TopherAllen1112 Reviews

Mank (2020)

A Story about Story...and Politics

[9/10 · 28 December 2020]

My favorite film of the year is one I'm biased to choose.

Let me tell you about my bias. If I go to a new film directed by one of my favorite directors, I go in having a great amount of trust. I mean, I feel safe. What I know, given to me by my trust, allows all other expectations to wait for me elsewhere while I truly live in-the-moment for the duration of the experience. I'm not always sitting down for a piece of entertainment, although one can always hope, as this should be the least of expectations. I'm not always hoping to enjoy what I'm about to watch, though. But when I sit down for a David Fincher movie, who is the finest director working today, there is no safety (this is "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" director). Where I trust him...is knowing that nobody else could do it better.

My bias here...with "Mank"...has me very conflicted. Not only is it masterful movie making, but the story elements touch on politics and religion in such a manner that the writing feels like it's speaking just to me (these are, after all, two fascinating topics to the writer you're now reading). And not only that, but he's doing so in a charming classic-styled way that you'd see in movies like "Sunset Boulevard" (which is also about "old Hollywood"), which is to say not only are you being told stories in a lovingly entertaining way, but it's as if an old friend is using his grand dialect that friends of his describe as an art form. Gary Oldman fills this position splendidly as Mank himself surely did.

Now...is "Mank" that great? Or...am I just biased?

Is "Citizen Kane" required viewing? Citizen "Mank" serves not as a prequel, but more as a spiritual remake to the RKO Pictures classic. Let me offer some brutal honesty, here: I don't care about "casual audiences." Movies should be made for movie lovers (music seems made for specific fans as well), and I have little patience for people who choose to "Netflix n chill" (okay, I'm guilty here) or, worse, just put a movie on as a preventative measure against feeling lonely without background noise. Gotta say, on that note, "Mank" would be a pretty lovely radio show.

These times, they are a-changin'. I'm talkin' new Hollywood. I'm talkin' "old" Hollywood. "Mank" is a fast-talking charmer of the sort you would find commonplace in a good "classics" section organized by Netflix IF Netflix ever put such a worthy effort into showing their viewers real movies (Turner Classic Movies does a better job on HBO Max, and it's still pitiful). It's a sad world they've created when a David Fincher movie can't stay in the top 10 list on Netflix (it dropped off after day one) seemingly because of a lack of color.

Simply put, David Fincher (no stranger to biopics, he's the director of "The Social Network," and if I may call it a biopic, "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button") saw the future when he imagined the power of Netflix. The entertainment giant backed him for a political satire called "House of Cards," making content produced by Netflix a force to be reckoned with. Now, they're almost killing themselves with such an overwhelming output that their own movies are easily lost in the shuffle (and is it just me, or does everything, even a 3 1/2 hour Scorsese picture, feel "made-for-tv?"). David Fincher (who also directed "Se7en" and "Zodiac") came back with another show for Netflix that he enjoyed directing called "Mindhunter," which is another brilliant concept, endlessly fascinating, but a Season 3 isn't even promised or guaranteed. Contracts no longer exist for it.

Now, with a big middle finger to Hollywood itself, Fincher is using his late father's script (surely a passion project) to show how easily Hollywood was and can be changed with his first-ever straight-to-the-small-screen film, "Mank." (His last effort was the anti-love story about two narcissists who get stuck in marriage by politics, "Gone Girl") This one, like his Netflix shows, is also centered by politics.

Set in the aftermath of the depression, the brutality of the affects is background for this picture. Hollywood writers, however, are making great money for people to spend their very hard-earned nickels and quarters on. The transition to "talkies" has been made, after all, so "anyone who can put three words together" is being called upon. Our main character, Mank, a screenwriter for the movies (he claims to be washed-up, no longer talented enough to do better than movies), has insight into the propaganda that became a common practice for Hollywood directors (and even more so for foreign film people, especially in Germany where their people would believe anything that was repeated enough, not unlike our red-hat-wearing fellow citizens these past four years). The propaganda of the day is vital to the style of picture "Citizen Kane" became, which is the film Orson Welles hired Mank to write about the real-life newspaper tycoon, William Hearst (not exactly a man who would gag on a silver spoon). "Citizen Kane" became famous for the multi-perspectives and fancy camera work mixed with quick-cuts and invisible special effects all working together to create some of the greatest story-telling techniques ever that would revolutionize Hollywood...but what also invests people into the world of "Citizen Kane" is the believable "newsreel"-style footage that begins the 1941 picture that is known to be "perfect," a very rare label appropriate for anything on film. Newsreel footage, shown here to be inspired by real "fake news." Remember, Orson Welles was no stranger to using realism to sell his product. This is the same man who made headlines for a science-fiction radio play ("War of the Worlds") that literally frightened listeners into believing aliens had invaded Earth (I'm unclear if this was literally literal, but I have seen the headlines, whether they were "fake news" or not).

Herman J. Mankiewicz, or "Mank," is the writer behind the show, a credit that also went to the infamous Orson Welles for the sole Academy Award the film won (Academy voters were apparently unaware of the legacy the picture would have). Welles, who directed "Kane" and hired Mank to write it. "Mank," as told by Jack Fincher (again, David's father), seeks to deny Welles this credit, rejecting any chance for a "love letter" to the film or Hollywood (Welles was decidedly anti-Hollywood anyway, described here as an "outsider"), but more like a warning not to believe everything we see and hear (always good advice, but be wary of people who tell you not to believe ANYthing you see and hear). In one atmospheric scene of the Fincher film, we're on a beach listening to radio. An interviewee is declaring her stance on exactly why she's voting Republican in the next election, complete with a story of her own victimhood. Our main character and his lovely date then suddenly recognize the voice of said Republican voter (no doubt she could now be considered a method actor as it seems unlikely she would actually be voting for the "socialist" on the Democrat ticket). She's an actress, not just a voter, and nothing of the sort she claimed to be. "I'd recognize that voice anywhere," says Mank, listening to the sorry voice of America that is as fake as the character she's playing.

Upton Sinclair (surprisingly played by...Bill Nye?) loses the election in 1934, believing the "phony newsreels" to be the fatal blows to his campaign. Mank, a fan, blames FDR, reminding us of the "hero" that would soon come to the rescue (a man who actually forced corporations and churches into anti-socialist efforts, bringing us to the divided states of America we see today, which is sadly not an irrelevant fact pertaining to this film...especially considering corporations have nearly destroyed today's Hollywood...and thanks to this virus, we're getting an advanced look at what could become of movie theaters).

The film is presented in a glorious 4K version, and a color version doesn't even exist. This is meant to not only show the 1930s, but feel like a film from the era, too. The soundtrack is complete with the sounds of film scratches and audio flaws, and the picture itself is marked-up with what characters in "Fight Club" (another Fincher picture) called "cigarette burns." "Mank" will be remembered as one of Fincher's less accessible films (people are avoiding this not only because of a lack of color, but it is quite the "talkie"), made for writers more than cinephiles (which I wish were given more attention, although "old Hollywood" is given screen time even though it feels like less than a cameo). I kept waiting for visual sequences a la David Fincher prior, almost forgetting that the style of the film itself was presenting to me a visual feast. Every frame of a Fincher picture a painting. Each is carefully crafted (he normally certainly pays his dues to the auteur of "pure cinema," Alfred Hitchcock), and yet it's not unusual for his scripts to keep our eyes glued to the screen. It is written for political junkies as well, sure, but ultimately this is a story about story. Story itself is used to tell about story itself. Where do stories come from? That's THE question this flick answers using one of the best movies of all time.

Just don't ask about "Rosebud."

Soul (2020)

23: Let's Try Something Else

[10/10 · 28 December 2020]

Working with children takes a special kind of patience. Pixar has sought to inspire countless children through their many adventures, almost always asking even the adults in the audience philosophical questions about our identities. Driven to normalize our emotions through toys, cars, and monsters, and even emotions themselves, Pixar's new film, "Soul," begins, literally, with: "Let's try something else."

Life isn't going so well for Joe Gardner. He's doing his best, but he is actually self-centered. Sure, he works with kids, but he's just using his job as a teacher for part-time work to keep himself stable while he pursues a professional gig as the keys of a quartet. The opening scene allows us this insight, taking us on another character-driven Pixar adventure. Masterful first acts are somehow so enlightening that we can get to know a Pixar character within minutes. Pete Doctor is especially skilled in this area, as we all know. He's also the director of "Up," which gave us perhaps the greatest prologue in film history, told in minutes, Carl and Ellie's life story. We see their hopes and dreams and obstacles and tragedies.

Enough is shown to us about Joe to really feel satisfied and even excited when he gets the opportunity to sit at the piano for a new band. Very subtle spoilers follow...

...Joe soon finds himself without skin. He's blue and he glows, and he's not on Earth anymore. He's not in heaven, either. Or H-E-double-hockey-sticks. This isn't "Dante's Purgatorio," it's Disney's! (Okay, Pixar's) He's in a place where everybody is missing something. The something is known only as a "spark," which Joe assumes is, perhaps/maybe, our PURPOSE. Now, Joe's not actually missing HIS spark, but he finds someone else who is and is determined to show this someone else, known only as "22," (I can hardly believe there have been 22 Pixar movies before "Soul") that they are about to find their spark (self-centered Joe insists anybody can find their purpose through music, just like him).

First, we enter a great room, full of Pixar "easter eggs" like the lamp from the logo and the Pizza Planet truck that's been hidden in their movies ever since the first "Toy Story." Then, we're showed the museum of Joe's own life. From exhibits showing him eating pie in a restaurant alone to a statue of Joe waiting for his laundry, the theme seems to be summed up in a word: Mundane. He degradingly offers his opinion of himself with a harsher term: pointless.

All the more reason to find a point...a purpose...a spark...to life itself.

This is the story of "Soul." The plot takes a turn into "the zone," a place where we can learn a lot about our lives. Joe, however, seems to know it all (and he will be proven wrong later). There is potential to become obsessed (paradoxically sacrificing experience for ambition)...and now we have reason to fear this state of madness...for we see "lost souls" hard at work fearing their existence, a place where we go seemingly just to cope with the feeling that we are never...enough. The darkness represents this scarcity. The shadowy figures highlight our inadequacy.

Here, we get an "untethered soul" reference, alluding to the possibilities of new-age experiences for our Earthly bodies. Here, I wonder if sugared-up kids wouldn't squirm in their seats a little bit as our main character is asked to calm down. He sees himself in the hospital after listening to the environment his Earth body is in. He can even smell the hand sanitizer, reminding us all that we're still in the year 2020.

"Soul" becomes a character-driven race to discover what life is all about. In the end, we learn that it's not about the destination, it's about the journey. Joe has every opportunity and doesn't ask for much. But he is so self-centered (not an immoral guy at all, but a bit short-sighted, which might be why he wears glasses) that he is always focused on where he needs to go, rather than on embracing where he is. He certainly has access to "the zone," where he can experience what is known as "flow," and he can do this with music (at one point, he's so anxious that he feels like he can't focus on anything without a piano in front of him).

"Flow" is living in the moment. It's being in "the zone." It's experiencing something, an activity like eating or playing or exercising, to the extent that you forget about time. It's not uncommon to be catching up with an old friend and intimately listening to stories about their life in between ranting about your own and completely forgetting you two had planned to do something else entirely. "Soul" is a film that allows us this experience, which I believe is the purpose of movies. It's more like we're catching up with new friends.

Beautifully paced, this Pixar adventure structures the story with a plot that takes us back and forth from Earth to the world of our souls and sprinkles in hilarity with wholesome humanity. I might have a few favorite scenes (the barbershop scene is arguably even stronger than the following example), but one that stands out shows us the anxiety (caring-too-much) of Joe and the depression (carelessness) of "22" arguing in an apartment. Banging on his door is a student of Joe's who decides music just isn't for her. Joe doesn't have time to think about someone else, but "22" can relate to her frustration of having to learn new things. Learning sucks! But then, the student practices something she's learned and impresses herself enough to keep practicing. A little inspiration goes a long way.

Sometimes all we need...perhaps/maybe...is a little more experience.

And Joe's best experience comes at the end, when he's alone again, with his piano. No spoilers, but the scene would be a beautiful addition to the museum of Joe's life we saw earlier. Jon Batiste (from The Late Show with Stephen Colbert) gets to work magic with his beautifully animated fingers on the keys. Jazz is a style of music that thrives on improvisation, truly living in the moment and experiencing flow. Jazz grounds our story.

The montage that plays under the score merely shows images of Joe's life, perhaps/maybe even rejecting character development as the scenes refuse to contribute story, but my cheeks still became cold as tears touched the chilly air in my apartment. These moments offer little of the anxious Joe we know. All we really see is flow. (And we're also given some beautiful animation of leaves blowing outside, a train moving away from us, and aerial images of New York City).

They mean to trigger our own memories, these "mundane" moments of life. Ones where we can still feel how the wind felt as we watched the clouds. We can still summon the emotions we felt while watching someone perform something they're passionate about. We can still feel the warm wet cloth our mother used to wash our arm when we were too young to do it ourselves. Our father showed us how to use the record player, took us to the jazz club where we first fell in love with music, and had us play piano for him perhaps/maybe for the last time...memories that will last us a life time . These aren't your memories (or mine), but take a minute to recall any memories that first pop into your mind from your own life. Those moments are yours because you were living in the moment. That's "flow" from your own life.

The movie offers meditation. Flow. It asks us not to be who we are...like toys, cars, or monsters, or even emotions themselves...but to actually live our lives. Then, it asks us what we're going to do with our lives. And the answer is that we'll embrace uncertainty (perhaps/maybe)...and live every minute of it.

Tenet (2020)

I couldn't spoil the movie even if I tried.

[5/10 · 18 September 2020]

I couldn't spoil the movie even if I tried. It felt like a return to church. Typically, a congregation is there for each other, elevated by the shared experience in transcendent possibility granted us by similar material that ignites the imagination. Of course, every member of this "congregation" entered into the said "shared experience" during 2020, a year doomed to become an adjective. And let me tell you: This experience was a real 2020. As the lights lowered, so did my facemask, but only for a sip of my brew or to capitalize on stolen fries (thanks, girlfriend). Others in the theater did the same thing, although they were slightly more liberal than I was with removing material that seemingly protects the air we breathe. The Flix Brewhouse Pre-Show consisted of scenes from past Christopher Nolan flicks such as "Inception" and "Memento," two films that define his canon (like "Dunkirk," time itself is used to serve the story). Also, we were enlightened, via video-special, about the painstaking protocol that the movie-theater staff have had to endure since Covid-19 became the Covid-20 that we know today. Did I feel safe? Well, I didn't come to the theater to see a horror movie, even though fear is generally absent even if I were. Safety first, I get it. That's how I "sell," too. The movie begins with a bang, literally. The sounds of guns in a theater (in only one case were they unwelcomed in a Nolan film, and that was in 2012 during a showing of Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight Rises," which makes this first scene a little extra-intense because men enter an actual theater with machine guns) are extra-loud as if the audience is taken to a shooting range on a Michael Mann set (the same director Nolan imitated for the first scene of "The Dark Knight"). I'm once again transported into that transcendent possibility. The music is amazing. The action is intense. The scene demands attention. Keep in mind, this is my first film-going experience in over half a year, and hadn't realized how much I've been longing for just a LOUD experience, but I am no stranger to watching films that are new to me. So the "transcendent possibility," to me, remains a possibility, I'm afraid... ...Only...a possibility. The shark is in your face in scene two. A Spielbergian discount trick, a new filmmaker won't have the money to show the shark throughout the whole film, so the pop-shot, literally the shark popping its head out of the water, is an intense moment. The shark's fin is teased only in scene 1, but as we go to scene 2, everything is explained (and the only interesting thing about the scene is the idea itself, which would have been just as well explained by, you know, watching the actual movie). Well, an explanation is given, anyway. Nothing is really "explained." Here's the rundown, though...There is new technology. New to us (in the present), yet probably better understood in the future (when it is invented). This technology enables us to know the future by reliving the past. Doing so, re-experiencing the past, requires us to mirror the events as we (in the present) are inverted (into the past), literally moving backwards. To explain visually, you are driving a car whilst "inverted" (meaning: re-experiencing a past event), you will appear driving a vehicle backwards to those experiencing time going forward. Confusing? Not sure the science is clear, here. This is no "Interstellar." The entire show, I felt ready to punch myself for the sake of the film not knocking any sense into me. Cue: The Jerry Seinfeld stand-up bit where he's in a darkened theater, whispering endless questions throughout a movie (because he's confused) "Who's that guy? What does he want? Why is she with him? Why is he like that? Why does she stay with him if he's like that? Why did they ever have a kid together? Why did she kill him?" "Ohhhhhh...well, it's good that she killed him, then." Sitting in my seat, I literally became the meme: "MAKE IT MAKE SENSE!" But that's been me this entire year, this 2020 that we've gotten ourselves into. "Tenet," a palindromic title being more suggestive than meaningful (at least to the confused audience member that I was), seems meant NOT for us in the present. This film is NOT meant to be viewed only once. This film is made for our future selves (if you're asking me). To watch the film almost requires a class to understand, although the story is pretty simple: A woman stays with her abusive husband for the sake of being with her child. Yet, the child, a major character (in a twist that still doesn't make sense to me), is essentially a MacGuffin (an object used for the story, but used only for character motivation, not a part of the real story). What does this have to do with time travel? What does Time Travel have to do with the story? Well, it's necessary to save the world. WHAT? Oh yeah, the villain (the husband) wants to blow up the world. So we need all these unnamed characters, essentially uninteresting versions of James Bond (there is...NO room for character development here). What I really feel, having only seen it as my present self (although with reflection time as my future self, presently)...is this film falls victim to a filmmaker's number one fear: Being pretentious. What I believe is that, with "Memento" and all the cinematic tricks that make it great (each progressive scene takes place prior to the previous one chronologically)...and "Inception," another high-concept film that also borders on pretentious filmmaking..."Tenet" seems merely the next logical step. It's as if Christopher Nolan asked himself "How have I yet to play with time?" I'd even go so far as to say that Nolan is aware of his pretentiousness. Enter the token Michael Caine character, there for our protagonist (literally only called "The Protagonist" in this movie) to mistreat a server by trying to act like a rich snob only to be called out because he doesn't look rich enough. This was the film's one of maybe two attempts at humor. No time for that. The trick itself has been done in countless movies. A scene is filmed and played backwards in the film. Usually this trick is done to mask the fact that the scene couldn't otherwise be pulled off. Usually, this trick is done without the audience realizing it. Here, though, in "Tenet," the audience is supposed to marvel at the filmmaking with plenty of "Ooohs" and "Ahhhhs," and Nolan doesn't have to worry about the audience asking "Would this movie work if it wasn't filmed this way?" That's what happens with "Memento." That's what happens with "Dunkirk," too (although, I'd argue that a complimentary film to "Dunkirk," "1917," could NOT have worked any other way than how the director made it). Every other Christopher Nolan film works gloriously (and it'd be worth it to watch them re-edited into chronological order). Here, "Tenet" could not be filmed another way because the filmmaking is the story (the "reverse-film-effect" IS central to the plot). And Nolan gets himself into trouble here. See, the movie is many movies. We have a dysfunctional family plot. We have a heist movie. We have a war film again, too (more reminiscent of "Full Metal Jacket," as Nolan is a Kubrick-lover, but this is NO Kubrick film). And we have a futuristic time-travel movie (without feeling like a science-fiction film almost at all). And we have the reverse-film-effect concept in itself (when you blow up in an exploding car, you freeze with hypothermia), which is the "new technology" that the film wastes no time having to explain, although it does so in the only way possible, through analogy. Through idea. Through concept. Through show and tell. Well, tell and show. And the audience must buy this rather than think about it. It feels like Nolan thought about it, but this is why I really must label this movie pretentious. Don't take my word for it, though. The movie made me feel stupid, which is a natural side-effect of a pretentious film. Maybe you'll be in for the car chases and the explosions without questioning the rest of it. But for a movie that provides so many answers, one wonders the questions that are being asked. Or is it the other way around?

Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker (2019)

The Force Sleeps

[4/10 · 22 December 2019]

A spoiler-heavy review lay before you with a proper dose of ambiguity just in case you'd actually like to be talked out of seeing STAR WARS Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker.

Imagine you're writing a novel. You have every opportunity at your fingertips (as soon as you break writer's block). Endless inspiration all around you. Countless sources have come before you just sitting there to be picked, good fruits and plenty of bad. There's an oft-written simple guide, almost so simple in rule, it begs to be cheated and broken. It goes like this...

The first two words of each chapter do not, will not, and should not be "and then..."

And then...do NOT write "and then." Use..."however..." or "meanwhile..."

As children, we'll write our little stories, stories that do not deserve to be nurtured, but beg to be understood so as to be grown into better stories later in life. The never-ending story from my five-year-old is glued together by countless "and thens." We must learn the rules of basic communication to break them with humor, irony, and most importantly, wonder, if we're ever to truly be heard.

It appears these children are merely making deadlines. (Deadline: Noun. Meaning: Money). They run studios as people who grew up with Star Wars, but have rejected all the growing up.

There was one moment, and only one, that made "The Rise of Skywalker" worthy of an honorable mention, and it's the only reason I write this at all. "I love you."

These three words granted us one of the most iconic responses in movie history, from the cowboy in the original sequel to the space-western opera that is "Star Wars."

It went like this, Han Solo is going to uncertain doom (a sorely missed feeling in the latest episode, for here there is just nothing at stake, proving Star Wars is no better than Marvel movies from Scorsese's opinion). Leia tells him she loves him. Han responds "I know."

"I love you" is not said here son to father. It is unspoken. "I know," though, coming from father to son, tells us exactly what we need to hear. It is the only moment where the force is not only used, but given to the audience. We know Ben Solo feels it, too. And his fate is sealed. He will prove that Rey is more than her blood.

However, the aim of this flick seems merely to prove the power of "The Last Jedi." Not Rey, but that last episode that was so disappointing to fans that calls for its removal from canon were passionately made.

And then...

Oh, it gets worse than "and then."

We have "oh wait, real quick..." We have "Almost forgot to mention..." We even experience several "This has all been for nothing..."

And that's the slap in the face Star Wars fans needed. Wake up, there's been a mistake, we have nothing to add. We must further complete a Saga. We must beat a dead horse (or whatever those angry long-haired things were).

The missed opportunity.

You're writing your novel, and your backstory must be established to recognize what your main character means to the already-cemented universe you've created. What you don't realize is that there's an intimate story of family versus the system. Family battles the generations before them. These stories are plentiful in the histories of all cultures. Much like "loner cinema," where the hero discovers a larger order (in this case, we have come from the First Order to the Final Order) of all things. They explore themselves, always themselves, to learn that they are unique and outside the order. Everyone else is a device, certainly not a "real" character. The emotion must come from our main character.

And this is a hit to the heart of the fans...our main characters, our emotional centers (and seemingly first billed), are treated like throwaway minor details.

Why are you writing this story?

You have a wonderful backstory, and a fearful villain. The Emperor! He strikes back. Again. This story is unused, only alluded to, seemingly forced upon the writers. The emotion is not even accessible as elaboration would be wasted in the overall structure of the story.

And it's this structure that makes "Star Wars Episode 9" suffer. The old trick playfully used in "Return of the Jedi," switching story lines to relieve any chance of boredom, is forced upon us here. This is certainly not the force awakened in "The Force Awakens." That film takes its time, with ambiguity to spare. This gives us a sense of wonder, the magical feeling that John Williams maximizes better than anyone.

Not here. Not even John Williams has the chance. I couldn't even tell if he was behind the orchestra as his themes are used for "big" moments only to remind us we're watching a Star Wars film.

And I honestly couldn't tell.

Nowhere did we have the Yoda moment from "The Last Jedi" to allow us to breathe and know everything would be okay and that we are in Jedi territory. Nowhere did we have a lightsaber battle that could compare to the beautiful choreography of the prequels (even if that's all they had going for them). Nowhere did we have the time to recognize bigger themes at work that would be so prevalent on repeat viewings (though I'll definitely be watching certain YouTube channels with a new hope of disproving my pessimism here).

Nowhere did I feel like a kid again, because I knew those at the helm were being children. I wish I could say that there were some well-edited sequences and good humor, but I'm too exhausted. I want to see Rey's family running for their lives because Emperor Palpatine wants his bloodline under his control. I want to see the wonder on little Rey's face as she discovers who she is, and I want to see her establish her own family to teach us that fate has no hold on us. This inevitable ending (predictable though it may be, also the reason we know nothing is at stake) feels like it was from the outtakes...of the wrap party...before the short epilogue...which is tacked on there like a rusty license plate...

"And then...oh yeah, almost forgot our title...the rise of Skywalker means...um...the same shot from Episode III, look at those suns! Cue John Williams!"

American Sniper (2014)

Clint Eastwood's "Transformers"

[7/10 · 22 January 2015]

"American Sniper" is a tale of vengeance.

Sparking lots of controversy over the morals of the film, there really wasn't a lot of content to criticize. Honestly, it is an enjoyable action film. It's a shoot-em-up hate-the-bad guys flick the same we've seen over and over, even from Clint Eastwood. The setting, of course, is different, and the story is supposedly true. The story is based on true events, and that is unfortunate. But this is a very intimate look into the perspective of one man.

This needs to be understood.

The performance of Bradley Cooper is really great, and he got into shape to look like Chris Kyle for the role. This is to honor one man and what he did for our troops in battle, even if the film makes him out to be almost a superhero stronger than any other soldier.

To dissect the morals of the film, we can look specifically at one scene. The "sheep, sheepdog, and wolves" speech that the father of our hero (the Chris Kyle character) gives to his sons after one defends the other in a typical fight at school. The father says that his family is to be full of sheepdogs, leaders who take care of the sheep and protect them from the wolves. He then threatens a beating with a belt if either of them become wolves. Part of me was kinda wishing Jules Winnfield would bust in with a silver pistol and give his famous speech from "Pulp Fiction" about the path of the righteous man, which is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyrannies of evil men. But "American Sniper" is just not that kind of a film. It's a guy in a white hat vs. a guy in a black one. It's American vs. Foreign. It's not one to be talked about and philosophized over. Kids will not look at Kyle and want to be him like he is their hero. This early scene merely establishes the need to be a protector. So Chris Kyle becomes, literally, a Punisher, as if he is the character from the comic book (excuse me, "graphic novel"). The terrorists (from 9/11) are established as wolves, creatures that feed upon sheep without mercy. The sheep are the American people. And the sheepdogs are our troops. These analogies were not in the book written by Kyle (with other writers).

The following features minor spoilers from the film (Although you may already know the true story):

What we don't see in the movie...are the politics. But here's what is shameful...this could have been a love letter to our troops. This could have been a "thank you." As the end credits roll, there is no music, as if to honor our fallen hero (Chris Kyle was murdered by an unfortunate soul suffering from post-traumatic stress because of the war) with silence.

I tried to imagine what women in the audience would be thinking during the scenes where Chris Kyle's wife begs him to stay home. He is suffering from the stress caused by war. At the sound of a lawn mower, he is on high alert. At the sight of a child playing with an aggressive dog, he is prepared to kill the dog (no harm comes to the dog because his wife interferes).

There is hardly any attention paid to PTSD (post-trauma-stress-disorder) which is caused by exposure to war (among other things, I'm sure). Chris Kyle doesn't suffer from it. The man who killed him doesn't appear in the movie (which I'm thankful for, as he deserves no recognition). But the questions about how we're taking care of our troops remain.

And as much as Clint Eastwood has been a great filmmaker, he's lost his touch long ago. ("Mystic River" was masterful, and obviously "Unforgiven" was a masterpiece, but at least with that film, the vengeful hero was known as a really bad guy who was meant for hell). This film's best scene was the climactic finale firefight in which we are introduced to the bad guy we've spent the film hunting before the good guys know he is there. This adds suspense as Hitchcock might have added suspense. However, Clint Eastwood is no Hitchcock. He is especially no Sergio Leone. Clint Eastwood has just made his "Transformers."

Stop reading now to avoid political comments:

His now the face of the GOP: An old, angry, rich white man who, at one point, argued with his imaginary version of Obama in the form of an empty chair (also a true story). He supports the Republicans (the Grand Ol' Party, or, GOP). He is seen as the face and voice of Republicans.

I'll respect Clint Eastwood as an artist (art can transcend viewpoints). He is in plenty of my favorite films, and I'll watch them over and over. He's spoken out in favor of gay rights on the political spectrum. But let me leave you with a list of things the GOP does NOT support:

H.R. 466 – Wounded Veteran Job Security Act became H. R. 2875.

H.R. 1168 -- Veterans Retraining Act

H.R. 1171 – Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization

H.R. 1172 -- Requiring List on VA Website of Organizations Providing Scholarships for Veterans

H.R. 1293 -- Disabled Veterans Home Improvement and Structural Alteration Grant Increase Act of 2009

H.R. 1803 -- Veterans Business Center Act

H.R. 2352 – Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act

Django Unchained (2012)

A Fairy Tale by Tarantino

[10/10 · 30 December 2014]

Originally written 12-30-2012: After seeing it played in three different theaters, I can safely say that I would probably not recommend anyone see "Django Unchained." As much as it is a lesson on how damned the English language has become, the film, for me, makes me think again and again about influences and motivations. It's only a fairy tale, per se, but my main motivation in seeing Quentin Tarantino movies is the lesson in influences they give me. They're a cinematic history lesson directed towards pure entertainment and leave out any potential for dull moments. It also challenges any idea of "fun" you may have. As strong as any of his other flicks (and, more importantly, cinema in general), it is a perfect blend of dialogue and scenes propelled by a sweet soundtrack. There are some terrifying moments, one which should give Leonardo DiCaprio an Oscar nomination at least, but they aren't meant to last long, and an intense grand bloody finale is cut short to lead into another finale, as if it's a re-do, for a more satisfying conclusion. As perfectly edited as each scene is, I wonder if the last 15 minutes would have benefited better from the late Sally Menke (Tarantino's editor for the past 20 years). Not to give any spoilers, the movie gives you what you want if not what you expect. Tarantino is a master of escapist entertainment and if you're ready to take a ride away from the real world, his cinema is capable of making you feel like a kid again (meaning you are definitely NOT a child watching this film).

Nightcrawler (2014)

An Instant Classic Film and Character

[10/10 · 31 October 2014]

"Nightcrawler" may very well be the best film of the year.

Many times with a directorial debut feature, we're seeing a long-time-coming original work. This flick is no exception.

We're given insight into a unique corner of the world that has never been highlighted to my knowledge in film before. I'm not even sure if the concept of a "nightcrawler" is real, but what it means to go "nightcrawling" is to give television stations (or their competitors) the chance to give their viewers front-row seats to breaking stories.The footage they capture can be seen as raw and unprofessional, but our title character gets so in-depth he starts his own business where "in order to gain job security you must make yourself an indispensable employee"...at any cost. The film plays like a behind-the-scenes look into the world of television news, and could be seen as insightful as why our news is so dark. While the "news" is not at all the subject of this flick, the heart of the whole thing may just be how to get your own business running, but the plot itself plays perfectly in the background of a mad character study. Jake Gyllenhaal plays Louis Bloom, a conniving manipulator who is more character than personality, both smart (even though he doesn't come from a "proper education") and psychotic (he'll do whatever he needs to get ahead), in a performance so precise we always know what's going on in his head and his motivation (business, capitalism) so haunting he almost disappears as an actor. The film itself almost makes you forget you're watching a movie from cinematography mixed with shaky-cam ("steady hands") so purposefully and editing that builds into an edge-of-your-seat climax culminating itself with a car chase of the like I haven't seen in years (even if it is still overly-edited).

If this flick were made in the '80s, we would get sequel after sequel with new actors playing the main nightcrawler, but as the genesis film surely warrants a dozen rip-offs of an idea this great, this one will stay fresh in our minds for a long time.

Fury (2014)

"The Slow and the Furious"

[5/10 · 20 October 2014]

I went to see "Fury" a few days ago and am just now realizing how much I really remembered. Especially since I tried to forget it.

*Minor SPOILERS ahead* If you're looking for a reminder that war is hell and tough guys are tough because they are desensitized so much that they have become awful human beings, look no further than "Fury."

For me, the defining scene, the longest one, felt even longer given the director used it almost as the centerpiece to the film. This was where Brad Pitt and the "good" kid played house with a couple of German cousins. We trust them at this point in the film. Then, heavily suggesting consensual rape, the women had to then cook for the soldiers, and for no reason a great sense of dread came when the others joined in. They proved to be bullies and horribly juvenile, so much so that I expected Brad Pitt to put a bullet through their heads (he didn't, because he's one of them). Instead, he just spit at his fellow American soldier, which, I felt, was an insult to all American soldiers because of the way they are portrayed in this movie.

What I was expecting was a film about camaraderie and survival when it was almost anything but. The film turned into the feel-bad movie of the season seemingly trying to be a "day-ruiner," if you asked me, not because of the depressing colors or downer ending (okay, there's actually a somewhat hopeful ending), but because we're supposed to care about these characters.

To this movie's credit, the pacing was well done, only slowed down by one aforementioned scene. The music, by Stephen Price, was really good and moody and any intensity in the flick owes itself to his score. This is the man who made "Gravity" such a memorable experience. The action, random as it was, had graphic images spliced in that did add a great level of realism, as did the dialogue which felt authentic. The scenes built towards a climax that I would have preferred been the focus of the movie, if only because I didn't understand Brad Pitt (once again, acting with his haircut) and his motivations of staying with his dead tiger tank and awaiting to ambush a massive German army to march over them. The action itself, however, had me completely distracted by the green-laser-beam effect from the bullets flying by. I thought the special effects guys on the new Star Wars movie were experimenting or something. There was also a great deal of computer-generated explosions that took away from the "old fashioned film-making."

Plus, I must say, in the post-"Saving Private Ryan" world of cinema, making a world war II movie any less unique is a near waste of time for filmmakers and audiences alike.

The Hunt (2012)

Evil is Taken for Granted

[9/10 · 16 April 2014]

Sometimes, it really is this simple. This could be a commentary on our justice system, but it's not even American. This film speaks a universal language. It all comes down to the ending.

Klara will never change. Her huge imagination keeps her from stepping on any lines...and the irony is that she crossed one. Her innocence will keep her from being harmed, but what protects Lucas?

The final moments are a symbolism of everything Lucas has been through. He sees a helpless deer, much like himself only a year ago. He lets it go, lets it live, and we hardly think anything of it until BOOM...a misfire right above his head. Accidents happen, and it could have been a lot worse.

The villain of the film is the school principle/teacher/woman who Klara FIRST spoke to. She brushes it off, and for a few minutes, we are relieved as Klara's cryptic feelings were not exactly expressed. However, when this woman goes home, she apparently doesn't sleep at night. When she speaks with Lucas, she is reassuring that this won't be a big deal...until Ole, a friend of hers, speaks with the child and somehow confirms everything. It's subtle, simple, and serious, but perhaps the child was just saying stupid things at first. Then, the mother believes she's saying stupid things when she later denies it.

Perhaps we can all learn something...but I'm afraid this movie is merely reiterating "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." That's the story I'll tell my children and hopefully it will have as much of an impact when this film is shared.

The father was right, though, there is a lot of evil in this world. So much so that sometimes...we take it for granted.

Noah (2014)

Not-So-Biblical Epic (Exactly as it should be)

[8/10 · 30 March 2014]

"Noah" is the story of Noah.

The best The Bible can do is give us a message. It is full of messages. When Hollywood takes over, what we see is an interpretation of a story that was meant to give us a message. For many stories, translated into too many languages, interpreted too many ways, we take what we can get. What you learn from any situation would be learned a completely different way from another person resulting in different lessons. "Noah" is the story of Noah. It is his lesson in the end. The message of the movie is an important one.

I'm not sure the same message had gotten across from The Bible, as there isn't enough of the story of Noah in The Bible for a film. In The Bible, Noah is chosen. In the film, we learn why Noah was chosen.

The film is also made with mass audiences in mind. We can appreciate themes of love. We can appreciate how we hurt each other. We can appreciate why God was angry with the world as it was and needed to start again. Kids have their villain and subtle humor. Horror fanatics also have plenty in this film. There's also quite a fantastical element. This flick could spawn action figures if it wanted to. Evolutionists can see how many species (including a feathered dog-like creature) died out and imagine how many species descended from others. And for me? Film buffs, too, have an experience to behold. The acting isn't awful, although there is a lot of crying...and I don't mean the massive rains and flooding.

I really enjoyed my experience of watching Hollywood's take on someone's interpretation of the story of "Noah. If you were looking for the "Based on a True Story" version...sorry...you can't even find that in the Bible.

The Crash Reel (2013)

Brace Yourself for Impact

[10/10 · 27 March 2014]

My email to a friend who recommended the movie to me: Hey, so I just watched "The Crash Reel" and I dunno if I've ever cried that much to a movie.

While this wasn't the deciding factor, it certainly opened up a look into a very scary aspect of life and I would appreciate one on the football side of things, because you don't even need to experience an actual accident to realize the side effects of brain trauma. Football has natural side effects and from the sounds of it, some don't even occur until years later.

I just kept thinking "Nope, my kid's not doing this." I love snowboarding, and I hope they'll want to experience it someday...but that adrenaline addiction is what hurts the most. I think education about addiction needs to be pushed in schools, but...what's scary is...When "Just say no" commercials serve as advertisements for a drug... ...maybe healthy balance should be taught in schools.

Either way, the kid, Kevin Pearce, is a good influence.

Joe (I) (2013)

The Return of Nicolas Cage

[9/10 · 13 March 2014]

I couldn't help but notice how much J-O-E is similar (or at least as simple as) to a D-O-G. The film is more than just a glimpse into the life of a man who does know how to live, but I was wondering if he served more as a metaphor for everyone of us as a part of the human race who live better when we're on a leash. Nicolas Cage plays the title character as a man who can smile and have fun, but lives off the leash. He'd be a good dog to the extent that he will always do the right thing. Just don't mess with him. Or his friends. "Joe" has been the movie event of the festival. It plays a dramatic chord through notes of laughter and some extreme intensity (seriously, of "Gravity" caliber). The violence is strong (the 60-year-old man next to me had to look away during one scene in particular), and the acting is subtle (realistic). Nic Cage, in his conversation at the SXSW Film Festival, spoke about his wife telling him that this role was as close as he's gotten to his real persona. I found it more along the lines of "Leaving Las Vegas." If you're reading that right, you should be expecting Nic Cage do start doing lower-budget movies (this was made for $6 Million, I believe). This is what he wants to do now (I quote him personally), and I believe this could be the start of a sustainable career toward what we might come to know as a legacy. Nicolas Cage, you should know, is the ideal movie star. He knows how to live, and he knows how to be kind. This is his return to form while there may be a *wink* or two in this film at what he's known as on this wild thing called the "internet." Still, he's not really like any other movie star, and there will never be anyone known as "the next Nicolas Cage." He is truly one-of-a-kind. As is this film. "Joe" is a simple story of simple people. There are many minor characters who just seem to exist in this world. There is one scene of him looking over to see a couple in a jeep next to him. I felt this might have been out of place, although the two made eye contact and it granted a laugh from the audience. What I wanted was this scene to be a metaphor for was a life Joe could have had. He doesn't like being messed with, especially when nobody has a reason to mess with him. He doesn't give them one, but when he fights back at them, the consequences are played out throughout the film. The editing lets the actors breath and the music lets the atmosphere live. Shot around Austin, an audience member (that same 60-year-old man) told me that the director, David Gordon Green (Pineapple Express), grabbed a few people off a bus, and gave them starring roles. They serve as decay of human beings. We're shown the lowest of the low, and it will make you angry to see what people are capable of doing to each other. I don't believe people are happier on a leash. When we're told what to do, we may be rewarded with food, but at the end of the day, it's the connection to each other that makes us want to wake up again. Dogs play a major role in this film to the extent that one serves as a major character. In the final moments (No spoiler, I promise), there is a tear-jerking scene that lets you know that we can find happiness and peace. We see the dog in the front seat, happy with it's tongue out for the first time in the film, as opposed to the brute-ready-to-fight we've come to know in the back of Joe's truck. All we need in life is to be raised well. On that note, Tye Sheridan's (from "Mud" (2012) with Matthew McConaughey) part is played tough, but his deadbeat abusive father has become such a bad influence, and Gary is smart enough to know not to follow in his footsteps. This film was nearly perfect, but sadly still not made for everyone. I hope, when it's finally released worldwide to audiences everywhere, I'm wrong about that, and audiences see it. It's an important film, as well as very entertaining.

Open Windows (2014)

"Rear Window" with Nudity, Question Mark

[4/10 · 13 March 2014]

*I tried to leave out any major story spoilers* It's day 6 now of the SXSW Festival in Austin, Texas. I went to check out "Open Windows," starring porn star Sasha Grey, at the Alamo Drafthouse on 6th Street downtown. I introduce her as "porn star" because her career as an actress has not really taken off, even after a title role in "The Girlfriend Experience" from Steven Soderberg, one of the greatest movie directors of all time. She was also in many episodes of "Entourage" on HBO. I've been kind of rooting for her since we don't hear many stories of porn stars becoming successful movie stars. They...can't be taken seriously. "The Girlfriend Experience" proved that wrong. Entourage played with the idea. Now, after hearing the premise, I was expecting Ms. Grey to be embracing her career in porn and actually let us watch her through "Open Windows" get naked in theaters.

The film...did...not...deliver.

What we do get is a world of technology. Almost futuristic, the film is shown through multiple webcams and security cameras. The villain has all of these at his disposal as well as the entire internet (apparently). Whatever statement the director was trying to make, I felt was lost. The third act really lost me. It's not even worth explaining. As for the rest of it, basically, we have an actress who sucks (Sasha plays an actress who's supposed to be popular), and her number one fan has a website and is set to meet her. The villain set this up to capture her and blame him for it. There are too many twists that the director couldn't even keep up with, and there were some applaud-worthy moments that were ruined by the way the film was made. It plays like a found-footage film, but we're watching it on a computer. The entire thing is real-time so it feels like it's all done in one take.

What it SHOULD have been... Was a "Rear Window" homage. That's what I was expecting based on an article in the Austin Chronicle that actually mentioned "Rear Window" as if "Open Windows" was going to pay respects to Hitchcock. Instead, "windows" here aren't the ones we look through to engage in voyeurism like a pervert at our favorite porn star. They're the ones we look at on a computer screen! Elijah Wood (oh yeah, he was in it) shouldn't have been forced to leave his hotel room, as if the director wanted us to leave our comfort zone so early, even though a car chase erupts when he chases down the bad guy. This was actually the best scene in the film, and with a low camera angle through much of it from inside the car (via webcam on laptop in passenger seat that is somehow not sliding around everywhere). That should have been the climax, because it was actually mildly gripping until it kept going, slowing down the whole pace of the film. The narrative goes crazy with twists, too. Like, too many. They didn't make sense, either. The director admitted to this in a Q&A after the show. Audience members were asked for questions, yet unwilling to participate until the director just plain asked if anyone hated it so much that they wanted to slap him. True story.

This is an opportunity we should have for more directors, actually.

However, this guy was SO nice, I just felt bad for him. When a shot of Maker's Mark was offered, someone took the opportunity. He slapped the director on the stage. He knew his movie wasn't good. Someone did actually ask if there was any commentary about being a celebrity or our current technology. He said that we're all okay with living lives that should be private and aren't. This answer was unrelated to the film. I wish Sasha would have showed up at the screening. Sasha Grey was basically playing herself, in the movie, an actress even. Except, one the world has never seen naked.

That's a joke, right?

This flick will not help her serious movie career.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

The Jumanji Games: The Empire Strikes Backward

[6/10 · 24 November 2013]

Went for the crowds, stayed for the laughs and the cheers...both of which were lacking severely. The Empire Strikes Back: Catching Fire is a highly anticipated flick for this Holiday season, and one I had no anticipation for, much like with the first installment of THE THANKSGIVING GAMES. Seriously, turkeys will even be hunted. Luckily the Humane Society was standing by for that scene, though.

This flick had it's moments. It's 28 times better than the entire Twilight Saga (if you really do the math). One, your excitement from seeing Philip Seymour Hoffman enter, even if your excitement ultimately goes nowhere (no spoiler alerts). Then, the performance of Jena Malone. She's quite the scene stealer, and my favorite part. Even when she was covered in blood, I was hoping for some kind of love-scene. It would have worked given the random nature of story progression. Seriously, just when the first half of the movie makes you almost forget they're going to remake the first film for the second half, you wonder how it will fit into the story. Then another ten minutes go by, and they force it in. Oh, and it's the 75th anniversary of the games. You know what that means. (The Hunger Games becomes the story again. We're thankful for this, because there wasn't much story to begin with).

Then Jeffrey Wright, who played Felix Leiter to badass perfection in the James Bond reboot "Casino Royale," saves the day and much of the movie. I even enjoyed seeing Amanda Plummer (of "Pulp Fiction" fame). BUT, I really found Jennifer Lawrence to be inconsistent. As good as the direction is, and it is much better than the shaky-cam first outing, I still felt like her work was manufactured. As if she would "turn it on" for a couple of look-what-an-academy-award-winner-is-capable-of scenes, and then was bored for the rest of it.

See, it's not that I don't get it. I understand that there's a lot more than just a movie trailer bringing people to the theater for a movie like this. There are a lot of movies like these...these days. Made from books that begin a fan base, or as movie studio heads refer to as guaranteed ticket sales...especially when you can stretch three books into four installments of a movie...um...trilogy.

My problem with movies "these days" is...there's hardly any rewatch value! It may have taken me too many years to realize "Hook" was NOT one of the greatest movies ever made, but I was still always waiting for Peter Banning (Robin Williams) to take flight, and that's what I felt like I was waiting for during the first half or two thirds of this flick. I was waiting for Robin Williams to fly...but at least once he does, there's no Tinker Bell scene to slow it back down. (Following me? When the hunger games start, it stays pretty engaging, and it's better than "Hook" for the most part).

There's a formula. Movies thrive on a formula. Half an hour into the movie, you better have a shark attack or people are going to forget what they're waiting for. Then, an hour into the movie, you have your big twist or action sequence that propels you into the second act of your story. This is when the Millennium Falcon lands on the Death Star (check it, 60 minutes in). NOT when we learn there's going to be a new Hunger Games! That's what we came to see! Then we forgot about what we came to see and were invested in exploring this alternate-reality deal we got going on.

What director Topher Allen woulda coulda shoulda done is start us in the jungle from Predator so we could see The Jumaji Games right from the start. Movies don't play like books. The closest we'll see is a Tarantino flick. Right down to the Chapter Titles. Actually, his favorite flick of the past 20 years (since he's been making movies) is a film called "Battle Royale." On the American blu-ray is a quote saying "I wish I made this movie!" by Tarantino. If you're willing to prove your love for the story of "The Hunger Games," I dare you to watch this Japanese film. Long story short, "The Hunger Games" was a creative way to remake "Battle Royale." Of course, when I say "creative," I just think rip-off is an ugly word. Plus, an ultra-violent gory Japanese kill-em-all turns into a tween movie sensation much like the Twilight Saga? Creativity.

With the sequel, though, we don't even get to hear the Jumanji drums until it's halfway over. And they come in the form of deaths in the games, even though the players don't use the sound of the drums to their advantage. (Katniss falls down in a scene and plays dead. Her killer completely ignored the fact that there were no death-signifying drums, but this conveniently played into a twist a few minutes later, I guess). Anyways, in my version of this film, we should have flashbacked to the oh-so-important details from the book that fans have been waiting to complain about being left out! Alas, here we're back in the alternate-reality-future from the first movie that I've never been quite sure about. How did we get to this? I think I fell asleep during these same scenes from the first flick and missed out on the whole concept.

Is this our future or alternate reality? Is it Earth? Wherever it is, thank whatever God exists for the jumpsuits by Adidas for being the saving grace for human sexuality. Without them, I doubt there'd be any reason to procreate in a society with that sense of fashion and style. Woody Harrelson's freaking hair doesn't even fit, and you're not even supposed to take him seriously.

Go see "Ender's Game."

The Social Network (2010)

The Curious Idea of Mark Zuckerberg

[10/10 · 15 January 2011]

This film makes you think, but more than thinking about anything in particular, it makes you remember. Much like remembering your introduction to the website itself, you'll never forget watching this movie. I remember first hearing of the movie. I'm on another website, TheInternetMovieDatabase...drop the "the," and I was where you are now. I was worried about the future of liberty in art, seeing that David Fincher was making another PG-13 movie.

I was ignorant. When I see Tarantino get caught by commercialism, I'll be back to talk, but not before I see why. Neither here nor there, some movies deserve bigger audiences.

Much like "Pulp Fiction," the nonparallel storytelling is propelled by pages upon pages of dialog, and we eat it up. You're dropped onto the Harvard campus in "The Thirsty Scholar," if that's the name of the place where we're placed, further more, into the brutal final moments of Zuckerberg's best human relationship in the movie. As brutal as it gets, you're paying attention, as if you're sitting with the couple amongst the noisy thirsty scholars.

When the noise fades out, an angry tone fades in, but under an almost childlike melody of only three notes. This is our main title, and our main theme. We'll hear it again, and then again, but it means something different each time. If you listened during that opening scene, then you're ready to pay attention. They introduce not only the idea of who Mark Zuckerberg is (at least the character)...but introduce the reason behind the idea Mark Zuckerberg gets...

The best scene is the second time we hear the sweet melody. "Mr. Zuckerberg, do I have your full attention?" The questioner becomes a blur and the questionee is in focus. "It's raining." This is movie-making. At its finest. This is dialog. At its finest.

Also brought to our attention is Aaron Sorkin, the man behind The West Wing, and "A Few Good Men," one of the most powerful plays you'll ever see. The power is fully on here. If only life could be so perfect as to have our daily conversations be dialog written by Sorkin.

For those of you not paying attention, you'll become aware of David Ficher. The man behind your two all-time favorite films, "Fight Club," and "Seven." The two-disk special edition is worth more than what you pay for, especially if you bought the Blu-ray version on Amazon when it first came out. The second disk allows your eyes to be open behind the scenes in a very entertaining documentary, but even so, you'll be able to enjoy the movie again and again. I'd say its one you can easily watch over and over, like Siskel and Ebert said about "Pulp Fiction," since the film isn't told in chronological order, just a logical order. It's as if you're watching the film for the first time, every time.

"The Social Network" is the best film of 2010, and has been said to be the best film of the past decade. Its rare that we watch something perfect, but this movie is fireworks.

It's refreshing that we don't need bombs, explosions, violence, or gore to be entertained. Take a look at the previous year's best picture winner (The Hurt Locker). It had all the things I just mentioned, but they are honorable mentions when it comes to that one.

"The Social Network" is not necessarily about Facebook, but it will last longer than the website does. You won't forget it.

Irreversible (2002)

The Main Emotion Here is Anger

[7/10 · 26 October 2010]

The camera spins as if out of control, but that's exactly where we are in the story. It has lost almost all control. Almost.

Most likely inspired by "Memento," the story is told in backwards chronology. The end credits are at the beginning of the film, the death of the villain is at the beginning of the film, but no worries, as this is not really a spoiler, it is merely what you are initially told. This is also a selling point, as horror fanatics will appreciate the brutality. The setting of this scene is meant to be, surely, upsetting as well.

As the film progresses, the characters become less and less anxious, and the camera becomes stiller. Time moves on, the climax has already happened. The arch of the film is what everybody would talk about. We are already introduced to the idea of what is about to happen, and we are told these things, not so much. We discover, as an audience.

Moments...prolonged takes (no cuts in the editing room)...puts us in the hyper-realism of the story.

Your worst fears are realized...and one of the most amazing actresses in one of her best scenes comes into play...and it's no play. It's not fun. It's not "everything" you wanted, because it's hardly acting.

This may be the scene that has me writing about the film. However, it is only because it really angered me. I've read that many audience members react in different ways. At the Cannes festival, 200 people walked out. I imagine people becoming sick over this. I was just angry.

I was expecting a similar feel in "The Human Centipede," however the badguy is quite the performer in that one, and its the idea that gets all the attention. That one was more Hitchcock, a psychologically demanding movie. This one was more Kubrick. A psychologically demanding emotional film. The main emotion here is anger.

Due to the subject matter, I gave this a 7. As upsetting as it was, due to the prolonged rape scene, it is one of the few films...in fact, the only movie I can remember repeating to myself "It's only a movie, it's only a movie..." A phrase you could see on the original "Last House on the Left" poster...quite an effective tagline for a film, however, I hated "Last House on the Left," and I hate the remake without even seeing it.

"Irreversible," however, is beautiful. Monica Bellucci is beautiful. Vincent Cassel is just as powerful. This can be classified under "art horror," as the director really tells the story as much as the events do...especially for a film with 10/15 minute scenes without editing, its hard for a director to do so much. He does, he does.

Gaspar Noe may be one of the greatest directors. I'm basing this on one film of his I have seen. An awfully predictable film, I imagined the story once the story got going. Here's the spoiler...a happy ending.

Satisfying? We'll get to that...

The meaning of the ending is as important as where the characters go after this one awful night. The commentary on rape and revenge is strong, and watching this with someone (it may be hard to find someone who wants to watch this, and it should be difficult) may surely spark some conversation. That's the draw of the film. The obsession.

People may watch again and again, looking for the similarities in the rape scene and the intimate love scene later in the movie. It's all predictable, but as I've always said: movies are especially predictable the second viewing.

The polarizing effect this film has had on audiences is where satisfaction. It's all about what you're telling yourself. This is the psychological effect that creates something to obsess over. Let me spoil the ending for you, because if you interpret it yourself, you might ruin it for yourself. The film is about what time does to us, and perhaps how memories should last a lifetime. What happens to everyone after this tragic night? Perhaps it is the last two moments of the film, but in the last moment of all, it's meant to make you sick...when it's really just a blank white screen becoming a strobe effect with a terrible sound effect. This is art...

...and it's only a movie...it's only a movie.

Hard to say I enjoyed it, though it calms down in the "end," and becomes enjoyable, and an intimate love story. Hard to say I'm going to watch it again. So does that merit a 10? 9? 8? 7 sounds good to me.

Crash (I) (2004)

Crash Review

[10/10 · 29 August 2005]

This film, I'd say, was along the lines of the movie "Traffic," and Jake said it was related to "21 Grams" and "Magnolia" with how it was edited and directed. Now, firstly, I gotta say that it was a million times better than "Traffic." I'd even go as far to say that it was along the lines of "Pulp Fiction." Maybe better, but "Pulp Fiction" had the comic strength to it. This movie was funny, really funny, but had a super dramatic feel to it.

"Unexpectedly funny," Entertainment Weekly says. They gave it an A.

~~ Don Cheadle plays a cop whose mother doesn't like very much. She likes her other son, who Don Cheadle is having to look for. That's his part. His partner, Jennifer Esposito plays someone he calls Mexican, which she corrects him on.

Thandie Newton plays a television producer's wife. They are pulled over by a cop played by Matt Dillon and his partner, Ryan Phillippe. Matt Dillon pulls them over for the husband, the driver, who is receiving fellatio from the wife. Matt Dillon pushes them against their car and frisks them for weapons. He does this to Thandie Newton and practically molests her, feeling her up. Her acting was really good, even though I don't like her crying face.

Ryan Phillippe starts out as this innocent kid. Turns into bold cop. Ends…not so innocent. He asks to be reassigned from a cop who gives interesting opinions on why he thinks Ryan wants to be reassigned. Matt Dillon is a racist cop with a father who has a urinary infection.

Sandra Bullock is a mean lady who doesn't know why she's mean. She sees some guy who looks like a gang banger changing the locks on her home. She asks for the locks to be changed again in the morning. This, of course, is after her car is stolen by Ludicrous. That's Ludicrous' part in the movie, and he tries stealing the television producer's car later in the film. Sandra Bullock, although we don't like her, ends up having one of the emotional scenes with her maid later in the movie.

My favorite story and character was about the guy who was changing the locks. He goes home and walks in his daughter's room, looking around. She's under the bed. They talk about how they moved out of a dangerous neighborhood and then the daughter admits to being afraid of the bullet that came through her window once. The father is such an awesome and nice guy. His conversation with his daughter made me want to cry throughout the whole scene. It was amazingly awesome and that scene alone made me love this movie. The father tells her a story about a fairy. Of course, the daughter doesn't believe in fairies. "See, I told you you wouldn't believe me." She tells him to go on with the story. The fairy brought him an invisible cloak that was impenetrable to bullets. Then, he passes the cloak onto her.

I think the last story in the movie was about a store owner who isn't very fluent in the English language. The character is introduced in a gun shop and he needs to buy a gun in case his store is broken into again. His daughter buys the bullets for him and chooses a red box. His locks (to his store) are changed by my favorite character, but his door is still too old. When told this, he doesn't believe it. That night, his store is broken into. He blames the guy who changed his locks. And he takes his gun and his bullets over to the lock guy's house.

My favorite scene: SPOILERS: Do NOT READ: (This is a must-see film): The lock dude comes home and then has a gun pointed in his face. "I want my money back (from the locks I paid for)."

SKIP: "I have $50, I don't have all of what you paid for…take my wallet."

SKIP: Inside his house, the daughter says to the mommy, "He doesn't have it!" The mom asks "He doesn't have what?" And the daughter runs out. Of course, it took Jake and me a while to realize that she was talking about the invisible cloak. She jumps to her daddy, and the store owner fires a shot. Such an emotional scene, seeing this nice guy hold his daughter and hearing the BANG! I wanted to cry so badly. Then the daughter says "You're okay, daddy." He checks her…and she's fine. No bullet holes.

"Crash" is, by far, the best film of the year 2005. It's about racism and stereotypes, yes. It is extremely entertaining and even thrilling. There are plenty of moments that get your heart rate going. And it's emotional. You care about each one of the characters, and they all play their characters very well. Tony Danza appears in a cameo, and he's good! Grade: A. Re-watch value: B (some may think it is too dramatic). This is currently my favorite movie ever. Currently. The music, though similar to "Traffic," grew on me, and I decided that it was good and went with the movie perfectly.