows down to make you notice. The third act does run a bit long and that is where a majority of the story happens, but it's engaging the entire time and it keeps things tense. The first half of the film is entirely set up. Lots of exposition with plenty of dialogue and explaining of the world and the upcoming assignment, but it never feels forced, but rather necessary. Nolan has created a complex plot that is extremely detailed, every step must be performed perfectly, and the entire process must be explained to the team, and in a sense the audience, in order to pull it off perfectly without not only failing, but getting themselves lost in the multiple dream worlds so as not to wake up a vegetable.

By the end of the film I found myself questioning what I had just seen. Did all of this really happen or was it in itself just a dream? It's totally left for interpretation and that is how I like it. The film is asking you from the very beginning to pay attention and it doesn't try to dumb things down to make you understand by pandering to the lowest common denominator. There are plenty of other films out this summer that take care of that for you. The movie doesn't apologize for it's intelligence, and I wish more filmmakers would follow suit.

Inception is a remarkably engaging story, expertly filmed by one of the best working today. I was truly amazed by the film and I will definitely need to see it again to try and catch some things I might have missed to help solve the ending a bit better. But as much as I loved the movie it is far from perfect. I would have loved to have seen some more crazy and outlandish scenarios in the deeper dream sequences. I loved the scenes in the hallway with Joseph Gordon-Levitt fighting while they are falling in the first dream and that sense of falling is implanted on their next level dream, causing a sense of weightlessness while he fights the bad guys. I would have liked to have seen more of that in the third dream state during the snow fight. Nolan has created a world where anything is possible and he has shown us as much during the training scenes with Ellen Page, I would have liked to have seen the stakes raised during these later scenes.

In the grand scheme of things these complaints are minor and they don't detract from the overall enjoyment of the film. It won't go down as a game changer like films such as Blade Runner and The Matrix may have, but it is a really good and well made film. Compared to what is out in theaters now this film is darn near masterful and it's just refreshing that in a season long parade of intellectually insulting garbage passed along as the best Hollywood has to offer, it's so refreshing to see something written with intelligence and thought that is also entertaining. The movie going experience would be so much better if all filmmakers and producers took as much care and craftsmanship into their product. If more people see more films like this and less of what is already out there than perhaps that would be the case. For that reason alone I can not recommend enough to see this movie, you'll be glad you did.

My Favorite Films Part 6: #1-10

2010-01-24T00:41:00.000-08:00

Finally, after all this time, we have made it to the final ten. It’s my ten favorite films of all time. As usual let’s refresh on the titles that got us to this point.

#100) His Girl Friday (1940)
#99) 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
#98) Adaptation (2002)
#97) Being John Malkovich (1999)
#96) Groundhog Day (1993)
#95) Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002)
#94) Boogie Nights (1997)
#93) Apocalypse Now (1979)
#92) Barton Fink (1991)
#91) The Big Lebowski (1998)
#90) Breathless (1960)
#89) Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)
#88) Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)
#87) Apollo 13 (1995)
#86) Rashomon (1950)
#85) Pink Floyd’s the Wall (1982)
#84) Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)
#83) Rope (1948)
#82) Good Night and Good Luck (2005)
#81) Wild Bunch (1969)
#80) Do the Right Thing (1989)
#79) Dr. Strangelove (1964)
#78) Unbreakable (2000)
#77) Miller’s Crossing (1990)
#76) Matrix (1999)
#75) There Will Be Blood (2007)
#74) Fargo (1996)
#73) This Is Spinal Tap (1984)
#72) Toy Story (1995)
#71) The Sixth Sense (1999)
#70) Dogma (1999)
#69) Die Hard (1988)
#68) Equilibrium (2002)
#67) Some Like it Hot (1959)
#66) Jurassic Park (1993)
#65) Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2003)
#64) The Fountain (2006)
#63) Young Frankenstein (1974)
#62) Children of Men (2006)
#61) North by Northwest (1959)
#60) Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
#59) Braveheart (1996)
#58) Unforgiven (1992)
#57) Three Kings (1999)
#56) Rounders (1998)
#55) The Prestige (1996)
#54) South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut (1999)
#53) Garden State (2004)
#52) Office Space (1999)
#51) Once (2007)
#50) A Few Good Men (1992)
#49) Saving Private Ryan (1998)
#48) Galaxy Quest (1999)
#47) Ocean’s Eleven (2001)
#46) Rushmore (1998)
#45) Blazing Saddles (1974)
#44) The Thin Red Line (1998)
#43) Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkhaban (2004)
#42) To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
#41) The Maltese Falcon (1941)
#40) Leon – The Professional (1994)
#39) Pulp Fiction (1994)
#38) Out of Sight (1998)
#37) 12 Monkeys (1995)
#36) Cinema Paradiso (1988)
#35) O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)
#34) Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
#33) Almost Famous (2000)
#32) The Princess Bride (1987)
#31) Schindler’s List (1993)
#30) Singin’ in the Rain (1952)
#29) Memento (2000)
#28) Shawshank Redemption (1994)
#27) Silence of the Lambs (1991)
#26) Network (1976)
#25) Narc (2002)
#24) Lord of the Rings – The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
#23) Raiders of the Lost Arc (1981)
#22) Reservoir Dogs (1992)
#21) Dark City (1998)
#20) Goodfellas (1990)
#19) All the President’s Men (1976)
#18) Star Wars – the Empire Strikes Back (1980)
#17) American Beauty (1999)
#16) Requiem for a Dream (2000)
#15) Clerks (1994)
#14) Swingers (1996)
#13) L.A. Confidential (1997)
#12) Heat (1995)
#11) Chinatown (1974)

And without further ado, the final ten films.

#10) Se7en (1995)

It’s dark, it’s original, and pretty damn spooky. Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman play off each other with great chemistry as detectives with completely different methods trying to solve a twisted crime. Freeman is the detective on his way out, and Pitt is his incoming replacement. Together they have a short time to find a serial killer that is using the seven deadly sins as his muse. Director David Fincher creates a very dark and somber mood that enhances the theme of society gone to hell. The methods and inspiration for the killings are extremely clever and original. It keeps you guessing through the entire film. There comes a time when the film makers could have taken the predictable Hollywood way out to end it but instead they stick to their guns and keep it dark all the way through with no real happy ending. This story is a great testament to writer Andrew Kevin Walker, who showed great potential with this film and then just disappeared for a while, although he is making a come back with the upcoming Wolf Man film. Everyone involved in this film is at the top of their game. It is truly one of the best crime dramas of all time.

#9) The Insider (1999)

There are so many great performances in this film, but none better than Russell Crowe. His role as a former tobacco executive turned informant is probably the best of his career and deserved an Oscar, more so than his performance in Gladiator. Many say that his win for Gladiator was really a delayed reward for this film. The film is an epic tale of greed and corruption told with great style from film maker Michael Mann. What makes the story even more upsetting is that it’s completely true, based on an article and interview from a 60 Minutes segment in the mid 90’s. Whether you believe in a coverup by the Tobacco industry or not, the investigative process that film focuses on to uncover the truth is truly captivating and entertaining. Just a fantastic film.

#8) The Usual Suspects (1995)

The sad thing about my first experience with this film is that I had the ending spoiled for me before I had a chance to see the movie. I went over to a friends house where a bunch of people had gotten together to watch a movie, and I just happened to arrive during the final ten minutes of the film. When the reveal happens, and I asked who was Keyser Soze and everyone realized I hadn’t seen the movie they all screamed at me to get out, but it was too late, I knew who Keyser Soze was. But you know what, it really doesn’t matter. Although that twist and revelation is one of the biggest surprises in film history, it’s the process of getting there that makes the film so exciting. It’s a brilliantly crafted script that keeps you guessing, and even at the very end, we have no idea if what we’ve seen and been told is really true. The entire story could just be that, a made up story to not only fool the cops, but to fool us, the audience. There are so many possibilities with this story, and that is what makes it so good.

#7) Fight Club (1999)

I love a good message film, and that is what Fight Club really is. Never mind the graphic senseless head bashing and adolescent debauchery that our characters thrive on, what the film is really commenting on is our society’s addiction to materialistic possessions. We are all defined by our stuff. It’s a damning trait that our culture has taken on to an alarming level. Behind the adrenaline fueled fights, what is really at the heart of Fight Club is destroying the institutions that fuel our materialistic addictions. It might be a theme that was lost on some but it is really what feeds the motivations of our heroes Tyler Durden and our initially nameless narrator played by Brad Pitt and Edward Norton. Based on a book by Chuck Palahniuk and expertly and stylistically directed by David Fincher, Fight Club is a smart and entertaining film that gives a big middle finger towards the establishment.

#6) JFK (1991)

As much as I like a good message movie, I love a good conspiracy even more. And for me, there is no bigger conspiracy than the assassination of President Kennedy. I truly believe that there was more than one shooter, and Oliver Stone’s film presents enough evidence to make you think. Based on real events and a real trial, the film is effective as a great detective mystery story. Oliver Stone’s style of quick edits with random footage spliced in is at full effect, but unlike some of his later work it doesn’t overwhelm; it in fact enhances the story being told. There are many great performances throughout the film, but it is the story that fascinates me. I can’t say that the people accused of being involved in the film are the true criminals behind one of the most tragic moments in American history, but there is no denying more than Oswald being involved, whether he was involved at all. It’s a remarkable film and a mesmerizing look into one of the great conspiracies of all time.

#5) Magnolia (1999)

And as much as I like a good conspiracy, I love me a good character driven film as well. Do character driven films get any better than Magnolia? There are so many well developed characters that drive the heart of the story. At its core, the film is about a group of people, many have no connection, but some do, that are concurrently experiencing the worst day of their lives. And then it starts to rain frogs. The point is that these things happen, and it is how you handle the situation and come out the other side that defines who you are. Paul Thomas Anderson directs a great cast to several strong performances, but ultimately it’s his script that makes this a remarkable film. Each story is strong enough to warrant it’s own film, but put together as a collective story and you witness each character experiencing the same struggles it makes the theme even more powerful. From the writing, acting, direction, cinematography, and the score, it is a masterfully great film.

#4) The Godfather Part II (1974)

It’s not very often that a sequel is considered greater than the original, but in many circles The Godfather Part II is considered far superior to the original. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but it comes awfully damn close, but I’ll get into that later. As a stand alone film it really is a great movie. Part II delves more into the history of the Corleone family to explore deeper the themes of fathers and sons. We get to see both generations of father and son and the paths that lead them to the life they have lead. The father Vito is successful and happy with his power and family, while the son Michael is the conflicted one who tries to bring legitimacy to the family business but ends up doing more of the same and isolating himself from everyone he loves ending up alone. It is a work of mastery from Francis Ford Coppola and it should have just ended there instead of the horrible third film. The final shot is all we need to know what happens after the film ended. It is a fantastic work of art.

#3) Taxi Driver (1976)

To me, Travis Bickle is one of the great characters in film history, if not the greatest. The emotional and psychological journey he goes through during the course of the film is truly fascinating and haunting. The way that Robert De Niro plays him leaves the character open to interpretation. Is Bickle really sane or completely crazy? Is he trying to do good or bad? What does he say about the veterans returning from Vietnam? What effect does the decay of the big city and society in general have on him? There are a lot of layers to Travis Bickle that are open to interpretation and that is due not only to the great performance from De Niro but the brilliant direction of Martin Scorsese. It’s an iconic role and one of the best films of all time.

#2) Jaws (1975)

A few years back I had a chance to see a screening of Jaws at the Arclight Theater as part of their AFI screening series. I had seen the film so many times before, as I’m sure many in the audience had, but I had never seen it screened in a theater before with a large audience. Three fourths of the way into the film we get our first look at the shark. It’s the famous scene where Roy Scheider’s character Chief Brody is dumping fish guts into the ocean to lure the shark out so that they can capture it and kill it, and while yelling back at Quint and Hooper the shark pokes it’s head out of the water to take a giant gulp of the guts before dropping back under the water. At that one moment the entire audience let out a scream and simultaneously lifted their feet from the floor into the air for fear of being bitten themselves. Thirty years after the film first appeared and it still had the same effect of fear on its audience, even when most of them knew the scene was coming. I can’t think of a better way to describe the power this film has had, not only on audiences all over but on me as well. I had seen the film so many times, yet I was one of those that had that same reaction.

Waiting to show the shark so late, and so little in the film, was more fortunate luck for the film crew out of the technical issues that caused them to change their approach than it was planned out. It’s a lesson that has served Spielberg tremendously throughout his entire career, learning the lessons of Hitchcock that anything our imagination can conjure up is scarier than anything they could show. It is a truly frightening yet thoroughly entertaining film. It’s the film that created the summer blockbuster, put Spielberg on the map, and began the long successful collaboration between Spielberg and composer John Williams. Would Jaws have been so successful without the iconic music created by Williams? It’s an important film as far as the history of cinema goes, and it’s a well crafted film, but more importantly it’s a very entertaining and fun film. It continues to hold up to this day and I imagine it will for generations.

#1) The Godfather Part I (1972)

When I first set out to make this list I tried to take every aspect of film making when ranking my films. To me, The Godfather is the most perfect film. From writing, directing, acting, set design, costumes, cinematography, and musical score, every aspect of the film is perfect. Like I said earlier, some people think that the second film is better, but for me it’s close but I prefer the more linear storyline of the first film. It’s an epic tale of family, loyalty, and power. It’s the story of a father trying to make a life for his family. There is the son who yearns to be different, who doesn’t want to follow in his father’s footsteps, but the more he tries the more he realizes he’s the same. No matter how hard Michael tries to do good, he can not resist his calling. It’s a deep complex story with lots of multidimensional characters that is extremely entertaining. It is probably one of the most quoted films of all time as well, with so many great lines that have many meanings to one’s life, as was humorously pointed out in the film You’ve Got Mail. I’ve seen it so many times, from VHS, DVD, on the big screen, and now on Bluray, and it never gets old. It is quite simply the greatest film ever made.

And there you have it. My list is finally complete. I hope you’ve enjoyed it and found some films you may have never heard of. It took a while to get through but I’m glad I did. Now it’s time to move on to some other lists. See ya next time.

My Favorite Films Part 5: #11 - 40

2010-01-07T21:03:00.000-08:00

Let's just go ahead and jump right back into it shall we? Here is the next set of titles of my 100 favorite films of all time.

#40) Leon – The Professional (1994)

#39) Pulp Fiction (1994)

#38) Out of Sight (1998)

#37) 12 Monkeys (1995)

#36) Cinema Paradiso (1988)

#35) O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)

#34) Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)

#33) Almost Famous (2000)

#32) The Princess Bride (1987)

#31) Schindler’s List (1993)

#30) Singin’ in the Rain (1952)

#29) Memento (2000)

#28) Shawshank Redemption (1994)

#27) Silence of the Lambs (1991)

#26) Network (1976)

#25) Narc (2002)

#24) Lord of the Rings – The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

I include all the films here. Some say that’s cheating, but they were all filmed together as one long film cut into three. The book was originally written as one story but divided into three by the publishers who thought it was too long. It’s hard to choose between the three because it really is just one long story. So call it cheating if you like, but that doesn’t change the fact that this series is one of the best achievements in cinema history.

#23) Raiders of the Lost Arc (1981)

#22) Reservoir Dogs (1992)

#21) Dark City (1998)

#20) Goodfellas (1990)

#19) All the President’s Men (1976)

#18) Star Wars – the Empire Strikes Back (1980)

Ten years ago this would have been at the top of my list. If I have to rank the entire trilogy in order then the Empire Strikes Back would be followed by A New Hope and then Return of the Jedi. It’s hard to deny the influence this series has had on my generation. I love the art of film because of my love for Star Wars. The original film changed the course of film history with its innovative special effects, merchandising and marketing potential, and its enormous take in box office. The summer blockbuster was born with Star Wars. As I’ve grown older my tastes in film have changed some, but I can’t deny that this should be higher. The bad taste left from the prequel trilogy as well as the altering of great films by denying their existence and only observing the special editions as the only options has caused it to slip on this list. Despite that, Star Wars will always be special and important for me; I just can’t call it my favorite film of all time anymore.

#17) American Beauty (1999)

#16) Requiem for a Dream (2000)

#15) Clerks (1994)

#14) Swingers (1996)

#13) L.A. Confidential (1997)

#12) Heat (1995)

#11) Chinatown (1974)

I’ll end it there for now and be back with my top ten favorite films of all time. Feel free to criticize or critique my list, or take a guess at the top ten. I welcome all feedback. Until next time…

My Favorite Films Part 4: #41 - 70

2010-01-03T23:01:00.000-08:00

First off, happy New Year everyone.

So I guess it’s been a while since I’ve updated my list of 100 favorite films. I’ve chronicled enough about my writing and playing catch up. Now with the end of the year and already beginning on those year end and decade end list, I figure I should try to finish this first. So let’s just get this out there. Here is an update of the films I’ve already covered so far to refresh your memory.

#100) His Girl Friday
#99) 2001: A Space Odyssey
#98) Adaptation
#97) Being John Malkovich
#96) Groundhog Day
#95) Confessions of a Dangerous Mind
#94) Boogie Nights
#93) Apocalypse Now
#92) Barton Fink
#91) The Big Lebowski
#90) Breathless
#89) Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
#88) Glengarry Glen Ross
#87) Apollo 13
#86) Rashomon
#85) Pink Floyd’s the Wall
#84) Outlaw Josey Wales
#83) Rope
#82) Good Night and Good Luck
#81) Wild Bunch
#80) Do the Right Thing
#79) Dr. Strangelove
#78) Unbreakable
#77) Miller’s Crossing
#76) Matrix
#75) There Will Be Blood
#74) Fargo
#73) This Is Spinal Tap
#72) Toy Story
#71) The Sixth Sense

And now let’s just get back into it shall we? I’ll just present the titles and leave my comments for my top ten films.

#70) Dogma (1999)

#69) Die Hard (1988)

#68) Equilibrium (2002)

#67) Some Like it Hot (1959)

#66) Jurassic Park (1993)

#65) Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2003)

#64) The Fountain (2006)

#63) Young Frankenstein (1974)

#62) Children of Men (2006)

#61) North by Northwest (1959)

#60) Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)

#59) Braveheart (1996)

#58) Unforgiven (1992)

#57) Three Kings (1999)

#56) Rounders (1998)

#55) The Prestige (1996)

#54) South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut (1999)

#53) Garden State (2004)

#52) Office Space (1999)

#51) Once (2007)

#50) A Few Good Men (1992)

#49) Saving Private Ryan (1998)

#48) Galaxy Quest (1999)

#47) Ocean’s Eleven (2001)

#46) Rushmore (1998)

#45) Blazing Saddles (1974)

#44) The Thin Red Line (1998)

#43) Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkhaban (2004)

The whole Harry Potter series really, but the third film directed by Alfonso Cuaron is by far my favorite. He added a new fresh visual element that brought real life to the franchise. He also introduced an element of darkness to the series that eventually needed to come, but he made it his own. I really wish the other directors would have continued with what he started. The third film stands out from all the others because of Cuaron’s influence. I know that fans of the books were unhappy with the third film, but it is because of the third film that finally got me interested in the series and lead me to read the books. Forget the books or the adaptation, strictly as a film The Prisoner of Azkhaban is the best in the series.

#42) To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)

#41) The Maltese Falcon (1941)

Just forty more to go. I'll be back soon with the rest. Stay tuned guys and gals.

I've Gone Blu

2009-12-17T23:27:00.000-08:00

I tried to stay away from the format wars when the next generation high definition DVDs first came out. Whichever format I would have chosen would have been the loser. And even when Bluray won I was hesitant to switch, mostly due to cost, but also I didn't feel the technology was really ready.

About a year ago I got my first HDTV. Playing DVDs through a standard player with no HD hook up was pretty hard to deal with. The picture was bad and not fully taking advantage of the power of the television. I put off watching many of the DVDs I had bought because I simply wanted to wait until I could see them in better quality.

A few months back when Sony decided to drop the price for the PS3 I decided it was time to upgrade. I knew if I ever switched to bluray that I would go with a PS3. For the price you get a top notch player with Internet capabilities, which is important, as well as a great gaming system. It seemed like the perfect player.

I mention the importance of the Internet hook up because of the updates that are necessary for the bluray players, something that most retailers don't tell you when selling you the stand alone players. Because the technology is still new, there are constantly firmware updates that are necessary to keep the players up to date and able to play the latest discs. Without the updates you could see up to ten minutes of delay waiting for a disc to load, if it would even load at all. We had lots of customers bringing us discs back because they wouldn't play, and they had no idea about the updates. Most often, once the updates were done then problem solved. Having the built in wireless Internet makes the updates simple and fast. A lot of the older and cheaper players don't have Internet and it will require a download and burn to a disc to upload the updates each time, which to me is a major turn off. So if you are looking to convert I highly recommend getting a player with Internet capabilities.

I've had the player for about 3 months now and all I've really used it for is to play DVDs. There is a definite upgrade to the picture compared to the standard DVD players hooked up to an HDTV. What I did notice is flaws in the pictures, mainly in the dark parts of the picture. The blacks were extremely black hiding away a lot of detail in the picture, but I was also getting ghosting or burn in when an image would would move across the blacks. This is where I learned about calibrating the TV. What happened to the days when you would buy a television and take it out of the box and it was ready to go? I bought a calibration disc and I've spent hours trying to get the picture right and I'm still not pleased. I've gotten the dark's a bit under control but I still get the ghosting effect. I'm not sure if this is because of the refresh rate on my TV or the calibration, but it can be a bit annoying at times. I've tried to research it some, and fiddle around with the settings, but I still can't get it to the perfect image that I want.

After all of this time spent messing with the picture and testing the player with DVDs I figured it was time I try watching an actual bluray. I bought my first bluray disc a year ago in anticipation of someday getting a player. I've hung on to this disc all this time and figured it would be the first movie I watch. So for my first bluray experience I watched The Dark Knight.

I hadn't seen the movie in a while so I had forgotten how good it really is. The first thing that stood out to me in regards to the bluray experience are the Imax scenes. The film is shot in a 2:33 to 1 ratio, so you still get small black bars on the screen even on a wide screen TV. For the scenes shot in Imax the image expands to fill up the entire screen, just as it did on the Imax screens, and this was a really cool effect. The amount of detail in the image is definitely noticeable compared to the DVD. The blacks looked much better for the blurays compared to the DVDs, and the overall image is much more crisp and vibrant.

What really stood out though was the sound. When I bought my player, I also bought a new surround sound receiver to go with it. The surround mix was really well done, with an enhancement on the score and definite more pop in the explosions and sound effects.

While watching The Dark Knight again I had forgotten how well made a film it is. Some people call it the best superhero movie ever made, and some don't really see it as a superhero film. I think the reason the film was so successful financially and critically was because of the approach of the film. I don't really see it as a superhero film. There are bits of several genres that can be seen and pulled from the film that appeals to fans of different types of films that are able to relate to the story and acting. For me, I see it more as a Film Noir type story. There are a lot of the elements of the genre present, from characters to aesthetics that are typical of Film Noir movies. This type of dissection is probably best left for another article however. Or perhaps I can create my own commentary for the film and post it online for others to choose and watch and listen to while watching their Dark Knight bluray. Creating your own commentary is another cool feature that is available only on Blurays with Bluray Live.

There is a definitely a noticeable difference between the DVDs and blurays. The problem now lies in whether to buy blurays exclusively or to continue to purchase DVDs. The problem with blurays is I can only play them on that one player, so I can't watch on my laptop or take to some one's house to view them. I like the idea of some of the blurays coming out in combo packs. I wish more would do that because I would definitely purchase those versions. I bought Star Trek on bluray and my wife brought it to my parents house on Thanksgiving, only to realize we couldn't watch it because they don't have a bluray player. We also brought Up, which is in a combo pack so were able to play it, even though we never did and I still haven't seen it, but with the combo pack we have options.

Whether the studios adapt to the combo packs, or they do what Universal just announced which is a "flipper disc" which has the bluray on one side and DVD on the other, there will still be a format war going on. These flipper discs are not a good idea and will lead to nothing but problems. Whatever the solution, I think both formats are still going to be with us for quite some time. It was smart of them to allow for the DVDs to be able to play on the bluray players, so there is no need for me to replace my thousand movies with the latest format. I will continue to purchase DVDs unless it's a film that would look amazing in the high definition format in which case I will purchase it on bluray, or if it is available in a combo pack I will purchase those.

If you are on the fence on this format I think this next year is the year to convert. The players and discs are starting to come down in price and there are a lot more catalog titles being released, as well as new releases and television shows. In order to truly take advantage of the quality you will need the TV, surround receiver, hdmi cables, which means a lot of money, and a lot of patience to get it set up right. Once you do, you won't be disappointed. Now if I can only get my calibration perfected I will truly be happy. Even despite that, I am satisfied from what I've seen so far. For those who have converted, I'm curious to hear your stories and suggestions.

2012

2009-12-01T22:23:00.000-08:00

I remember in the summer of 1996 seeing the movie Independence Day for the first time. The special effects for that time were pretty original with a realistic blend of CGI and model effects. The iconic shot of the White House being blown apart was something that I hadn't seen before. It was a fun summer film that I went back to see at least four times in theaters.

I saw it again recently playing on cable and I marveled at how bad it is now. The effects still hold up, but the story, dialogue and acting are just pretty bad and forgettable. The movie certainly does not hold up for me all these years later. Whether it's my tastes have changed drastically, which they most definitely have, or just the quality of the film that I didn't see at the time, I'm not sure why but it's just a forgettable film.

That is the best way I can think of to describe Roland Emmerich's latest film 2012.

The plot is pretty thin and simple. The film takes advantage of the world's fear and obsession with the upcoming end of the world in 2012 as predicted by the Mayans. Whether it's from a solar flare or another cosmic event, global warming, or just the year where we all finally nuke each other and bring an end to mankind, 2012 is believed to be the year of armageddon. In the movie the environments quickly change and the core of the earth begins to melt causing the earths crust to move and shift, eventually bringing on lots of destruction. The world's governments have built a number of arcs to float in the rising waters when the end comes and to save and protect those wealthy enough to buy a seat on the ship so that they can save mankind.

Thus begins the journey of John Cusack and his family as they travel across the world and sneak on to the ship to be saved. That one sentence is the extent of the entire plot of the film. The rest is just filler material until the next action sequence where something else will blow up. Some of the dialogue and acting is pretty laughable, but the action scenes are well done. There is a nice blend of model and CGI work, just as in Independence Day. Using actual models helps create a sense of realism rather than the falseness that can be created in an all digital world and makes the action and effects more thrilling.

As thrilling as those effect are, they are truly unbelievable. I don't mind suspending disbelief for a film like this, but how many various natural disasters can one person avoid before finally being knocked off? Rising grounds, falling buildings, flaming boulders, ash storms, floods, you name it, they escape and survive it. As exciting as it is, it just became a bit too much after a while.

Despite it's many flaws, I must admit that I was actually entertained during the film. For what it is 2012 is a fun summer popcorn flick, just premiering in the wrong season. It's all fluff and no substance, but still fun for what it is. That fun won't lead to repeat viewings however, for like Independence Day this movie is quickly forgettable. If you are looking to check your mind at the door and just be entertained for a couple hours and not think at all, then this is the movie for you. Just remember to reattach your brain on the way out of the theater. Heaven forbid you would have to return for a repeat viewing.

Where The Wild Thing Has Been

2009-11-19T21:30:00.000-08:00

Hi, remember me?

I hadn't realized how long it has been since I've written anything. It's funny how fast things can change and how long it takes to adjust. I figured once the wedding was over and I got moved in and settled things would go back to normal, but that hasn't been the case.

We are still looking for a new home with no luck. The promotion has lead to a lot more hours working, and with the long drive it leaves me with less time to focus and more exhausted than usual. And an important aspect of writing is having that comfortable writing spot to work in. I have yet to find it. I've tried the couch, the kitchen table, and even the floor, and none of it works. With all of the apartment hunting we've been doing we are looking for a place with a spare room to use as an office. I'm trying to make sure there is enough space, it's comfortable and ideal for working. As long as I have my comfy chair, my rock fountains, and silence than I can make it work. So far I haven't found it. So here I sit leaning back on the couch and typing away for the first time in months, trying to make it work.

Another problem with all of the chaos is that I simply haven't watched a lot of movies. I spent August trying to play catch up and I did see a few movies in a short span. The Hangover was pretty hilarious and I'm thankful that my bachelor party turned out nothing like that. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince was better than the last one but I wish they would have handled the ending better and more like the book. Still, it sets up the final film, or films now, pretty well and is going to be an exciting ending. District 9 was really original and entertaining. The real success of the film was the number of different stories that could have been told and in different ways. A truly deep and fascinating world was created by the writer that leads to so many possibilities, yet the story chosen did not disappoint at all. And the themes explored that relate to our current society in regards to immigration and racism are handled really well and never feel like we are being hit over the head with their messages. And then there was Inglorious Basterds. I love Tarantino, especially his scripts, but this felt a little too loose. I love good dialogue, but I felt there was a bit too much that went on for too long and didn't really lead to much. The story of the Basterds seemed almost like a subplot and didn't take up too much screen time. I felt myself constantly waiting for them to get back on screen and a little bored at times waiting. Not sure if it was the pacing, or editing, but it just felt a little off. Although the performance of Christoph Waltz as Col. Landa was pretty spectacular. A movie more focused on the Basterds or Landa would have been entertaining, but instead there are a number of stories stuffed into a two and a half hour movie that just didn't quite work for me.

And after that I never got back to the movies. I didn't even really watch anything at home. Just a lot of television and a lot of hockey. After a two month break I've finally made it out to the movies, and now it's time to get back to writing as well.

Only a true visionary like Spike Jonze can get me out of my funk and back into a movie theatre. I've loved everything he has done, from his short feature film career to his extensive work directing music videos. He has a truly original imagination and a talent for translating that imagination into entertaining moving images.

I really wasn't familiar with the story "Where the Wild Things Are" before seeing the film. I ended up reading it after seeing the movie, or rather looking at it. There are only a couple of sentences in the whole story and most of it is told through illustrations. There isn't much there at all to work with so Jonze had to really invent a lot in order to make a full length feature film out of this short story. The story he does come up with is really moving and thoughtful and something I could relate to.

Max Records plays the young boy Max. Max spends a lot of time alone with nothing but his imagination to keep him company. His sister is in her teens and does not want to be bothered with having her little brother around. Max's mom, played by Catherine Keener, is a struggling single mom just trying to make ends meet. In a moment when she is trying to look after her own needs by having a man over, Max is upset over being ignored. After a fight with his mom he runs away and that is when his journey begins.

Although the movie is based on a beloved children's story, I didn't feel it was a kids movie at all. If anything, I think kids would be bored with the story. The film is geared more towards adults who wish to look back at their childhood and remember what it was like to have an imagination to escape to when things were rough. There is a strong sense of melancholy throughout the film that would not set easy with young children. There isn't a lot of action to keep the kids focused either. It is more of a character study disguised in a children's story.

There are the great costumes though designed by the Jim Henson company that will attract the kids. The costumes are great, but it is the facial features and reactions that really bring the characters alive. Watching the wild things roaming around brought me back to moments in my childhood and films like The Dark Crystal and The Neverending Story. The creatures in those films were more than just puppets, they were real characters that had depth and interacted and had more life than any cgi character ever could. The detail in the design added a lot of weight to the characters and story that I really enjoyed. Watching them interact with Max was a lot of fun to see and really helped develop the one real human character in this imaginative world.

The movie had a great soundtrack as well, with music by Carter Burwell and lyrics and vocals by Karen O, lead singer of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs. The songs had a child like playfulness sound that made me smile when watching Max running around, building his forts, and trying to find a way to bring happiness to his new Wild Thing family.

Where the Wild Things Are has had a long road to cinemas. Jonez has been working on this for a number of years and he's gone through a lot of delays, reshoots, and cancellations to finally get it into theaters. The final product is a truly moving film and lives up to the timeless tale it is based on. Even though it is a child's story, I wouldn't recommend it for kids. Not that there is anything bad or offensive about it, but there isn't enough in it to keep them entertained. For adults looking for an entertaining and moving story however, I highly recommend it. There is some sadness that shadows the story, but in the end I felt hopeful and uplifted at what the future holds for Max. It is these feelings and themes that I related to and that dragged me into the story and kept my attention. Hopefully you find it just as rewarding as I did.

(500) Days of Summer

2009-08-04T22:58:00.000-07:00

One of the tag lines for the film (500) Days of Summer is "This is not a love story. This is a story about love." That couldn't describe this film any better.

Do you remember being young and in love? Remember that first moment when you saw the one? Remember all of those awkward moments of trying to get up the nerve to talk to her/him? Remember the elation of that first kiss? The many happy, fun, and joyful moments that would follow? Remember that moment when you knew things weren't right, that the relationship was on the down swing? Remember that agonizing feeling of loss when the relationship was over? That feeling of wanting to die because there would never be another like her? The days and weeks spent in bed wallowing in your misery, listening to depressing music, writing bad poetry, just wanting the pain to end and go away?

I sure as hell do.

(500) Days of Summer captures these feelings that come with being in love perfectly with a great balance of humor, sweetness, and of course sadness. This movie isn't about a couple being in love, but more about the process of falling in and out of love.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Tom, a hopeless romantic who feels his life won't truly begin until he finds his one true love. Zooey Deschanel plays Summer, the object of his desire and sorrow, a woman that doesn't believe in love but rather just living in the moment, free of any pressure or commitment. Both Gordon-Levitt and Deschanel give great heartfelt performances. Together Tom and Summer go through an entertaining and realistic journey of love. One that many of us have experienced several times. But who's viewpoints are correct? Does true love exist? This is the ultimate question that the film seeks to answer.

From the opening title cards you know right off the bat the tone this film is going to take. Despite some of the sad moments of the plot, this is a really funny movie. First time director Marc Webb constructs a fun and originally stylized film that serves the humor of the script. The plot jumps around to various days during the relationship, always letting us know which day of the odyssey we are viewing. There are moments of reminding us that this is a movie with scenes of breaking the fourth wall, or breaking into a random musical moment to help demonstrate the joyful feeling of being in love. There is a great and heart wrenching moment where a split screen is used showing a scene with the left side showing Tom's expectations for a meeting and the reality being shown on the right side, with the right side of the screen eventually sliding over and overtaking the expectation side and showing the reality of the situation. The movie is never stylized to show off, but rather to serve the story and enhance the feelings of the characters.

When I first saw the trailer for the film what caught my attention immediately was the Smiths reference. There are plenty of cool film and music references, from the Smiths and Belle & Sebastian to films like the Graduate and Bergman movies. Anyone who has listened to the Smiths will know the mood and behavior that the music sets. There are plenty of musical cues that set the tone of the scene wonderfully. Music plays a key role in the characters lives and is never overused. All of the various homages fit perfectly with the tone and themes of the story.

(500) Days of Summer is a fun and original film. I may have given a bit much away about the plot, but the movie is mostly about the process, not the results. There are some satisfying and surprising twists that never feel forced or predictable. It's a thoroughly moving and entertaining film that will most definitely get repeat viewings from me.

Away We Go

2009-08-03T00:11:00.000-07:00

I'm finally back and I've got a lot of catching up to do. It's been a crazy month with lots of life changing events going on, all for the good of course. Now that things are settling down I've got lists of movies I need to talk about, as well as get back to my top 100 list. Hopefully I can get back into a rhythm and start pounding these out, as well as get back to my script, so please bare with me.

To start things off is a movie I saw right after I saw Transformers 2, since I needed a good experience to erase my disdain for that movie, and I chose Away We Go.

Sam Mendes is a director I greatly admire. His debut film American Beauty was near perfect. The themes of midlife crisis, of being lost and regretting the decisions you've made, settling down into a miserable monotonous suburban lifestyle are ideas that fascinate me. In my own writing I love to delve into the dark side of our modern society and explore the things that many think about but dare not discuss. Mendes, along with the great writing of Alan Ball and the cinematography of the legendary Conrad Hall, packed it all neatly into a dark, if somewhat humorous, yet deeply sad story that hit on all cylinders. Not bad for a first film.

I have not seen Revolutionary Road yet, but otherwise I have really enjoyed everything else Mendes has put out. He usually tends to take his time with projects, develop them right and nurse them along rather than rush them to ensure that the final project is as perfect as it's going to be. I was a bit surprised when I first saw the trailer for Away We Go and saw that it was from Sam Mendes. This is probably the fastest he's worked to get this film out six months after his previous film. I was definitely intrigued, and I wasn't disappointed.

The story focuses on Burt and Verona, played by John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph. They are not married, no matter how many times Burt tries to propose to Verona, and they are expecting their first child. With no family or friends around them, they begin to question where they should have the baby. Thus begins a road trip to different areas around the United States and Canada to find the perfect place to call home and raise their child.

Along their journey they meet different friends who are parents and they are exposed to a variety of ways of parenting, all of which seem scary and crazy and make the new expecting parents fearful of their child's future. Allison Janney has a humorous role as the detached mother who is burdened and regretful to have kids and treats her children as so. Maggie Gyllenhaal plays the new age mother who lets her children sleep with her and she refuses to put them in a stroller because of the sensation of pushing her children away from her. Each actress offers a very strong if somewhat brief supporting role that adds to the paranoia of Burt and Verona's fears of parenthood.

There are many strong supporting roles throughout the film, but it is the chemistry between Krasinski and Rudolph that makes the film work. Krasinski's Burt is played with a silly sense of naiveness to everything around him except when it comes to Verona. He loves her unconditionally and will do anything for her to make her happy. Rudolph's Verona has a lot of hidden sadness and fear that dictates all of her decisions. She wonders out loud if the two of them are fuck ups and how can they possibly make good parents. She has so many worries about their future that it seems to be taking it's tole on her which brings her to her urgency to find the perfect home, where as Burt is more relaxed and easy going and positive. All that matters to him is Verona and his unborn child, the rest will work itself out.

There are a lot of questions this film is asking. What makes a good parent? Where exactly is "home"? What constitutes a person's home? Is it the presence of friends or immediate family? This film really hit me personally because of a lot of the same questions I have been asking myself. As I enter this next phase of my life starting the married life I worry whether I will make a good husband, or a good father. Questions of relocation come up often and probably will for quite some time. Ultimately what is important are the ones you love. That is the true source of happiness and as long as you have that then the rest will work itself out.

There are a lot of crazy parents in the world. Some are just plain overbearing, and some are simply inconvenienced by the presence of children that they simply do not care about them. Some people have so much love to give and are more than capable of being great parents except that nature has interfered and won't allow people to conceive. Those that are lucky enough need to understand the gift and blessing that has been bestowed upon them and treat it with the amount of responsibility and respect it deserves. Parenting is not easy, and sometimes I feel it should be restricted as I observe the way some kids are treated. But at the same time there really are great parents out there, and there are people out there that will one day make great parents. This film is making the same observations of our society and pointing out the various degrees of parenting and showing what it takes to be a good parent. All you need to do is love them unconditionally and provide for them. And of course find the perfect place to call home.

I was a little worried near the end that the movie would cop out and settle for a conventional ending but I was surprised and pleased by the direction it took. The conversation that Burt and Verona have in Burt's brother's backyard is really touching and moving. The place they end up seems appropriate for both of them that you know everything is going to work out just fine for them and their child.

Away We Go is another strong effort from one of our most talented film makers. There is a really good balance of humor, drama, and tears that make it feel extremely real and honest. It's a small film floating out there amongst all of the big bang summer spectacles but it is truly worth your time to check out.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

2009-06-30T00:11:00.000-07:00

There was once a time when I would go to the movies four times during a summer to see films like Independence Day or Armageddon multiple times. I couldn't get enough of the loud explosions, and the lack of any real story didn't bother me. I was able to find humor in the meaningless sex and fart jokes. It was pure escapism. Just grab a bucket of popcorn and a 40 ounce jug of soda and I was happy.

So what the hell happened to me?

Have I really become such a cynical grumpy old man that I can't fully enjoy films like that anymore? Have my tastes changed, or has Hollywood's standards changed?

Whatever the reason may be, I can not endorse Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. I am puzzled that a movie as poor as this garnered applause at the end of the viewing in my theater. I'm even more puzzled at the amount of money this film is bringing in. The success of a film like this can mean only the further dumbing down of the Summer blockbuster.

Now to be fair, I wasn't a big fan of the first film. The first two thirds of that film was enjoyable. It had some good characters and funny moments. Shia LaBeouf is a very charismatic actor with a certain amount of gravitas. The special effects weren't that great and it was hard to make out a lot of the robots during the fight scenes. When the John Turturro character showed up the movie got quite silly and quickly turned sour. It was basically what I would expect from a Michael Bay film.

The sequel wasn't quite the disaster I was expecting, but it wasn't really good either. The actual story isn't bad. The premise is that the Transformers have been to Earth before, long ago in our history, and now an ancient Transformer known as the Fallen has returned to finish what he has started. Along the way there are several battles between the Decepticons and the Autobots who wage war on our planet.

The special effect were much better this time out. The robots were better defined and easier to make out, especially during the fight scenes. Most of the fights were done in slow motion to help make it easier to see, but unfortunately the slow motion scenes filtered out into almost every aspect of the film and was completely overused.

The film was conceived during the writer's strike last year. What I imagine happening is Michael Bay creating a series of action scenes, and once the strike was over and the screenwriters were able to work again he gave them those scenes and said to make a story out of it. It's a backwards way to work and that is ultimately the problem with this film: the writing is just simply lazy.

Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, who wrote the other big Summer blockbuster film Star Trek, are credited along with Ehren Kruger as writing Transformers. I wonder how much of Orci and Kurtzman's work is really in the finished film because Star Trek is a far superior film. There is no character development at all and the humor in the film is just bad.

It is quite possible to write an intelligent funny action film, it's been done several times with great success. Star Trek has several moments of humor that work within the story. Having to rely on crude humor that serves no point to the characters or the story is just cheap. There are about three scenes showing a small dog trying to hump a bigger dog. There's a scene of a small Transformer humping Megan Fox's leg. There are plenty of fart jokes, drug jokes, pussy jokes, and quite honestly inappropriate humor. This is a film that is being marketed towards kids and it is full of language I would not let my kids hear or would I want them exposed to that kind of behavior. It is just embarrassing.

And speaking of Megan Fox, we all know she is a gorgeous person, but we really don't know if she can act, especially with material like this. The extent of her character development in this film is several slow motion shots showing her beautiful figure running while wearing tight skimpy clothes. We get to see lots of her beautifully photographed, but she really doesn't have much else to do beside look good. That's pretty much the amount of effort that was given to characters in this film. I understand it's just a high energy popcorn flick, but I just expect more for my entertainment.

And let's not forget the twin Autobots Wheelie and Skids. I had read briefly about the racial stereotypes in the film before I saw it but I just passed if off to some conservative nuts looking to get people wound up over nothing. Boy was I wrong. They talk as if they are from the ghetto, acting like bumbling idiots and living up to the typical racial black stereotypes. One of them even has a gold tooth. Once again, it's just embarrassing.

Literature is full of the fool characters that act like idiots for comic relief, but they always serve a purpose for the story. From the gravediggers in Hamlet to the peasants in Hidden Fortress to R2-D2 and C-3PO in Star Wars, the characters have brought a purpose to the plot while entertaining with humor. In Transformers they serve no real purpose other than to try and get some cheap laughs with crude and offensive humor.

Most times I really wouldn't care. I got a few minor laughs out of it myself, but mostly I was just left shaking my head. My problem is that this is a film based a line of children's toys and it is being marketed towards children. Maybe more towards older children, but the young ones are definitely going to want to see it too. Quite honestly, it's only real purpose is to help sell some toys. It is irresponsible to just throw in the type of joke you would expect in a teen sex comedy. The movie didn't need all of the bad humor. There is plenty of action and explosions to draw people in to see it. We want and expect humor, but we should want and expect a certain level of intelligence as well.

If the box office is any indication, I am probably in the minority on this. The majority of the population is going to eat this stuff up and love it and not care that a few brain cells were wasted away. It's going to make a ton of money, make a huge profit for the studio, and strengthen their perception that they don't need to spend any time or money on a script. You can dumb it down all you want, the people will come and see it. It's going to help perpetrate a rapidly growing trend of poorly conceived films that rely on special effects and no story. The success of films like Dark Knight or Star Trek, movies that are smartly written and executed perfectly, are going to be outnumbered by the dimwitted fluff that is dominating the box office. Money dictates what the studios will do. As long as people keep buying tickets to these kinds of movies, then they will keep making them.

And I'm a sucker like everyone else. I paid my money. I sat in that theater and did my part to help strengthen the establishment. I usually avoid movies I know are going to be bad, but I held out hope that the critics were wrong and I would be surprised and entertained. I was wrong, they were right. I really thought word of mouth would kill this movie before the weekend, but it seems to have only gotten stronger. I really don't get it, but that's probably because I'm just a cynical old man with a more sophisticated palette.

I am obviously not the targeted demographic. Are you?

My 100 Favorite Films Part 3: #71-80

2009-06-18T23:46:00.000-07:00

Here we go with the next set of ten films in the list. I was really hoping to get these out one set a week but life happens and has slowed down my writing lately. I'm going to try to get back on track but things are only going to get crazier in these next 30 days. I'll try to squeeze in a review here and there when I can, but until then I hope you enjoy this next set of films. As always, lets review the list so far.

#100) His Girl Friday (1940)
#99) 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
#98) Adaptation (2002)
#97) Being John Malkovich (1999)
#96) Groundhog Day (1993)
#95) Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002)
#94) Boogie Nights (1997)
#93) Apocalypse Now (1979)
#92) Barton Fink (1991)
#91) The Big Lebowski (1998)
#90) Breathless (1960)
#89) Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)
#88) Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)
#87) Apollo 13 (1995)
#86) Rashomon (1950)
#85) Pink Floyd's the Wall (1982)
#84) The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)
#83) Rope (1948)
#82) Good Night, and Good Luck (2005)
#81) The Wild Bunch (1969)

And now for your reading enjoyment, let us get started.

#80) Do the Right Thing (1989)

Spike Lee's break out film is a real tour de force. A lot of the themes that would appear in most of his films are showcased here and nothing is held back.

The story takes place in Brooklyn on the hottest day of the year. The heat combined with several character driven situations causes every one's bigotry and hatred towards one another to boil over into a powerful moment of violence. Lee often likes to look at racism in his films and how it is still a lingering driving force behind our society. Every character of all races has their moments to express their fear and hatred towards each other throughout the film. When everything finally explodes at the end you can see the damaging effects racism has on a community and how pointless it really is.

Sometimes Spike Lee can be a bit too forward with his messages, often beating you over the head repeatedly to make sure you get the point. Often times it can distract from the story, but more often then not he balances it just right so that the message is heard clearly and distinctly. Never has that message been more powerfully delivered than in Do the Right Thing. The world was introduced to one of our most important artists. Consider the message heard.

#79) Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

When you mix two geniuses like Stanley Kubrick and Peter Sellers you come up with a brilliant satire on the true ridiculous nature of war. This film was part of Kubrick's transition period from studio director for hire to making his own personal artistic films as well as his only real attempt at comedy.

The story is a bout a rogue general that goes insane and initiates a launch of nuclear weapons in an attempt to start World War III. The President along with his political and military advisers meet in the War Room to find a solution to stop the attacks and repercussions that will come along with it. Peter Sellers plays three characters in the film: Captain Mandrake, President Muffley, and Dr. Strangelove. His portrayal of the bumbling President is eerie to a certain recent President as far as showing the inept ability to have any control over anyone. The dialogue and characters are very funny in executing the satire. This film is an obvious statement about how absurd a nuclear war would be. When the country was living in fear of an attack from the Russians at any moment Kubrick held nothing back by making fun of this situation and finding humor out of a tense situation. An appropriate film to watch today with what is going on in the world, and hopefully our world leaders can find the same absurdity in the situation that Kubrick did. And remember, there is no fighting in the War Room.

#78) Unbreakable (2000)

Probably the best comic book origin story ever filmed.

M. Night Shyamalan re-teams with his Sixth Sense star Bruce Willis to tell the story of David Dunn, the only man to survive a horrific train accident without a scratch on him. As he tries to make sense of it he comes to realize that he's never been sick, and that he may have super human strength. His son sees the potential to be a super hero and pushes him to explore this ability and to try and do good with it. Along the way he meets Elijah Price, played by Samuel Jackson, who is the opposite of Dunn, born with fragile breakable bones. He has been searching his whole life for someone worthy of being his arch nemesis and with Dunn he finds him and pushes him to realize his powers as well.

There is some great chemistry between Jackson and Willis that help make the characters work. By the end of the film you realize the possible potential stories that could be told about these dueling characters. A sequel has been something that fans often talk about and hope for yet Shyamalan hasn't really hinted at a possibility. There is some experimenting in this film with long drawn out takes to tell the story that makes the pacing of the film feel a bit slow. But for the most part the story works better than most real comic adaptations ever have.

#77) Miller's Crossing (1990)

The third film by the Coen Brothers has them attempting the gangster genre and includes their traditional dark humor laced within this period piece.

Gabriel Byrne stars as Tom Regan, an advisor to a crime boss during the prohibition who tries to keep the peace between feuding mobs but ends up getting caught in the middle and he must make a decision in order to save himself and the woman he has fallen for, played by Marcia Gay Harden. As is typical in a Coen Brother film, the movie is wonderfully shot. This was the third and final film that future director Barry Sonnenfeld would act as the cinematographer. The script is full of great dialogue with some fun banter between Harden and Byrne. There is a great supporting cast as well including Albert Finney and Coen regulars John Turturo and Jon Polito. It's not one of their popular or talked about films but it's a true gem from some great film makers.

#76) The Matrix (1999)

Forget about the horrible sequels, the first movie was an original and innovative film that not only became inspiration for many more rip offs, but it became a cultural and philosophical phenomenon.

Keanu Reeves stars as Neo, a computer hacker that learns his sense of reality is far from real but rather a computer generated world where humans are merely programs and pawns in a world completely controlled by computers. He is able to free himself from the control of the computers with the help of Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) and Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) to help wage war against the cyber world and free the human race from their control.

There are several interesting themes presented about man and technology coexisting in our world and who really controls who. In a society dependent on their electronic gadgets it's pretty prophetic in a way showing how we are controlled by technology. We rely so heavily on the Internet and our cell phones and iPods that many would not be able to function without them. So in a way technology has won and is now controlling the human race. Mixed with these powerful themes are some really cool martial arts choreography and inventive camera work, including the introduction of the bullet cam. The sequels were a bit convoluted and relied too much on special effects and action rather than the story and characters that made the original so good. The original still holds up as a really good action and science fiction film.

#75) There Will Be Blood (2007)

A wonderful adaptation of the Upton Sinclair novel "Oil" by Paul Thomas Anderson with a powerful performance from Daniel Day Lewis. I truly believe that over time this film could become a true American classic. There are so many elements of this film that are just top notch and come together to create a flawless film.

Lewis stars as Daniel Plainview, an oil tycoon during the early days of the business who has built himself up from nothing and is so full of greed that he will use anyone and everyone around him to get what he wants. His one true nemesis is Eli Sunday, played by Paul Dano, a young influential town preacher who desires his own power and influence through the use of the church.

At the core of the film are the competing powers of commerce and religion, each looking to gather their own flock of followers so that they can have ultimate control of the town. The true driving force behind these individuals is a common desire: greed. Each man is flawed yet put up a false exterior to make them seem good natured and helpful, but ultimately each man wants power and especially money. The difference between the two is that Plainview has no problem letting down his curtain and admitting what he really wants, while Sunday refuses to expose his true nature and he must hide behind this false demeanor in order to remain in control. It's a strong statement on the flaws and dangers in both capitalism and religion. Each institution is susceptible to corruption as is often the case. Man by nature is flawed and those flaws and weaknesses are magnified when power and influence are introduced.

The film is strongly acted by the entire cast with a great script and direction from Anderson and cinematography from Robert Elswit. Radiohead guitarist Jonny Greenwood provides an eerie and haunting score that enhances the landscapes and actions of the characters. It's a near perfect film that captures an important period of our history while showing how relevant the themes relate to our society today. Greed is something that will never go away and will continue to influence the future of our country.

#74) Fargo (1996)

Hey look, another Coen Brothers film! This is the film that rightfully got them their first Oscars. It's a brilliant blend of humor, drama, and extremely dark and disturbing actions from the characters.

William H. Macy plays Jerry Lundegaard, a car salesman who is struggling financially so he cooks up a plan to have his wife kidnapped so his rich father-in-law will pay the ransom and he will get his money. As you would expect, everything goes wrong. When someone turns up dead pregnant police chief Marge Gunderson, played by Oscar winner Frances McDormand, is on the case and begins to sense something fishy going on.

The Coen's have always had a great knack at righting authentic dialogue. The Northern Midwest accents are immortalised by the characters in this film with accurate and entertaining speech and dialogue straight from the script. There are moments when the characters come off cutesy and fun but then you see the dark side of what man is capable of doing during stressful times. Lundegaard's plan is so full of holes but he is convinced it will work and when it doesn't the lengths he will go to to cover things up is astonishing. This is one of those moments when all of the elements of a film are clicking and it makes for an entertaining film, albeit sometimes disturbing. The things you can do with a wood chipper.

#73) This Is Spinal Tap (1984)

The birth of the mockumentary. Directed by Rob Reiner and written by costars Christopher Guest and Michael McKean, the film tells of the rise and fall of the fictional band Spinal Tap. The movie is mostly improvised but there are some real classic songs written by Guest, McKean, and Harry Shearer with some hilarious stage performances, including "Big Bottom," "Stonehenge," and "Lick My Love Pump."

This film set up the formula that Christopher Guest would use in several of his future mockumentaries such as Best in Show and Waiting for Guffman. The mock documentary has been imitated several times but nowhere near with the amount of success as Guest and especially with Spinal Tap. If you've never seen it do yourself a favor and watch it now and be sure to turn it all the way up to eleven!

#72) Toy Story (1995)

It's so hard to pick a favorite Pixar film when they are all so good, but you can't deny that they started with a bang and never looked back.

Toy Story is about a boy's favorite toy, Woody the cowboy, voiced by Tom Hanks, who is threatened when the newest and hottest toy on the market arrives: Buzz Lightyear, voiced by Tim Allen. Buzz doesn't realize he's just a toy and Woody is too worried about being replaced that they don't realize they get left behind and separated from the boy that loves them both.

It's a heartwarming story that brings me back to my childhood. I'm sure we have all had that one toy or another that we have absolutely loved and have taken with us everywhere. It's a certain joy and innocence that we tend to only experience when we are young and when we become too busy with our grown up lives we forget about those wonderful times as a young kid when all that mattered was getting to play with our toys. It's a universal theme that connects with us all, and that is what has made Pixar so successful after all of these years. They continue to push the boundaries of computer animation, making such beautiful looking films. But more importantly, they focus on creating great characters and great stories. From those stories the visuals will come. Film after film they continue to tell great stories that connect with adults and children. These are the reasons they are the best animated studio out there, maybe even the best film studio period. It's hard to argue with there number of successes.

#71) The Sixth Sense (1999)

It is going to be so hard to be surprised again the way I was when I first saw the Sixth Sense. The experience of seeing this movie for the first time and being totally blindsided by the surprise of this film is such a unique memory and one that makes this film so special.

Bruce Willis plays Dr. Malcolm Crowe, a psychologist that sparks up a unique relationship with a boy Cole, played by Haley Joel Osment. Cole has the gift to see dead people and communicate with them. At first it's a curse for him but Dr. Crowe helps him to find the power in his gift so that he can not only help the dead but help those who have been left behind. The film is masterfully put together by writer/director M. Night Shyamalan. When the big surprise is revealed Shyamalan goes back to show us all of the clues and hints that are blatantly right in front of us that go unnoticed. It's a very clever twist that unfortunately will forever be compared with any film Shyamalan makes from now on.

When I first saw the film there was a lot of buzz about how great and shocking the film was, but luckily nobody was really spoiling the ending. While watching it in the theater about half way through I was thinking to myself that this was nothing special, in fact I thought it was a bit slow. Then when the big secret was revealed I had one of those "Oh Shit!" moments that I could not believe not only what I had just seen, but that I was fooled the entire time. I constantly go to the movies with the hope that I am going to be shocked or surprised but it rarely happens. With the emergence of the Internet information is spread at such a rapid rate it's so hard not to know about the entire film months before it is even released. Spoilers or so easy to come by and often are hard to avoid. Word of mouth spreads so fast through blogs and message boards that a film can gain momentum pretty fast or simply fall flat and be done with before the opening weekend is even finished. I used to be a junky for spoilers but I was finding that knowing what to expect and watching a film waiting for the things I knew about to happen was ruining the overall experience of being surprised and just simply enjoying a good film. I try to avoid them now but temptation can be pretty bad sometimes. Luckily I never had that opportunity with this film. It still holds up with repeat viewings, but nothing will ever beat seeing it for the first time.

Well that's all for now. I'll try to hopefully be back soon with the next set. Maybe I'll even get out to the theater soon to catch a flick so I can write about it. So until next time...

X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Angels & Demons

2009-05-25T23:35:00.000-07:00

For some reason I haven't been able to get too excited about the Summer movie season so far. I don't know if it's because of lack of time or lack of interest. Maybe a combination of both.

Usually every summer I use the big event movies as an excuse to get together with a large group of friends. We would meet for dinner and then get in line for whatever the big release is for that weekend. Part of the fun was sticking around afterwards and talking about the movie, but mostly it was just about getting together with some friends that I don't get to see too often anymore.

By now we would have met up for four weeks in a row and I would have seen many of the movies already. With so much going on in my life this Summer it just hasn't happened yet. I got to see Star Trek at an early screening so there went that weekend. But the other films haven't really gotten me excited about going to the movies. It's pretty sad really.

This past weekend I played some catch up and I was able to finally see X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Angels & Demons, both sequels, or rather prequels, to some successful Summer blockbusters. This is what to expect these days.

As a kid I was a huge X-Men fan and it's many spin offs, especially X-Factor. I collected all of the comics and I was infatuated with the characters and themes. If there is any comic franchise I hold dear to my heart it would be X-Men.

I thought the first film was good. It was held back with budget restraints that showed with the special effects and action sequences but that allowed the director Bryan Singer to focus more on the characters and tell a story. Ultimately this franchise was about the many characters and themes and it helped the first film. The most iconic character has always been Wolverine and Hugh Jackman's breakout role as the clawed one was perfect casting and he nailed the part and it's what really made the film.

The second film X2 was pretty much perfect. It had a great story and great action along with some wonderful pacing. Singer started to incorporate what I feel is the greatest storyline in the comics; the Phoenix saga. Singer laid down the ground work for what could end up being a fantastic finale. Then things took a quick turn for the worse. Twentieth Century Fox was determined to rush the film without having a finished script, they cut the budget down to save costs, and finally Bryan Singer left the project to jump over to the competition to direct the new Superman film for Warner Bros. Another director came and went and finally Brett Ratner, director of the Rush Hour films, was brought in to make the movie.

It's hard to put the blame on Ratner for the disaster that was X-Men: The Last Stand. The main plot was pretty weak, the special effects were bad, and it was rushed into production before it was ready. Ratner came on board late and had no time to prepare really and made the best of what he could. The character of the Phoenix was done so poorly. She is supposed to be the ultimate power in the Universe and mostly she just stands around looking menacing, not doing too much until it was convenient to move the plot around. It could have been done so much better but Fox wasn't willing to commit the money to do it right, and what they ended up with was a really bad movie that ruined everything Singer had built up in the franchise.

The decision to do Origin stories for the various characters I thought was a good idea. It would allow them to tell more focused stories on the characters we really care about, and who better to start off with than Wolverine. I had really high hopes for this film, as I'm sure many others did as well. This was a chance for Fox to in a sense redo the last film and bring proper closure, even if it serves as a prequel. Initial reaction to the film has been pretty bad with some horrible reviews so I went into the movie a little timid and worried I was going to see a train wreck.

Now the movie is no X2 but it's really not as bad as many have been making it out to be. I actually really enjoyed it. I have some serious problems with choices they made in the story but that really didn't totally ruin the movie for me like it has for some.

The basic premise of the story is to show how James Logan became Weapon X, or Wolverine. We see that he is really about 150 years old and doesn't age because of his healing mutant powers, he has fought in several wars, and became part of an elite group of mutants that did some bad things before he turned his back on them to try and lead a normal life. Of course that can't happen, he gets dragged back in and all hell breaks loose.

Now I'm no expert in the history and legend of the source character but I do know some basic things. I know that Wolverine's arch nemesis has always been Sabretooth, played in this film by Liev Schreiber, but I didn't know they were brothers. I'm not sure if that is actually true or not, but even if it isn't it did add a certain level of conflict that did help the story. The constant back and forth between the two characters was the best part of the movie. They had a really complex relationship that left them at odds and made for some great moments, not only between the characters in dialogue but also in the action sequences. It was a wonderful dynamic that worked.

I also know that Wolverine was experimented on and that the government covered his bones in the adamantium metal to make him indestructible and they gave him his metal claws. The addition of the bone claws was silly and unnecessary. They looked like bad special effects and were never really used effectively. It would have been better for him to just have them added and have him trying to adjust to his new claws, which they ended up doing in a few funny scenes of him trying to figure them out and doing damage to a room instead. Also part of the operation lead to him having amnesia but since they chose to do the operation early on they left him with his memory and chose a pretty ridiculous way to make sure he lost his memory at the end of the film to keep in line with the timeline. The way they did it felt tacked on and forced. There must have been a better way to do it, but oh well.

The other thing I didn't like was the addition of so many other mutants, it felt like another X-Men film rather than just a Wolverine film. Most of the other characters they showed didn't really do much for the story but it was a way for the film makers to nod to the fans and say "look, here's Gambit!" Especially throwing in Cyclops wasn't necessary at all, it was just distracting. They should have kept it focused on Wolverine, Sabretooth, and Stryker and they could have told a really good and exciting story.

Despite all of my major complaints with the movie, I did actually enjoy it for what it is. Most Summer films are just mindless popcorn fun, and if you go in expecting that then you will be satisfied. As a long time lover of the franchise I just hope for a little more. Maybe because my expectations were dropped so low after all of the early reviews I ended up liking it more, but it was fine for what it is.

As for Angels & Demons I didn't have as much attachment to go on so I went in to the film pretty blind and I thoroughly enjoyed the movie.

I read The Da Vinci Code the summer before the film came out. It was a quick read and a fun adventure story along the lines of Indiana Jones or National Treasure. I love a good conspiracy, especially anything involving the church, so the subject matter was right up my alley.

I enjoyed the movie version of The Da Vinci Code but it felt a bit too clunky and forced at times. Some of the dialogue was campy, as was some of the acting despite a top notch cast, but they made it work. It was a fun puzzle to solve and took some ancient myths and added a new twist in an interesting way.

I never got around to reading the book Angels & Demons so I didn't really know what the story was about, but I knew the process was similar to The Da Vinci Code and I knew that it was also a prequel. The stories really do stand alone so it wasn't necessary to film them in any particular order. It's like a James Bond story, the character and formula are the same you just plug in the particular details.

Tom Hanks returns again as symbolist Robert Langdon who is brought to the Vatican to help with an urgent case. The Pope has died and the Bishops are about to meet for the conclave to select the next Pope, but four of the leading candidates are kidnapped and clues are left by an assassin claiming to be from the Illuminati, a group of scientist wiped out centuries ago by the church because their beliefs contradicted religion's laws. They have returned to exact their revenge and expose the truths of the church. Langdon must follow the symbols and clues to save the Bishops before a bomb of antimatter is detonated and destroys the Vatican and thousands of people.

There are parts of the story that are kind of far fetched, like a bomb of antimatter. It's a clever plot device that adds a sense of danger but you must suspend all disbelief in order to go with it since it's not possible yet to make that small amount of antimatter, or to even carry it around in a canister for that matter. I have no problem doing that, but when trying to instill some historic facts to the history of the Illuminati and add weight to their dispute with the church the bomb becomes a bit distracting. It takes away from the truth of the historic facts that are often buried in most teachings. The church has a history of doing some pretty nasty and out right evil things in order to further it's cause and gain followers. The real history of the California Missions is often left out so that the good of spreading the word of the Bible can be glamorized while the atrocities of the way people were forced to convert is buried and forgotten. During the time period the film refers to of the Illuminati being wiped out, many scientists or free thinkers who questioned the laws of the church were often silenced by unpleasant means. The Middle ages is often referred to as the Dark age for reasons of the horrible things that were being done across Europe as the word of God was being spread and people forced to convert. It's a period of our history that never gets fully taught but fascinates me and has caused some serious questions of not only my own faith but my thoughts on organized religion in general. Does it do more good than bad? Who is in the right in this film? Are the Illuminati, whether real or not, in the right to exact revenge and does the church have a right to defend itself or keep this silent?

These topics are hinted at throughout the story but it mostly takes a back seat to the action and mystery at hand. In a way it works for the film. The Da Vinci Code was full of so much history, myth, and theories that it often weighed down the plot, even though it was fascinating information. The story and dialogue often felt bogged down in so much information that it didn't flow that well. It worked great on the written page but not so much in a two hour film. Angels & Demons had a better flow to the pacing. The plot didn't feel overwhelmed by trying to deliver too much of the mythology, but enough was given to help give purpose and meaning to the situation and characters. I'm sure there may be more information in the book, at least I hope there is, but enough was cut out to make the plot and story work well.

The time constraints of the characters helped enhance the tension and conflict and the suspense was well done. No time was wasted in exposition of the characters. What we needed to know we were able to discover along the journey so that the business of trying to save the Bishops could be gotten to right away. There was a good balance of action and quiet character moments and neither seemed to slow down the pace of the film at all. I did feel that the true threat behind the conspiracy was a bit predictable but it was also handled well enough to give me moments of doubt, but ultimately I knew who was behind the whole thing. That really didn't bother me though because the motives behind it all wasn't as obvious and it still left some mystery to the validity of the history between the church and the Illuminati.

Despite any quarrels I may have with the separation between history and fantasy that are mixed in this film, I totally understand it's a work of fiction and meant more to entertain rather than to educate. On that level this film succeeds. It's a good thriller with plenty of suspense and action mixed together nicely. The theme of religion and science being able to coexist and work together to educate is a worthy idea that needs to be explored more seriously in our culture. There are plenty of ideas expressed in the subtext of the story that peek my curiosity and invite me to further explore the history and mythology behind the plot. I hope it will encourage others to investigate the ideas and themes present in the film so that you can educate yourselves on the history and decide for yourselves what to believe. Like is suggested in the film, it really doesn't hurt to try and accept both ideas.

Overall I really enjoyed the film. There was some fascinating history given about the church, just as in The Da Vinci Code, but the plot seemed more dire and suspenseful in Angels & Demons. It's a good mystery and action film, just what you would expect from a Summer popcorn flick.

So I'm not really disappointed with what I've seen so far this Summer, but I'm also not blown away by anything. So far I would highly recommend Star Trek and The Brothers Bloom. I'm going to try and see Terminator this week and then I'll see if I can keep myself caught up. I highly doubt it, but it doesn't hurt to try. So leave me some feedback, what are your favorite Summer films so far? Is there maybe a small indie film I should check out? Until next time...

My 100 Favorite Films Part 2: #81-90

2009-05-06T00:32:00.000-07:00

I'm back with the next group of ten films from my 100 favorite films of all time. Sorry that it has taken me so long to get this up. I hope that you are enjoying reading these articles and I'll try to get them up quicker.

Before we get into it, let's review the list so far.

100) His Girl Friday
99) 2001: A Space Odyssey
98) Adaptation
97) Being John Malkovich
96) Groundhog Day
95) Confessions of a Dangerous Mind
94) Boogie Nights
93) Apocalypse Now
92) Barton Fink
91) The Big Lebowski

Let's just jump right back into it shall we.

90) Breathless (1960)

One of the first films in the French New Wave movement and an important film that helped influence a whole new generation of filmmakers.

Jean-Luc Godard and Francois Truffaut both put their theories to work when they made their first films that started the New Wave movement. Where The 400 Blows is a more personal story to Truffaut, Godard is more style with his first film Breathless.

The story is simple. Michel, played by Jean-Paul Belmondo, kills an officer and needs go on the run, but first he must convince the girl Patricia, played by Jean Seberg, to come with him. There is lots of sexual tension between them that delays any action on Michel's part.

Godard takes the camera into the street to shoot on real locations. He uses lots of long takes and jump cuts to let the actors tell the story. It's a fun movie that detours from typical Hollywood film making of the time and introduces new techniques that seem only natural today. I'm just now starting to discover many of the films from the French New Wave and so far I'm hooked, just as those were who went on to change Hollywood.

#89) Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)

A fun western that works for so many different reasons, but mostly because of the chemistry between it's stars Robert Redford and Paul Newman. The banter between these two, with lots of help from William Goldman's script, is extremely funny and you can't help but root for these two outlaws.

Butch and Sundance are bank robbers finding it hard to adapt to a changing time. As they are hunted down they go on the run and relocate to Bolivia to try to start over, but as is usually the case, they can't deny their true calling in life. The cinematography is beautifully photographed by the great Conrad Hall. It's not a typical western by any means, but it's just a fun and entertaining film. Makes me wish Newman and Redford had made more than two films together because their chemistry shines on the screen.

#88) Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)

Nobody writes dialogue quite like David Mamet. Based on his own play, the film is a hard look at the pressure of working in a competitive sales office where closing the deal is everything.

The film has a great cast, including Al Pacino, Ed Harris, Alan Arkin, Jack Lemmon, and Kevin Spacey. The banter between the characters is written with a certain rhythm that is quick and hard hitting. Dialogue is everything in a Mamet piece. The characters are defined by their speech and nothing is held back in the language. The movie is a wonderful example of what great actors are capable of when given good characters and dialogue to work with.

#87) Apollo 13 (1995)

I have a thing for space travel. Long ago in my youth I wanted to be an astronomer or do something that required working for NASA. Then I realised how much studying that would take and there went that idea. But within that same passion I have a particular fondness for this Ron Howard film.

The movie tells the story of the Apollo mission where everything that could go wrong did. Tom Hanks, Kevin Bacon, Bill Paxton, Gary Sinise, and Ed Harris give great natural performances that bring life to these real people and it draws you into the story. Helping their performances is the use of in camera special effects that helps create a sense of realism that adds authenticity to the movie. They used a special free fall technique in real aircraft's that created short moments of weightlessness for the actors so that they really are floating, no strings attached. It's the little details like this that make the film work. Even though you know the outcome there is real tension and suspense that makes the movie really entertaining. It's just a great heroic story.

#86) Rashomon (1950)

A classic tale from the master Akira Kurosawa. The movie is about a murder and the trial to figure out who did it. We see the incident over and over again from the various points of view from those involved, including the victim's ghost.

Nonlinear story telling had been done before this film in such classics as Citizen Kane, but not to this extent. In Citizen Kane we see various points of the character's life told from differing points of views, but in Rashomon we see the same incident from different points of view. It's a strong example of the influence our own perspectives and experiences has on events in our life. Nobody sees things the same way, just like nobody interprets a film or song the same way.

It's also a strong example on the ways films can tell stories. The plot does not have to be a straight A to B linear story, but structure can be changed to add dramatic effect. It's a style that has been imitated and borrowed for such films as Pulp Fiction, Run Lola Run, and Vantage Point. It's an important film from one of the all time greats of cinema.

#85) Pink Floyd's The Wall (1982)

When I was in the sixth grade one of my brother's friends was playing the tape of The Wall in his car and I was captivated. I made a copy of it for myself and listened to it nonstop for several months straight. My taste in music was changed forever.

The power of the film lies in the strength of the music from which it is based. The album tells a story of isolation and eventual madness, withdrawing oneself from those around you until you are trapped by your own fears and anger. The metaphor for these feelings are played out in the film by Bob Geldof who plays the main character of Pink, a troubled rock star who becomes more and more withdrawn, building an internal wall around himself to shut the world out. His descent within his mind is portrayed through the animation in the film. The odd and abstract characters help to bring to life Pink's own internal demons. It is ultimately a tale of great sadness as there appears to be no help for Pink. It's a feeling of loneliness that I'm sure we have all felt at some points in our lives when you feel completely helpless and the only way to get out of it is to shut everyone else out. I know it's something I have felt and have been able to relate to.

Director Alan Parker brings great pacing and gets a strong performance from Geldof. As wonderful as the movie looks, it is the music that is the strength of the film. Two different mediums, music and film, blend perfectly to make a thoroughly enjoying and meaningful movie.

#84) The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)

Clint Eastwood's westerns have always had a different feel to them than more traditional westerns. There is a bit more darkness to the characters rather than the heroic types that John Wayne perfected. Of all of Eastwood's westerns, this is one of my favorites.

Eastwood plays a Missouri farmer who's family is murdered by Union soldiers. He goes on the run with some former Confederate fighters before exacting his own revenge against the murderers of his family. There are plenty of good shoot out scenes and the obligatory Eastwood one liners he deals out before opening a can of whoop ass on his enemies. There are hints of the character traits that made Dirty Harry so intimidating and dangerous. It's a fun dark western that was a good precursor to Eastwood's more successful Unforgiven.

#83) Rope (1948)

One of the greats yet under appreciated films from the master of suspense Alfred Hitchcock. It's a bit more style over substance but the technical aspects of the film are totally appropriate and help to enhance the story.

Two young men strangle one of their other friends and hide his body in their apartment just before the victim's friends and family come over for a dinner party. They wish to challenge the perfection of their crime by proving they could not only get away with it but do it right under every one's nose. At the dinner party is a former professor played by James Stewart who grows suspicious of the two men and weary that the victim is not present. The story becomes a chess match between Stewart and the two men to see who can out wit the other.

Hitchcock chose two important film and story techniques to help add to the suspense. The movie is done in real time, which means that the amount of time in the story that passes is the exact amount of time the movie runs. Doing this puts the viewer in a time restraint and you are left to wonder who will out duel who before time is up. It's a clever technique to increase the suspense. Hitchcock adds to this by also filming the movie in one single shot. We are forced with only one perspective by the wandering camera throughout the party. There is no closeups or quick cuts to trick us into when we should be feeling tense. We are observers and it is the story and characters left on their own to thrill us. It's a clever technique that never really feels showy. With today's ability to shoot digital it would be easier to film one long uncut shot, but on film you can only get about ten minutes worth of footage before you need to change the reel. Hitchcock got away with this by picking certain moments where the camera would move and do things like focusing in on the back of a character as they walked, cut, and pull out with a new reel so that it feels seamless. You can catch the cuts and changes if you pay attention. It was something new and different and only something that Hitchcock could pull off. It works for the story and is truly inventive and unique and helps make the movie much more suspenseful. It's not one of his films talked about often but it's really one of his many hidden gems.

#82) Good Night, and Good Luck (2005)

George Clooney suffers no sophomore slump in his second film as a director. Clooney not only directs and costars but he also takes on writing duties in this relevant film about an important phase of our country's history.

David Strathairn plays journalist Edward Murrow who during the 1950's took on Senator Joseph McCarthy and his communist witch hunt. In a time when it was unpopular to speak out and express your opinion against something like he did was very risky but important in maintaining not only our freedoms but our sanity. The country was so crazed over the threat of communist infiltration that anyone who did not agree with the status quo was labeled communist and wrongly shun from society. Several people lost their jobs and lives were ruined for having any hint of a connection to communist ideals and sympathy towards those who were punished. Murrow stood up to the bullying Senator and not only called him out but also the American people, basically saying that we as a nation are better than this and the moment we let fear guide our decisions then all is lost.

The film and it's subject matter are just as important today as it was when Murrow was first reporting on McCarthy. At the time of the Iraq occupation it was extremely harmful for one to oppose the war and the actions of the administration. You were considered un-American or a terrorist if you disagreed with the action. People let themselves be manipulated by fear mongering and let themselves be duped rather than looking at the matters logically. We live in a time where nobody wants to think for themselves but are more comfortable being told what to feel or who to hate or who to fear. This is dangerous and can be detrimental to the success and future of our country. This film reminds us that we must question and stand up to our leaders and always back that which is morally right and just, whether the sentiment is popular or not. We must learn from our history, not repeat it.

#81) The Wild Bunch (1969)

I feel this Sam Peckinpah western is just as important a film in the transition from old Hollywood to the new Hollywood as Bonnie and Clyde is. It stands as a symbol of change from the old standards to the new edgier style.

The movie is about a gang of old outlaws, lead by William Holden, who are looking for one last big score. Their ways of doing things are no longer viable as the old west has changed and grown more sophisticated for their standards. They are no longer able to adapt and find that the world has passed them by. Rather than let it slip away they go for one last big score that could change everything for them.

Just as the old west has changed for these characters, old Hollywood standards changed as well and The Wild Bunch attacked the traditional sense of the western head on. In this film people that got shot actually bleed out. There was much more violence shown on screen than had ever been done in any John Wayne western. The main characters weren't exactly the prototypical western heroes either. They were bad and ruthless men, a sort of anti hero that thumbed it's nose at the establishment. It helped wave in a new era of protagonists that were not typical role models. A new darker and edgier type of story telling was happening in Hollywood and this film helped lead the charge into a new era.

That wraps up this group of films. I'll begin work on the next set right away and try to get that posted as soon as possible. And as always, thanks for reading. Until next time...

Star Trek

2009-05-03T23:17:00.000-07:00

Growing up there were two kinds of science fiction fans: Star Wars fans and Star Trek fans.

I'm not sure why the two always seem to be at odds. It's possible to like both, in fact I know people that do. But there has always been a comparison between the two which is a bit unfair. Both have completely different mythologies and styles. The fact that they are in outer space is about the only thing in common between these two franchises.

Personally, I've always preferred Star Wars. I grew up on those movies, playing with the toys and collecting anything I could get my hands on. I never watched any of the various Star Trek television shows. I think I liked maybe half of the movies that have come out. The characters always seemed to be cartoonish to me and no real depth to them. I think that is probably because they have been parodied and lampooned so many times it's hard to separate that from the original source.

Star Wars was always more focused on the spiritual mythology involved with the force and more importantly the journey of the characters of Luke and his father. George Lucas has said what a heavy influence the work of Joseph Campbell has had on his writing for the saga. Lucas borrows heavily from the Hero's Journey that Campbell plotted out that is engraved in just about all of mythology and fables. The structure of the large story that Star Wars tells has always been more appealing to me from a literary perspective. None of that was ever apparent in the Star Trek series for me.

Star Trek was first and foremost a television show. It was designed to be episodic. There was a series of adventures that would be solved each week, and really in each movie, but no real ongoing journey or emotional arc for the characters to grow and advance in. They stayed the same and served the various stories laid out each week. Each character had their own unique traits that made them likable and memorable, but there was never really anything at stake individually for them.

The movies I prefer the most in the series are The Wrath of Khan, The Search for Spock, and The Voyage Home. These three movies are the closest the series came to a so-called trilogy. It was a continuing story that showed true evolution of the characters, especially the relationship between Spock and Kirk. There was a sense of mythology being created that followed Campbell's hero structure with the sacrifice and death of Spock and his eventual resurrection. The formula for the Hero's Journey is something that has worked throughout human history and has always made for good storytelling.

After the failure of the Star Wars reboot I was a bit hesitant when a re-imagining of Star Trek was announced. Like I've said, I was never a big fan to begin with but I had hopes for a good movie, especially when J.J. Abrams was attached. I wasn't so sure about the casting but I decided to reserve judgement and have faith that Abrams could deliver a good movie since I've liked pretty much everything else he has been involved with.

This past Saturday I got to see an advance screening of Star Trek and I am happy to say that the movie was fantastic and it blew me away.

For the first time we get to see some back story of how the characters got involved in the Federation and eventually teamed together aboard the Enterprise. The danger in starting over with a franchise like this is that there are decades of history that has been told for these characters and this universe in general. All of the die hard fans know the back story even though it was never shown in any of the films before. If the filmmakers make any slight changes it could throw the entire universe into upheaval for the fans and ruin any time lines that have already been set and told. Essentially that is what this story is all about.

The movie opens with a Romulan ship coming through a time warp and attacking a Star Fleet ship looking for Ambassador Spock. Nobody on the ship has heard of Spock since at this time he is just a child and many years away from joining the Federation. The Romulan ship attacks and destroys the Federation ship, but not before a heroic George Kirk can safely evacuate hundreds on board, including his wife and newborn son James, and then sacrificing his own life to save the others. This act changes history right away, thus creating a new alternate reality time line for our future characters of the Enterprise. Nothing will be how it once was because history has been changed. This plot device allows the filmmakers to have free reign of the universe and tell any story they want to now. What has happened previously in the different television shows and movies can still happen because what we are seeing and what we will probably see in future sequels will be happening along an alternate time line. I've been reading that this has been upsetting some of the faithful fans but I think it's pretty genius on their part and it works just fine.

The real success of this movie lies with the cast. Everyone has some pretty large shoes to fill in playing several iconic characters. First and foremost is Chris Pine who plays Captain Kirk. The heart and soul of the character is present but Pine finds a way to make Kirk his own. He seems a bit more brash and cocky than the version played by William Shatner. He's not better or worse, just different yet still appealing and charismatic which is essential to making this film work. He plays the character with a certain level of cool and self assurance and he brings another level of confidence in his leadership. I felt that Pine was great in the roll and filled the void left by Shatner just fine.

Zachary Quinto gets the honor of wearing the pointy ears and playing the key role of Spock. He definitely has the look but I feared I would only see him as Sylar, his character from Heroes. I don't feel he owned the character quite like Leonard Nimoy did previously and he didn't do anything to make the character his own. If anything it felt more like an impersonation, which actually turns out just fine because of the presence of another certain actor in the film which I don't think is any big secret but I still don't want to give it away. Quinto was believable enough as the character to make it work.

The rest of the crew just had small moments and nothing to really make them shine. Karl Urban, who plays Leonard "Bones" McCoy comes the closest to offering an impersonation like Quinto has done, but it really didn't bother me. He was funny and believable in his limited role. Simon Pegg, who plays Scotty, had some memorable moments and made the character more his own, similar to Pine's performance. The rest of the crew had little to do other than helping to set up their stories and characters for any future sequels which will hopefully have them more involved. They were all fine in their limited screen time.

If there was anything I would have liked to have seen done different in this movie is for it to be longer and maybe some more action. The pacing is really quick and fluid. There is a lot of setting up and story telling which was really engaging and entertaining. There are plenty of well shot and choreographed action scenes but I think there could have been more. But I'm just being nit picky on this area.

The movie was really fast paced and exciting and I think it has done a good job of setting up the characters and universe for future installments. The producers have an opportunity to take this franchise in a whole new direction and create a new mythology for a new generation while giving the old fans more of what they want which is more adventures of the Enterprise. For a big Summer blockbuster movie Star Trek has lots of laughs, good characters and acting, and plenty of explosions and stunts to keep you entertained. Of all of the movies that have come before this one in the series this is probably my favorite. I hope they can keep the talent together and tell us some exciting stories in the future, because for once in the long storied history of this franchise I would consider myself a fan.

Star Trek opens on Friday, May 8. This could be one of the more successful films this summer. I don't think you will be disappointed.

The Brothers Bloom

2009-04-30T00:20:00.000-07:00

Last night I had a chance to see a screening of The Brothers Bloom at the Newport Beach Film Festival.

The movie is the second film from writer/director Rian Johnson, whose first film Brick was one of my favorite films from 2005. With Brick Johnson was able to take a fresh spin on the Film Noir genre by setting it in a high school and creating a slang language that made the world the characters lived in seem unique and original. There was a lot of style present in the writing and direction, and with Bloom Johnson is able to once again create a world that is stylistic in it's own way without feeling like he is repeating himself as an artist.

For his second film, Rian Johnson approaches the genre of the con man, or grifter. Adrien Brody plays Bloom and Mark Ruffalo plays Stephen, brothers who have floated through the foster care system, constantly being returned for bad behavior. It is during this phase of their life that they learn their true talents as con artist. They grow up to become some of the most famous and successful con men.

Stephen is the idea man. He is constantly creating elaborate stories for the brothers to thrive in. They create the perfect situation for their mark so that they can take them for all they have. Bloom is the actor, portraying each character his brother draws out for him with such realism that the targets never know what hits them.

Bloom has become a bit tired of the game. He doesn't feel like anything in his life is real, it's all a world of make believe that his brother has invented. He wants out. He wants to live a normal life and be a part of something that is authentic and true. But like most con men he can't stay away for long.

Stephen brings him back in for one last con, his best yet. The target: a wealthy eccentric recluse named Penelope played by Rachel Weisz. Stephen cooks up a complex game to bring Penelope out of her shell and on the adventure of her life, while at the same time giving Bloom what he has longed for: something real.

The film is really funny and quirky with lots of slapstick moments of humor. The brothers have a great chemistry with each other, and Weisz plays up the lonely odd spoiled kid with great humor and innocence. But it's the brothers side kick Bang Bang, played by Rinko Kikuchi, that steals the show. She barely utters a single word in the entire movie but brings a strong vaudeville type of physical humor to the role. She is mysterious and sadistic and flat out funny and charming. The relationship she has with the brothers and eventually with Penelope is very sincere and funny. All four play off of each other with great ease that it all seems natural.

The plot is quite complex with lots of twists and turns that you would expect from a good con story. I never fully was able to figure out who was conning who and I was left guessing till the very end. And even when I thought I had it figured out, it was wrapped up in a way that was very satisfying.

The film starts out with a lot of laughs and keeps the pace throughout most of the film but some of the laughs did die off near the end as things got a bit more serious. As Rian Johnson explained to the crowd after the film, that was an essential element to telling the story. The characters lived in a fantasy created by themselves so it was necessary to make things light and fun for the audience to be a part of that story as well. As things got away from their story and more real then so did the tone and pacing, which makes sense and actually enhances the meaning of the ending.

The writing was good with sharp snappy dialogue and multifaceted characters. There were a few plot points that I didn't feel were explained well but that could just be editing for timing purposes or maybe I missed something. There are a lot of beautiful locations that are photographed well to share the majesty of the destinations and put you into the scene.

The Brothers Bloom was an extremely fun and entertaining movie. It was originally supposed to be out last year but got pushed back till this summer. I was highly anticipating this film because of my love for Brick and it didn't disappoint. Rian Johnson is now two for two and I'm excited to see what he has next. The movie will open in limited release on May 15 and open in wide release on May 29. It's not your typical summer film but it's good counter programming to have it open against some of the big titles. If you are tired of mindless stories with lots of explosions and you want to see something smart and fun I highly recommend you check out The Brothers Bloom.

My Homework Assignment: My 100 Favorite Movies of All Time

2009-04-23T00:08:00.000-07:00

What is it with movie fans, or music fans as well, that we feel a need to constantly make lists of our favorites or least favorites?

Maybe it's a way of justifying to ourselves as well as the rest of the world not only what we like but why we like them. Every year everyone has a top ten list of their favorite movies of the year, or favorite albums, or favorite television shows. Even the awards shows that crowd the airwaves are a list in a way. They pick their five favorites in whatever category and then pick their favorite from that list. We all do it. I know I do at least.

And you can really make a list for just about everything. There is a great film called High Fidelity that deals mostly with music and the characters are constantly making random lists ranking various songs for various reasons. A great example is the character of Barry, played by Jack Black, who blurts out to name "top five musical crimes perpetuated by Stevie Wonder in the '80's and 90's. Go. Sub-question: is it in fact unfair to criticize a formerly great artist for his latter day sins, or is it better to burn out or fade away?"

The same can be done for film. Name the five greatest scenes in which Tom Cruise does his obligatory sprinting scene. Or how about five favorite Al Pacino screaming scenes? It can be fun and challenging to come up with a list, but in the end it doesn't mean too much perhaps.

"Doesn't he look angry?"

As much as I love the AFI's tradition of releasing lists of the top 100 films or quotes or songs from films there are always going to be choices I or anyone else doesn't agree with. The lists are subjective and really mean nothing but to the person that created it. It's a way to define one's taste in a way. It also can lead to great discussions and debates as to the validity of one person's picks versus an other's choices. I love reading critic's choices for their favorite films each year, just as I like analysing the nominated films in the various awards categories. I like to compare my picks as a way of validating what I like, but also to criticize and debate what gets chosen and what doesn't get chosen. It really has no concrete merit but it's all in good fun.

So when we were given a homework assignment at work I actually got quite excited. We have a section in the store that displays all of the AFI top 100 American films of all time from the list they released a few years ago. The big boss decided to create a companion wall: the DVD Planet employee's top 100 films of all time. Each employee was assigned to submit their list of 100 favorite films, then a master list would be compiled from all of the most selected titles and we will vote for our picks from that list to create the ultimate list.

I've always wanted to try to come up with a top 100 list before but I've never felt the need to put in all of that work. I've tried to make a top ten list before but I found it too hard to whittle down all of my favorite films to just ten films. One hundred seemed like a more reasonable number that I could work with. One thing was for sure, I was going to take this seriously and do this right.

There were some that as soon as the assignment was given they had their list the next day. I took my time with it, perhaps too much time and I didn't get my list in till a couple weeks later. I wanted to make sure it was right and that took time and diligence in getting it right.

The first thing I did was started to compile a list off the top of my head of my all time favorite films. I initially came up with a little over 30 titles. I then started going through my DVD collection picking some of my favorites. I was also reading everyone else's lists as they were being turned in, catching titles that I had forgotten about or I didn't own so I didn't think about it. When all was said and done I had a master list of about 225 titles. I now had to eliminate more than half of them.

I decided I would come up with a ranking system and rate each title in several different categories such as the writing, acting, directing, personal relevance, re-watchability, etc. I would take the final tally and rank them that way. I actually started this and decided this was just way too difficult and would take forever. Maybe I was taking this a bit too seriously. Perhaps, but I wanted to make sure it was right.

So what I ended up doing was just studying my list and breaking it down into smaller groups. I started by picking the films that I felt absolutely had to be on the list and I ended up cutting it to 80 titles. I picked my initial favorite films I came up with and worked that to about 20 titles. I then ranked those in my preferred order, meticulously rearranging it until I got it right. I continued to do this for the initial 80 titles I picked, picking between 10-20 and ranking those, then the next 10-20, and so on. I was left with a top 80 list and needed 20 more titles from the close to 150 titles left from my original list.

I continued to narrow it down, scrolling over it and picking the ones that were most crucial to me. I got it to 105 titles so the hard part came of what to eliminate. Even after I got it to my final 100 list I continued to tinker with the order. There were films that were down on the list and after looking over it so many times I felt they needed to be higher so I would judge them against each one before it until I found the perfect spot for it. Some moved up, some moved down, but in the end I came up with a final top 100 list that I could be proud of. How geeky am I sounding right about now?

I must say I was quite surprised by my final list. I've been called pretty pretentious by some friends when it comes to my taste in movies, which for the most part I would agree with. There is definitely a fair share of artsy or indie films on my list, but there is some fluff represented as well. Ultimately these are the films that I can watch over and over again. Many are films that have had a direct influence in shaping not only my tastes in movies, but my life personally. I think there is a direct correlation between the art or music or films we like and the type of personalities we have, and our personality behavior has a direct effect on the choices we make in life. To me that is one of the major powers that film has on not only my life but our society and culture in general.

This list was finalized a month ago but if I were to write it now it would probably be different depending on my mood today. There was a film I had owned on DVD that I just watched last week that just blew me away, and had I written this list now it probably would have made my list, it was that good. If you were to compare this to a list I would have written ten years ago it would be drastically different because my tastes have considerably changed. In a way it can be a time capsule to capture that one moment of your life and what you were like when you wrote it. Maybe half of the list would have been on it ten years ago, and it would have been in a really different order. One film in particular stands out to me as being in a completely different spot now than it would have been ten years ago, and I'm reminded by that quote from Barry in High Fidelity, is it in fact unfair to criticize a once great artist for his latter day sins? I'll let you guess what film I'm referring to.

And as I've said before, these lists are subjective. This list is in no way meant to be the definitive list of greatest films ever made, but just my list of personal favorites. So I figured I would share my list with you my dear readers (or maybe it's just reader) for several reasons. One, because I'm a pretentious geek and I need to validate my list to myself by sharing it with you so I feel important. But really, I figure if I am going to write reviews and offer my own opinion and criticism then you should know where I am coming from as far as my taste in film. If you know what kind of films I like and why I like them then it will help validate to not only the reader, but to myself why I like or dislike a film I may watch or write about.

Plus I hope that it will start a conversation and debate about these particular films and your own opinions of them. And maybe it will get you to think about your own favorites so that we could share, compare, and debate who is right and wrong. Maybe I have some films on this list that you haven't seen and it will inspire you to seek them out and find new films to watch. Whatever comes of it, I hope you enjoy reading this. I'm going to reveal them in groups of ten, working backwards until we get to number one.

So without further adieu, let us begin!

#100 His Girl Friday (1940)

This is one of the best screwball comedies staring one of my favorite actors Cary Grant. Cary Grant could do it all from drama to comedy to thriller. He had a certain charisma to him that made him likable in every roll. The closest we have to him today I think would be George Clooney. They have that certain mix of charm and good looks that just screams movie star.

The story focuses on two reporters played by Grant and Rosalind Russell who are both in the news paper business and about to divorce so that Russell can move away with her new love and leave the business and start a new life. Grant will do whatever it takes to keep her around and ends up putting her on a story that turns out to be the biggest the city has seen in quite some time. Meanwhile Grant's character Walter Burns comes up with all sorts of mischief to try and sabotage Russell's new relationship so he can get her to stay.

The movie is full of quick witty dialogue and slapstick humor. It was directed by Howard Hawks who was one of the original giants of old Hollywood. The screwball comedy is a genre that has often tried to be imitated but hasn't had the same success as it did in the '30's and '40's. It's a film I feel still holds up and worth checking out.

#99 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Here's a movie that had a drastic effect on the future of special effects and lead to films like Star Wars being possible. Stanley Kubrick's film is definitely an acquired taste and could be difficult to watch. It's more of a visual poem than it is a traditional plot based story, but that is what makes it unique.

The movie follows the mysterious monolith that suddenly appears on Earth during the stone ages, then again in the future buried on the moon. When the moon monolith is discovered it sends a signal to another one located near Jupiter and an exploration to that planet is set to find the origins. Along on the mission is HAL-9000, the on board computer with a mission of it's own. The monotone voice of HAL helps the eeriness created for one of the most sadistic killers ever created for the screen.

The movie is asking questions of our existence. Where did we come from? Where did the universe come from? Is there life besides us out there? The psychedelic solar trip at the end of the film is one of the most unique effects created for a sci-fi film. The innovative camera work and special effects along with the use of classical music helps to tell the story in place of any dialogue, which is used sparingly throughout the film. It can be a hard film to watch, but Kubrick has undoubtedly created a masterpiece that needs to be seen to be appreciated.

#98 Adaptation (2002)

The second teaming of director Spike Jonze and screenwriter Charlie Kaufman along with fictional twin brother Donald Kaufman is a realistic if somewhat insane look at the life of a screenwriter. There are moments in this film I fully appreciate because of the realistic approach it takes to writing. The character of Charlie played by Nicholas Cage will do whatever it takes to procrastinate so that he doesn't have to write. It's nice to know that I'm not alone.

Nicholas Cage plays screenwriter Charlie Kaufman as well as his twin Donald. Charlie has just finished Being John Malkovich and he is given the assignment to adapt a novel about flowers. He struggles with how to tell the story and ends up enlisting the help of his brother who has a more Hollywood sensibility. After many struggles he ends up writing himself into the movie and the story ends up becoming the film within the film. Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper in an Oscar winning role play the characters within the film that Charlie is writing yet end up becoming real antagonists for Charlie and Donald.

The film is a really surrealistic approach to story telling and the writing process. Kaufman has a great sense of story structure that is truly complex and innovative. Cage gives one of the best performances in his career creating two completely different characters and pulling them off with great flare in his Oscar nominated role. Adaptation is a really trippy and fun movie. I would love to see another collaboration between Jonze and Kaufman again.

#97 Being John Malkovich

Speaking of Jonze and Kaufman, not only was this their first collaboration but it was their first film and they nailed it. The movie stars John Cusack, Cameron Diaz, Catherine Keener, and of course John Malkovich. Both Jonze and Kaufman have a unique and odd sense of story telling and their visions mix perfectly to create a fun and creative new story.

Cusack plays Craig, a puppeteer that is struggling to make it big so he is forced to take an office job with a company that is oddly located on the 7 1/2 floor of it's building. While filing away he discovers a portal behind a cabinet that leads into the mind of John Malkovich and while inside you get to see what he sees for a short period of time before being dumped out onto a turnpike outside the city. He shares this secret with his wife played by Cameron Diaz and the woman in the office he is attracted to played by Catherine Keener. An addiction and struggle over sharing this portal is created between the characters that leads to a surprising revelation about it's origins.

Like Adaptation, the story's structure is quite unique and complex. All sense of reality is thrown out and playing under their new rules Jonze and Kaufman are able to create a fantastic fable unlike anything else. It is completely original and inventive with great performances by all of the actors. Some might find it a bit too quirky but it's definitely worth checking out.

#96 Groundhog Day (1993)

What would you do if you were forced to live the same day over and over? That's the premise of this Harold Ramis comedy that stars Bill Murray as a weatherman who gets stuck living the same mundane moment over and over again.

The brilliance of this comedy is the length it goes to explore every possible thing you could do with a single day when you are forced to relive it. The story goes full circle, starting with confusion and anger and then acceptance and taking advantage of it. The set of scenes where Murray explores the different possible ways of dying, only to wake up fine the next morning is pretty damn funny.

There is a real heart and soul present in the story. Ultimately it's about finding a way to make things right in your life. Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell have great chemistry together. It's a clever story that offers a lot of laughs that holds up well. It definite must see every year on Groundhog Day.

#95 Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002)

This is the directorial debut by George Clooney with a script by Charlie Kaufman. Clooney brings an original visual style and gets great performances from his cast.

Sam Rockwell plays Chuck Barris, host to the '70's game show The Gong Show and who claimed to work as a secret agent for the CIA. Whether he really did this or made it all up doesn't matter. Clooney takes the approach that he really did do this to tell the story from Barris' point of view which makes for a more compelling and entertaining story. Rockwell is excellent in the leading roll and Drew Barrymore and Julia Roberts give great supporting roles. There are quite a few cool shots in the film like the long take of Barris taking the studio tour which chronicles the shift in time from his visit to his eventual employment in one single shot. Very clever and well executed. Not bad for a rookie director.

#94 Boogie Nights (1997)

A break through film from one of my favorite film makers, Paul Thomas Anderson. Anderson writes a script full of complex multidimensional characters and he brings out the best from his actors with his direction.

Mark Wahlberg plays Dirk Diggler in this story that is loosely based on the life of porn legend John Holmes. He is a physically gifted kid who is lost in life but finds his calling as well as a new family in the porn industry. He becomes a huge star and eventually lets the fame and power destroy him as well as those around him. The large supporting cast that includes Burt Reynolds, Julianne Moore, John C. Reilly, Heather Graham, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and William H. Macy give outstanding performances. Each character is fully drawn out and have their own story arc that make this film a thoroughly engaging look into the world of porn in the 1970's. It's some dark subject material but the story and direction are really excellent.

#93 Apocalypse Now (1979)

Based on the book "Hearts of Darkness," Francis Ford Coppola transfers the story and characters into the Vietnam War to tell an antiwar story and show the effects war has on man.

Martin Sheen plays Captain Willard, a man on the brink of madness himself who is hired for a secret mission to find another military man who has gone crazy, Colonel Kurtz, played by Marlon Brando, and is given the assingment of assassinating him. Along his journey he encounters a variety of interesting characters and some dark and violent battles. But it is the final interaction between Willard and Kurtz where the true madness of war is expressed.

It's a dark and complex film and can be a bit tough to watch at times, but it really is a remarkable achievement of filmmaking. There is a director's cut that was released in 2001 which I haven't seen yet that adds an hour to the film and fleshes out the characters more, but the original cut stands up just fine on it's own. The story of the production of the film is just as engaging, as documented in the film Hearts of Darkness. The madness of the characters spreads to the cast and crew that was truely cursed and would mark an unfortunate downward trend for director Francis Ford Coppola. Both films are worth checking out.

#92 Barton Fink (1991)

Another great film on the life of a writer. This was also the first of a long line of collaborations between writer/directors Joel & Ethan Coen and cinematographer Roger Deakins. Deakins camera work adds as much to the gloom and torture of the character as the script does.

John Turturro plays Barton Fink, a successful New York playwrite who is brought out to Hollywood to write the next big wrestling picture. He locks himself away in a hotel room and struggles to write the commercial work because of fear of sacrificing his intelectual side to his art. Fink strikes up a friendship with a neighbor in the hotel played by John Goodman, a traveling salesman who has a dark and mysterious side to him.

Fink goes a bit mad during the writing process and slowly begins to lose himself. The hotel room he stays in has a bit of a life of it's own. The wallpaper continues to slowly peel away and bleed out the glue holding it together. It's a strong metaphor for Fink and his struggles with trying to write something he's not passionate about. The lighting and photography of the room and the peeling wallpaper adds a great dimension to the story. The entire cast gives great performances in the usual Coen Brothers quirky way.

#91 The Big Lebowski (1998)

One of the best characters created by the Coen Brothers. I'm of course talking about the Dude.

Jeff Bridges plays "Dude" Lebowski, a drunken unemployed stoner who gets mistaken for a millionaire with the same name and dragged into a kidnapping and ransom ploy. All the Dude wants to do is bowl but his life gets turned upside down by this mix of odd characters he comes into contact with.

This is one of the funnier films from the Coens with many quotable lines. John Goodman, Steve Buscemi and John Turturro give great supporting performances, but it's Bridges who steals the show with his role of the Dude. He nails it perfectly and helps to create a truely iconic character. You don't roll on the Shabbos!

Well that's it for now. Thanks for reading along. I'll be back with the next set of ten soon. Until next time...

Sunshine Cleaning

2009-04-20T22:15:00.000-07:00

Do you ever wonder what happens to the cool kids after high school?

Maybe it's a bit cliche but I feel that the cool kids are usually the ones that try extremely hard to hang on to that thing that made them feel and seem on top of the world and struggle to cope with the changes that occur after high school. And it's the nerds that usually didn't succeed with social endeavors but succeed academically and become wealthy and powerful in their post high school lives. I don't know if that is actually true or not, but it makes me wish I studied harder in high school. Not that I was in the cool crowd, but somewhere in between maybe. Either way, here I am floating through life trying to find my purpose. But I digress.

This is one of the themes that drives the character of Rose played by Amy Adams in the film Sunshine Cleaning. Rose was the head cheerleader in high school and dated the captain of the football team. Ten years after high school she is now cleaning the houses of her classmates and sneaking off to hotel rooms with the former football captain who is now married to another classmate.

Rose has had a series of missteps in her life and she is in a rut, not sure what exactly to do with her life. She is a single mother to a boy that she is forced to pull out of his school because of behavior problems. She is struggling to make ends meet and that is when her secret beau, played by Steve Zahn, suggests that she get into crime scene clean up because there is a lot of money to be made there. As small as this New Mexico town seems from all of the external photography, there really is a lot of bloody crime scenes to work.

Rose gets into business with her younger sister Norah, played by Emily Blunt. Norah has no job, no direction, and plenty of demons from her past to deal with. The real heart of this film is the relationship between the sisters Rose and Norah. Both have scars from a dark past that haunt them and have influenced the course of their lives in different ways. Working this business together gives them a chance to bond as well as find a way to reconcile their past and come to terms with their present lives.

The theme of older sibling taking care of troubled younger sibling has been done before so the story isn't really original but the characters are well drawn out and that it makes the story enjoyable. It's a theme that was explored in the producers last film Little Miss Sunshine to much better effect. However, I really enjoyed the chemistry between Emily Blunt and Amy Adams. Each actress added a lot of internal depth and anguish to the character that made the relationship feel real and authentic.

Alan Arkin, Steve Zahn, and Clifton Collins, Jr. round out a really good cast. The acting and characters are what made this film really enjoyable. There is a good balance of humor with some strong moments of sadness. There are some really disgusting crime scenes for them to clean up as well so it could be a little squeamish for some. I felt there were a few subplots that weren't really flushed out or concluded that left me with some unanswered questions. They were big enough for me to feel a little unfulfilled by the end of the film. I'm not sure if there were some scenes left on the editing room floor or they left them ambiguous on purpose, but I would have liked a little more closure.

Overall I would recommend this quirky independent film. The acting was really strong with some really well thought out characters. I wasn't blown away by it and it's nothing really original, but it was a fun movie none the less. It may not be playing in a lot of theatres but it's one you should seek out.

My Adventures with Netflix

2009-04-13T23:16:00.000-07:00

Netflix loves me.

We have a two out at a time subscription with Netflix where I get one and Michelle gets one at a time. I think the record for me is having the same movie for three months before I've watched it. That's an expensive rental.

Recently I was trying to watch some of the Academy Award nominated films before the Oscar telecast but that didn't quite happen. I had one for two months I think and then I had Frozen River for a month before watching it. It was an interesting film and Melissa Leo's performance was good, but it wasn't worth holding onto for a month and missing out on other films.

Lately I've gotten better. I'm trying to take advantage of the subscription rather than waste the money away. Plus my Queue is full.

You can have up to 500 films in your queue and mine has consistently been full for over a year. I usually just add titles to help me remember that I want to see them eventually, but I'm always having to either delete titles because I just went ahead and bought it or I need to make a tough choice and eliminate something to make room for a new addition. Even today there are some titles in there that I know are crap but someday I may be in the mood to watch, like the Love Guru. Hey, it could be good. After all, the Kings make the Stanley Cup finals in the movie. That may be the closest I get to seeing that happen. Ah hell, who am I kidding? The movie is going to be bad and I know it, yet there it sits in my queue taking up space. Even if I were to watch a movie a week, and never add another title to my queue, it's going to take me ten years to watch all of them. I guess we all have to have goals don't we? At my rate though, it's going to be more like 30 years.

But like I was saying, lately I've gotten better. I've actually had a few quick turn around lately. I got Rachel Getting Married and watched it right away.

This was not your typical Jonathan Demme film. He gets away from some of his signature character framing, like having the characters look directly into the camera when addressing other characters. Instead he goes for a more free roaming camera to let the action unfold naturally. The film had a real low budget feel to it, maybe even a documentary vibe, and at times felt improvised which added a sense of realism to it.

Anne Hathaway was good in her role of Kym, the recovering drug addict sister coming home for Rachel's wedding. The tension between her and her family was quite thick, and it takes some time to fully realize what incidents from the past are still pulling at this family and the lingering effects they have. Nothing is ever really drilled into your head, all the emotions and conflicts are left to unravel naturally so that you can discover them yourself and that adds a lot of tension and suspense to the story. There are moments of comedy as well as sadness, but it is all balanced quite well and it makes for a very enjoyable story.

The plot is pretty simple, but like with most independent films this is about the characters and not the story. The entire cast does an amazing and believable job. I would highly recommend this film for it's performances alone, as well as some good writing.

And speaking of character pieces, the next film I watched pretty quickly was Happy-Go-Lucky. This is the latest from Mike Leigh, writer and director of Vera Drake, Topsy-Turvy, Secrets & Lies, and Naked. I really hadn't heard anything about this film until the Golden Globes when actress Sally Hawkins won for Actress in a comedy. It also went on to get a nomination at the Oscars for original screenplay.

Hawkins plays Poppy, an extremely outgoing woman who looks to bring out the light in everyone she comes across. She's a thirty year old grade school teacher who is single and lives with her best friend Zoe. She's traveled the world, loves her friends, loves her job, and is really happy with her life. When her younger sister who is married and pregnant asks when she is going to settle down she really doesn't have an answer. There is no reason to, she has everything she wants and makes the best of what she doesn't.

Her exuberance at times was a bit over the top. She is constantly kidding around and trying to get others to laugh along with her. Her energy is contagious amongst her best friends and could be very humorous at times, but there were moments it was a bit wearing on me. But I think that is the point of the character when ultimately her actions towards those around her have a negative outcome near the end of the film.

Her fun nature is innocent and she means nothing but good things, but in the end she gets a glimpse of how her attitude and actions could be misinterpreted in a harmful way. It is in this one climatic moment that we get to see the serious side of Poppy, but even after that and she sees the hurt she has caused, she is able to shrug it off and go on with her life and once again get the positive out of a bad situation. It's a wonderful trait to have to always be able to be positive and fun natured to make everyone around you happy and upbeat, but it could be positively draining as well.

I thought Hawkins gave a great energetic performance and the character was well written. There were some good funny lines, but there were some that I also missed because the English accent was a bit thick at times and I'm sure I missed a few lines here and there. Overall it was an enjoyable film with quite a few laughs. If you are looking for a quirky comedy I would recommend it.

Well I got through those two films pretty quick. I'm going on a week now holding on to my most recent acquisition from Netflix. Hopefully I don't waste this one away, but as soon as I get through it I will let you all know. So until next time...

I Know It All

2009-04-06T22:35:00.000-07:00

Greetings and welcome to my blog.

I've been toying with the idea for a while of starting one up. I tried for a while over at myspace but I just never kept up with it. Maybe things will be different here.

The idea of having a blog has always been a bit weird to me. At first a lot of the blogs I would read were just like public diaries. I doubt anybody really cares how I spent my day, nor do I really care in sharing the details with you. Lately the world of blogs has expanded and become quite useful. Some have quite the journalistic vibe to them and have been used for great power.

As political as I can be, I highly doubt I'll be doing any of that here.

So what will I be using my blog for? Well to write about movies of course. If there is one thing I am passionate about it is film. I love to watch, analyze and discuss about anything to do with film. I'll write about some of the films I've seen recently, some I've been wanting to see, and other various discussions about different aspects of film. Maybe I'll get others invloved to help me out. I have a few ideas already that I want to try out and write about, but I'll get to that later.

So what makes me qualified to write about film? Well nothing really. I'm just a film lover like many of you. Although I have worked for far too many years in one video store or another, and that has given me an opportunity to watch lots and lots of movies. Lots of them mediocre, some quite good. I've taken several film classes and writing classes, but that means nothing when it comes down to it. Art is so subjective. You either like it or you don't, and often times your reasons for your like or dislike comes from a very personal background that you bring with you at all times when watching a film or listening to a song or reading a poem or looking at a painting. Your reasons for likeing something will differ than my reasons for liking it, and vice versa. But that angle for discussing and disecting something often times leads to very engaging and informative discussions. It helps to see things in the story or acting that I may not have thought of or seen.

In the end that is what I want. I want to get into lively discussions about various films, old and new, so that I may see them in a whole new light and in the end perhaps it will help me become a better writer myself. I hope you find this blog informative, engaging, and fun, and I implore anyone reading to please participate in sharing your opinions and offering any ideas you may like to see or contribute with as well.

So to start things off I figure I'll offer up my opinion of the most recent film I've seen in theatres: Knowing.

There was really only one reason I wanted to see this film and that was because it was directed by Alex Proyas. Proyas is one of the many directors like David Fincher, Spike Jonze, and Michel Gondry that came from the world of music videos. They have a wonderful sense of the visual medium and what the camera is capable of doing. I was a big fan of Proya's first two films, The Crow and Dark City, but I felt I, Robot was kind of lacking so I was hoping for a much better outing this time.

The premise is that Nicholas Cage's son's school participates in an event where they dig up a time capsule from students of the same school from 50 years prior and his son receives a drawing on it with nothing but a bunch of numbers. Cage, being a briliant professor in astronomy and lecturing on things like randomness in the universe, finds that the numbers on the sheet are not random at all, but instead contain the dates of all of the biggest disasters of the last 5o years, including how many die and the latitude and longitude of each event. The scary part is that there are still three events that have yet to occur, and the last one is only the date and is missing the rest.

There is plenty of cool effects and action scenes that keep the film entertaining. The suspense is strong and I really didn't quite know where the film was going and I was actually pleased with it's outcome. There are a few scary guys that appear occasionally that kind of came out of nowhere and offered a really creepy element to the film. At first I thought it was just random but they do serve a purpose for the ending which I liked, and it seems that the ending is what is really upseting so many people. Without giving anything away, from talking to people and reading reviews, it's the ending the ruins it for some. I'll just say I did not mind it at all and I thought it worked perfect for the story.

There are quite a few different themes that are explored and I thought some of it was very similar to Dark City, which is probably why I enjoyed it. It is, afterall, a sci-fi film. One of the things the film explores is our place in the universe, and if we are alone or not. Like Dark City, this film offers up the opinion that we are not alone, but it also shows the interest an alien society would have with us and how fascinated they are by our behavior. We are definitely an interesting species and the things that make us unique are a wonder to behold, such as the idea of whether or not we have a soul and what that means. This was a theme that was the driving force in Dark City and it is again apparent here in Knowing, but just not to the same extent.

And that brings up another of the theme's present in the film, that of faith. Cage is a man of science and the son of very religious man, in fact he's the son of a priest. Cage lost his wife a year ago and has been having a hard time coming to terms with the knowledge of a God that would do this to him. In a way this theme is very similar to that of Signs. The characters in both films are dealing with the same crisis of faith and really in a way facing the same conflicts that they must overcome. The final event is definitely a thing of science and something explainable and unavoidable, but the people of faith will approach it as the work of God punishing man. Without trying to give too much else away I'll just say that I enjoyed the final event and I thought it was handled appropriately, as well as the character's final resolution with his faith and place in the world.

There were times when the dialogue could have come across as quite cheesy and over the top, as well as some of the events, but I think Alex Proyas handled them quite well. There is enough balance of action, suspense and terror to make the film thrilling and fun. If you are not a fan of sci-fi then you may find some of the elements ridiculous and bad, but if you go in with an open mind then I think it's a fun popcorn film. Nothing earth shattering or original by any means, but a fun night at the movies.

Well that's it for now. Thanks for reading, and please leave me some comments and feedback. Until next time...