"District 9" and "Avatar": The Future (?) of Sci-Fi Film

I am not the only one thinking about this, but I certainly have my own opinions on it. Google "District 9" with "Avatar" and a ton of other things pop up. This blog begins long ago, when James Cameron became a mega-super-director with first "Aliens", then "Terminator", and most fully with "Titanic". I love the man, I think he is genius and I think he represents 'the' director of the 90's, and is certainly an important figure in film history in terms of movie scales and technology, and especially with Sci-Fi films.


So, you can imagine I have been eagerly awaiting his next project since I saw "Titanic" in theaters 3 times. I found out about "Avatar" and was waiting patiently for trailers/photos etc.

Slowly, and over many months, I slowly became aware of a little film called "District 9". I heard Peter Jackson was producing, a good sign, and I knew it was doing some crazy guerrilla marketing, like a bus stop sign that said 'For Humans Only' and had a creepy looking alien on it near my work, and so was aware of it before I had even seen a trailer.

And then came Comic-Con. Both films exploded there. One panel featured both James Cameron and Peter Jackson (for "District 9"), and it seemed that here were two films about to explode onto the sci-fi world. Cameron was quoted as saying "Avatar" would 'fuck your eyeballs' it would be so 'game changing' for the film industry. I got REALLY excited for "Avatar". Cameron announced an 'avatar day' where footage of the movie would be screened for free across the country if you got a ticket, coinciding with the FIRST trailer for "Avatar" being released.

Well friends, first the website to get tickets for 'Avatar day' crashed moments after opening. Then the trailer was released and it looked like indescribable crap. My disappointment, frustration and anger at Cameron is so great that I will leave description of the trailer up to you to watch the trailer and others to criticize:

www.apple.com/trailers/fox/avatar/
http://img.denihilation.com/delgovatar.html
http://blog.spout.com/2009/08/20/10-movies-avatar-unfortunately-resembles/
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42188 (exactly how I felt).

I pretty much lost all hope in film for a few moments (well, I also had just gotten my wisdom teeth out, that might have played a part). But don't despair, because then I saw "District 9".

"District 9" was an amazing sci-fi film that is going to be around for a long time. It was well plotted, had GREAT special effects, kept a somewhat upbeat tone, had deep current political undertones that established it very firmly in a time and place, and was just awesome. I can't remember the last time I saw a movie like this that was so tight, strong, and left you thinking about it FOR DAYS!

So, back to the title of my post. James Cameron, and I'm sure the studios behind him, sincerely hoped that "Avatar" would be the next wave in the future of sci fi film. "Terminator" and "Aliens" certainly made me think so, and "Titanic" changed things in its own way. But it won't be. We don't need special effects. We don't need environmental mumbo-jumbo stories that 'say something'. We don't need an epic.

Sci fi needs "District 9". It cost $30 million, a small budget for an FX heavy film, but it delivered SO MUCH more than what "Avatar" looks like it will with its $245 million budget (See this article http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/the-campaign-for-change-and-district-9-is-my-candidate) Money can make a film pretty ("Titanic"), but can't fix it if the story is broke. People were attracted to the STORY of "District 9", and didn't care about the money or who was in it. So why is Cameron giving us the money/technology angle ( especially since that angle seems to be pure BS) when he should focus on the STORY. The trailer revealed nothing about the characters or plot whatsoever. The best sci-fi films of this decade are not going to be Michael Bay epics with no plot, they are going to be ones that get to the things we are worried/scared/confused about in this age. The game changing "Alien" was not awesome because it looked cool, its because it was f-ing scary and got at something that hadn't been expressed before!

"District 9" did exactly what it should have to become a classic. It was topical, it knew its market, it got people excited for a film, and it was something new. No one wants to see a bloated, video game rip off of a film during a depression when a movie ticket costs as much as a meal. So "District 9", I look forward to hearing about you for a long time to come, and I am prepared for the mental breakdown of James Cameron when "Avatar" crumbles in december.

Summer 2009

After a prolonged summer absence, I have decided to return to the blogosphere. I really truly enjoyed writing about movies all last semester, and I think it was good for me. We'll see how this goes, but hopefully I will continue blogging for a while.

This kind of gap in the blogging requires at least a brief overview of the films of the summer. Here are the highs and lows of the movie theater events of Summer 2009.

Highs:
- UP: What a positively delightful, hilarious, heartfelt film. I haven't seen it again (and i truly believe that real love of a film can only happen after a second viewing), but right now I'll say its my favorite Pixar film. The story wasn't as momentous as "Wall-E", but the characters were just so darn cute, and the dogs were utter genius, and the look of the film was beautiful. Loved it.
- The Hangover: I laughed the whole time. It was clever, it set things up way in advance and only came back to them once you had forgotten them, and was a really well plotted comedy romp. I've unfortunately already seen an ad for a rip-off ("I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell"), but thats what genius breeds. Also, my uncle is on the soundtrack!
- Inglorious Basterds: Best Tarantino ever. Amazing costumes ( I call an Oscar nod for that). Good story. The past year has seen a lot of Nazi movies ("Defiance", "Valkyrie", "Boy in Striped Pajamas" etc.), but this one trumps them for feeling real darn good. And, surprisingly, not as gory/violent as most Tarantino films.
- District 9: This deserves its own post, really, so I'll only say that this should be seen by everyone. It is an instant Sci-Fi classic and is hopefully the beginning of a new sci-fi renaissance.

Lows:
-Transformers 2: While the first one was glorious popcorn fun with the right amount of sarcasm and ridiculousness, this one took itself seriously and forgot about the spirit of the first. A very muddled plot (I was even confused while watching it), too much ill-clothed Megan Fox, and some seriously awkwardly racist robots made this a terrible terrible blockbuster. Such is the nature of Michael Bay though. For every "Armageddon", there is a "Pearl Harbor"
- Bruno: Yes, "Borat" was crude, rude and offensive, but it was funny, and so I enjoyed it. This was crude, rude, offensive and featured an astounding amount of penises, but Sacha Baron Cohen really lost it. I can't say what wasn't right, but i rarely laughed, and I have no desire to quote any part of this film. Who knows if he's lost his American audience but Cohen may want to stay in Britain for a while.
- Julie and Julia: Meryl Streep was adorable, no doubt, but this film fell down. It was a souffle that deflated before served. The Julie story was just barely saved from moral depravity by Amy Adams' adorableness and I practically recognized the Paris streets from the Universal Studios backlot tour. I was expecting a biography of Julia Child but instead got pithy and adorable moments and quotes from her life that added up to a coffee table book, and not a deeper understanding.

Wolverine

Hooray, the summer movie season has officially begun! This Hugh Jackman being muscular movie was a great start for the season. It was ridiculous at times, it had lots of unnecessary special effects, and it had very silly romantic story lines, but it was pretty fun. It was a popcorn movie, with some geek added into the mix, and I thoroughly enjoyed myself. Here's the apparently french version of the poster, I like it more than the other one:

No need to explain the plot, its just the back story on Wolverine from the X-Men stories. There are a lot of other mutants introduced, and you also get to meet a young William Stryker, the villain from the second Xmen movie. A lot of the story was between Wolverine and his creepy brother (Liev Schreiber) who has the same powers as him. The ending was kind of silly, too many green screens and special effects, but tied up all the loose ends etc.

Dominic Monaghan (from Lord of the Rings and Lost) was great in his maybe 3 tiny scenes, as a mutant who can control all things electric with his mind. He spends part of his life as a circus freak, and the creepy sideshow trailer he lives in was great looking- it was filled with hundreds of electric toys that he would turn on when he walked in to keep him company, and the roof was filled with hundreds of light bulbs that he didn't have to plug in. It was a fantastic image. Alas, poor Ryan Reynolds was sadly underused as well, but I heard a rumor that he might get a spin off (and friends told me his character was woefully different from the comic books). It was a decent enough movie, I think its likely the franchise will keep on going for a while.

Oh yeah, Hugh Jackman was great. But wasn't that a given?

Michael Collins

In preparation for my trip to England/Scotland/Dublin in 3 weeks (!!!Counting down the days!!!), I watched this Neil Jordan directed bio-pic about Michael Collins, the man who near single handedly got England to recognize the need to give Ireland their independence, helped negotiate the treaty and set up the first free democracy in Ireland. Liam Neeson in the lead was fantastic as Collins.

It was, however, a bit of a bloated film. There was just too much politics to put in, and the first half an hour was so full of names/places/Irish lingo that I felt exhausted and confounded. It got much better in the next two hours, and I wasn't confused at all by the end, but I think Jordan bit off more than he could chew. The love story with Julia Roberts seemed to be there out of necessity to have some romance, and though she surprisingly looked very nice in the 1920's fashion (it hid her giant man shoulders quite well), it was pretty blah, no real sparks between them.

As I'm sure the relationships with figures like the president of the de facto country (played by Alan Rickman, who I will watch anything for) and people inside the British govt were really complex and confusing, they were boiled down to simple movie relationships here. It's a shame, I think it made complex important events into black and white (Collins being the good side clearly). It was enjoyable, but it was a bloated epic. A nice, pretty Irish countryside bloated epic, with charismatic Liam Neeson, but still, it wasn't great. It's a big job to portray the single greatest hero of a country when it was recent enough to still be remembered (well, by REALLY old people), I think a narrower view of one aspect of his life would have served better.

Movies about Nazis

What movie do you show high school students to teach them about Nazi's? I was posed this question recently, and it really made me rack my brain. So, I present to you my list of best films about Nazi's:

1) Indiana Jones and Raiders of the Lost Ark/Last Crusade: Two of my all time favorite movies. More importantly, it shows that Nazi's are so crazy they are willing to use hundreds of troops to find either the Ark of the Covenant or the cup of Christ. Fictitious, but it gives you a sense of their character.

2) The Great Dictator: This Charlie Chaplin movie came out in 1940, and was written during Hitler's rise to power. What better way to learn about Hitler than to see how people AT THE TIME decided to satirize him. It's light hearted, but as anyone who has seen "City Lights" knows, Chaplin can be dead serious when it counts.

3) Schindler's List: Ok, we're getting serious now. While this is a harrowing film, and its f-ing scary, it is also a Spielberg film, and that means it has a very strong heart in it. You will leave feeling uplifted and that the darkest night of the world has passed.

4) Sophies Choice: This shows the ugly, soul destroying part of the Holocaust framed by a post-WW2 story, making it easier to swallow. Both Kevin Kline and Meryl Streep are phenomenal, though I felt like the revelation of what the 'choice' was was anti-climactic, I had guessed it long before and thought the film made it obvious.

5) Downfall: A scary scary movie about the last days of Hitlers regime. Certain scenes definitely haunted me, but I think it was an important portrayal of the absolute madness of him and his followers. Not for the weak of heart.

6) The Good German: A great homage to, well mostly to "Casablanca", about postwar Berlin during the Potsdam negotiations. George Clooney and Cate Blanchett nail their roles, and the film is really about how miserable it was to be in Germany during and after the war. Great film.

7) Good: I haven't seen this yet! But, its about a professor in Germany who must grapple with his beliefs vs. saving his life by joining the Nazi party. Viggo Mortensen and the incomparable Jason Isaacs as a Jewish Professor he is friends with.

8) Life is Beautiful: Get ready to cry. Father-son story with a Chaplin-esque humor in it alongside the grim realities of war.

I made this list about Nazi's not WWII in general, because then I have a whole other list of great films ("Saving Private Ryan" and "Empire of the Sun" at the top!)

Let the Right One In

The plot of this film is very simple, and not because it's difficult to explain but because very little happens: A young boy in a drab suburb of Oslo, Sweden is bothered by bullies. He meets a mysterious young girl who turns out to be a vampire. The girl has to kill people to drink their blood. They become friends, but she is a vampire so its a little strange.

A few people die (actually, it is rather bloody), and there are lots of disturbing close ups of the girls white white face with blood on it, but mostly it is about the young boy, Oskar, who is confused and lost and whose face is relatively emotionless but seems to hide a lot of pain. I had read rave reviews about this film, and though I liked it and appreciated it as a worthy addition to the field of vampire film, I don't think I'd want to watch it again. It was very slow, very creepy at times (and I'm not sure if I think it was for the right reasons or at the right times), and just unlikable.

The part that bothered me the most was the unreality of their lives. I feel like this is hard to explain because 'unreality' can mean so many things. I don't mean it was too fantasy like (like a Terry Gilliam film, which doesn't even pretend to be realistic), or that it was 'hyper real' (like say "There Will Be Blood", "The Puffy Chair" or Herzog's stuff at times, where a film wants to siphon off excess parts of life to focus very intensely on something specific). This film was unreal because I didn't understand anyone's motivations or didn't believe them, and I'm pretty sure I was supposed to. I have no idea why Oskar was so upset, it seems like they left a lot of things confusing. One scene at his dad's house was just weird- his dad's friend comes over, interrupt a board game and they sit around and talk w/ Oskar. They didn't abandon Oskar, they were engaging him, but it seemed like the film was trying to say there was something horribly wrong with this or there was something they weren't telling us.

I realize some of this feeling might have come from the fact that it is a Swedish film and I know nothing about life in a Swedish suburb. Yeah, ok, but I never feel confused watching a Bergman film. Their lives just felt weird.

Hey, but maybe that's what they were going for. Maybe they wanted me to feel slightly uncomfortable with the reality in the film. If so, they succeeded. I don't want to blast the film, because it was well made, beautifully filmed, and had a satisfying ending. But I can't help but feel a little lost and unable to connect with anything that happened in it.

17 Again

I will not pretend that this is an original movie. This expertly crafted vehicle for Zac Efron combines "Back to the Future" and "Freaky Friday" in a way that is 1) Less creepy than having your mom fall in love with you like the former and 2) Have a less complicated story because only one person is switching as in the latter (well maybe that's a stretch...).

Gentlemen, I don't recommend this movie for you. This 90 minute soon-to-be-classic was 90 minutes of Zac Efron playing basketball, charming the camera, and wearing a wide variety of amazing outfits. Perhaps Michelle Trachtenberg (who has been in movie high school for at least 10 years) was put in as his daughter in good faith for the poor boyfriends that got dragged to this movie, but I think not. No, this was just an amazing Zac Efron being amazing movie, and I loved it. I am no High School Musical fan (heard that soundtrack on repeat too much at work), but I love Zac Efron.

Alright, enough said about him. Other parts of the movie? Well, Matthew Perry as old Zac Efron looks pretty old. Like it looks like he aged 20 years since Friends ended. Even at the end when he's all happy and turned back into his normal self, he looked horrible. I hope you get a better agent soon. There was a very funny side story with the main character's best friend who is a massive nerd who falls in love with the school principal (the amazing Melora Hardin who played Jan on the "The Office"), and it provided a couple funny geeky jokes. But seriously, this movie is about Zac Efron. Don't get confused about that. It's shameless at times, but I'm OK with that. Go out and enjoy.

Summer Movies I'm Most Excited For

Alright, time to get geeky and talk about all those over budget summer blockbusters (and a few smaller films) that I'm excited for:

• Wolverine: Yeah, I'm pretty much a 12 year old boy. I wasn't that excited until I found out that both Ryan Reynolds AND DOMINIC MONAGHAN are in this!!! I think all the hype for Hugh has drowned out any mention of other actors, but now I am psyched.
• Drag Me to Hell: A woman gets a curse put on her for foreclosing on a witches house! By Evil Dead creator Sam Raimi, this is a horror movie that actually looks good.
• Night at the Museuem 2: I loved the first one (again, I think I'm 12), it was one of the best kid's movie I've seen in years. It makes museums cool again!
• Easy Virtue: This looks really entertaining. Jessica Biel marries into a stuffy English family and when her hubby brings her home to stuffy mom Kirsten Scott Thomas, hilarity ensues. Set in the 30's, looks really fun.
• Little Ashes: In a possibly ingenious casting choice, Robert Pattison (of Twilight) plays Salvador Dali!
• Transformers 2: More Shia Labouf= a better life.
• The Hangover: Go watch this trailer on iTunes, it looks HILARIOUS. Three guys wake up in Vegas after a bachelor party with a baby (not theirs), a chicken, and a missing groom. Ed Helms is one of the three and test shows have gone so well they've picked up a sequel already.
• Away We Go: I'm hoping this is the "Juno" of this summer. John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph are preggers, and they are trying to figure out their life. Angsty, funny, awkward, I can't wait.
• Cheri: Finally, Michelle Pfeiffer doing what she does best- playing an alluring retired courtesan in beautiful period costumes. Shes great.
• Moon: Sam Rockwell, alone on the moon in the future, flips out and goes "Solaris". Should be fun.
• Harry Potter 6: You know who (but not that you-know-who) kicks the bucket, and Snape finally gets to shine.
• (500) Days of Summer: Adorable looking, it looks like the "Garden State" of happy romantic comedies of sorts. Joseph Gordon Levitt and Zooey Deschenel, what a perfect couple. I'm very excited for this pairing.
• Inglorious Basterds: I am so interested to see what Brad Pitt will be like in this Tarantino gore fest about Jewish mercenaries going after Nazis. I think it will push some buttons, but I'm excited.
• Ponyo: A new Hayao Miyazaki ("Spirited Away"). Doesn't matter what its about.

State of Play

Eh, this was alright. I mean, look at the poster. It just shows the actors turning their heads in different ways with squinting eyes. It is sad.

It was another political/journalism thriller in the strain of "All the Presidents Men" meets something like "The Pelican Brief", with some great actors but that collapsed under its ego. Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck, Robin Wright-Penn, Rachel McAdams, Jeff Daniels and Helen Mirren- fantastic cast. All of them were pretty good, except while I really enjoy watching Russell Crowe, I think he could have tried a wee bit harder at playing his character, he was a bit vapid. Ben Affleck, though, fit surprisingly well into the role of sleazy congressman. His face is so oddly chiseled and wax-like that he stepped into that role effortlessly.

Well, I guess I should mention the plot, but then again why should I? The whole movie is about the plot, so telling you anything would ruin a good 10 minutes of action for you. But I must say something. An aide in Affleck's office falls in front of a subway and it turns out they were involved. Crowe is his old college roommate, and a 'seasoned' reporter (in the most cliche way), so he gets involved looking into the event. Things unfold and get twisted and get revealed and then unrevealed the whole time. It looked as though it was going to end nice and tidy, but then they throw a curve ball from the land of stupid that just makes the whole movie worthless. It wasn't a bad ending, it didn't feel wrong, it was just....lame and unnecessary. Like the writer felt the need to throw out one last twist so he opened the book of lame twists and picked one. Rent it, don't go see it. You'll be entertained but then immediately forget most of it. And it was over 2 hours long.

And, for the second time in a week, I've watched a movie with a title that has little to do with anything (the amazing/wonderful "Man From Earth" was the other). State of Play?? Are we living in a nation full of playfulness? Or we are stuck in a permanent state of playground games? No silly screenwriters, you need to pick a better title. Though, to be fair, its the name of the BBC miniseries that its based on, which I've read is much better.

Into the Wild

I just rewatched this movie for the first time since it came out, and I really really enjoyed it. I have to say that I HATED the book, I disliked how Krakauer made him seem like a hero and just was bored and annoyed by it (we read it in high school). So, I was pleasantly surprised by the movie the first time I saw it. I think Sean Penn (who wrote/directed it, randomly) did an excellent job of making it clear that this kid made bad decisions, but had a very strong sense of what he wanted for the right reasons.

The cinematography in this movie was what sold me. Better than I could in a written description, I understood the awe inspiring beauty that can come from camping wherever you please and living alone in the Alaskan wilderness. It even made the desert look alluring. The editing of the film, which spliced bits of Alex's time in Alaska against everything leading up to, kept the film grounded, reminding us where he ended up and why he tried to get there. And Bravo Emile Hirsch, you finally don't annoy me. You have used your cockiness in a constructive manner, I think this was the perfect role for you (though I bet he could be a good Peter Pan too, randomly).

Do I want to give away my money and become a leather tramp and meet crazy hippies? No definitely not, but I better understand why people see the glamour or the appeal in such a life. I do want to go hiking and look at trees though, so I think Penn made his point.

The Man From Earth

This low budget sci-fi poses and answers a very simple question: What would someone be like who never aged or died and had been alive since the cavemen time? In an honest, genuine, and exciting manner, this film sets up that premise.

A young professor has suddenly quit and decided to move away, so his friends and colleagues gather at his home to wish him farewell and find out why he's leaving so suddenly. Deciding to trust his friends, he starts to ask them this question, what would someone who couldn't die be like? Eventually, they realize he means himself and the majority of the film is filled with their disbelieving questions, their honest hope that he may just be crazy, and the mans heartbreaking story. Would you remember everything since birth? Would you know everything? Would you have any children? Have you ever gotten sick? They ask these questions, ones that I would ask too, and he answers them as best he can.

The film was amazingly well thought out and written a number of years ago by one of the original writers on the original"Twilight Zone", it has just a handful of actors, one set, and yet it never slowed or seemed dull. Their weren't long philosophical monologues on life (though they definitely addressed many serious questions), and it moved along at a very exciting and thrilling clip though the actors were mostly sitting around talking. It could easily become a play. There are a few good twists (did he know anyone famous...?) that seem a little far fetched, but the rest of it is so believable that I'll go with. You are left with a clear answer, and yet, you always wonder how you would be able to prove such a story. I'm not sure but I am so glad this film delved into it. Sit back and relax for a serious, but easy listening story about a caveman who grew up...

PS, horrible title, I don't think it works. And weird poster, ignore it if you can, I include so you can find it at the movie store!

Prince of Egypt

I rewatched this classic animated musical from my childhood with a friend this week in honor of Passover, she had never seen it (gasp!), and I remembered how good it is! Watching a movie from your childhood always gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling, but to have it actually hold up as a quality movie is even better.

The songs are really well written, I would see an actual stage musical of this. A bunch of them have stuck in my head for a long time, and I was thankful to be reminded how what they were from. The songs weren't gimmicky (for the most part), they feel authentic, and truly spoke to the feelings of the characters in the film. I was most blown away by how they directly and unabashedly addressed the religious issues. You can't tiptoe and be PC around them in a Moses story. I'm a religious studies/film minor, so I'm always interested in seeing how its dealt with on film, and I was impressed. The burning bush scene was fantastic! So much more believable than silly stuff in "Ten Commandments" etc. (animation kinda helped on that) And having the voice of God be the same voice as the one for Moses solves the dilemma of having to case someone for God (though Morgan Freeman will always be my choice....). Instead, it suggests that God just echoes ones own voice (or is it that God sounds like Moses? Glad he didn't for Charlton Heston, that would be frightening). And having Jeff Goldbloom voice Aaron? GENIUS. I'd follow that guy through any desert.

Great kids movie. Great musical. Great Hebrew epic. Except for the Michelle Pfeiffer voicing Zipporah part, but I'll forgive them that.

The Nines

Let me say this first- I googled this movie to read other reviews of it and see if there were any good articles on it, and none of them said much beyond "I can't tell you what this movie is about, but its awesome and you should see it.". So, I'll try and do a better job of it.

This sci-fi movie (ooh, that's a clue) starring Ryan Reynolds, a critically underrated actor who can play both comedic and serious roles, is a mind-bending, thought-inducing, trippy in the best way indie flick. You will be confused for most of the movie. You won't really understand it all until the end, and you will still have to think about it after that. You have to pay attention, and you'll either love it or hate it. For me, it was a definite love it, this was a fantastic film in the vein of classic "Twilight Zones" that had an amazing cast, good setup, and a satisfying end.

Of the plot, I will say this: The film involves three parallel stories of three men, all played by Ryan Reynolds. And it's definitely a fantasy/sci-fi.

Sorry, that's all I'm going to say. It's really really worth it if I don't ruin it for you. But if you like your mind getting bent, and if you like a serious sci-fi movie that doesn't rely on cheap tricks or special effects (not too many in here), then please go see this. In the name of Rod Serling, prepare to enter a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of the imagination, the twilight zone.

My Kid Could Paint That

The real question in this documentary is What Is Art?? Not in a cheesy sort of way, argued by art critics. This is a legit, anyone can question it argument. That's because the art in question is made by a four year old girl. Does finger painting a beautiful design count as a $10,000 art piece? If a little girl is splashing paint for fun and it looks the same as a Jackson Pollock, does it really count as the same?

This documentary followed the story of a four year old girl, her younger brother, and her parents right after her first gallery show (yeah, i know), her second even larger and more successful show ($50,000 for some paintings!) and during their intense media scrutiny after a 60 minutes show that claimed the dad was helping her paint and directing her. The filmmaker himself called the legitimacy of the painting into question, and while he obviously felt for the family his doubts were honest and clear. But what I questioned was this- how much help is wrong? Don't normal artists consult friends, spouses etc and say 'hey, how does this look?'. That's asking for help. Is that different from this girls dad saying 'no, i think it looks done now don't you?'. Difficult questions. I'm not sure.


Overall, it was a very well constructed and edited film. Huge moral questions hung over it (like is this major exploitation on the parents part), but it maintained a good balance. And the little girl was just so darn cute. I recommend it for a fun documentary, especially if you get pissed off by some modern art like I do.

After Last Season- Hoax?

Prepare to be blown away by the next big thing:
http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/movie-news/5106-help-me-understand-qafter-last-seasonq.html http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/afterlastseason/

This film, which is set to 'release' in June, defies ALL LOGIC OF FILMS. The scene in the 'doctors office' with the MRI machine is literally made out of cardboard boxes. The final line of dialogue in the trailer is "I think there are some printers in the basement". What? Have they ever seen a movie in their life? Do they understand what a trailer is? A supposed $5 million dollar budget?????

Because I quickly became obsessed with this, here are some more helpful links so you can become obsessed too:
Official Website- www.afterlastseason.com/

Interview with the writer/director- http://www.knoxroad.com/2009/03/27/knox-road-exclusive-writerdirector-mark-region-talks-about-after-last-season/

Article about it- http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/movie-news/5106-help-me-understand-qafter-last-seasonq.html

Adventureland

Wow, this felt like my life. This movie was about recently graduated or almost graduated college students who can't find a summer job at home, so they end up working at the crappy amusement park nearby. They live with their parents and have lofty dreams of where to go next, travelling to do, and what amazing lives they will have. This was not the next "Garden State", but I think it spoke to me and my peers in a way I haven't seen recently.

"Adventureland" was marketed as a comedy, and while it was funny, it was more heavily a love story, coming-of-age type deal. The protagonist is a dorky, adorable guy who just graduated from Oberlin with a BA in comparative lit and wants to be a journalist. Jesse Eisenberg seems set to be the next Michael Cera (and yeah, I think Cera is awesome enough to have proteges) the way he has perfected the awkward speech and mannerisms that seem familiar and real. As the love interest, Kristin Stewart is pretty good, she plays a bad girl (sorta), which I think suits her better than a straight edge kind of character (like in "Twilight").

Best parts? Ryan Reynolds as the uber-cool douchebag who is really a jerk to everyone in the film, but is just so darn cool that you like him anyway. I mean, he dresses like he could go out to dinner at work as a maintenance man. Bill Hader and Kristin Wiig from SNL were both hilarious as the bizarro owners of the theme park and brought laughs in between the tender moments. AND, It's set in 1987 though, so bizarre outfits abound. The things people wear at the club in one scene would have made anyone proud at Smiley 80's.

Malcolm McDowell

A recent article in Entertainment Weekly (my guilty pleasure movie/celebrity weekly subscription) had a photo shoot of some of the best 'villains' of all time. It was a fluff article, and a lot of them are cartoon (Mr Burns of Simpsons) or dead :( (I'm pretty sure the Wicked Witch of the West is), so it was slim pickings for the photo shoot. Of the four featured, the CREEPIEST was Malcolm McDowell, for his role in "A Clockwork Orange". This is one of my favorite movies (though its so hard to watch), and I was pondering Malcolm McDowell. If I hadn't watched a movie with him last week, I might not have been able to name a single other film he has been in. What happened to him?

Well, unfortunately, his amazingness in "A Clockwork Orange" was just too good and he got typecast for that role. I scanned through his whole bio on imdb.com that lists over 150 roles, all but about 10 of which are after "Clockwork" and they are mostly just crap. The movie "Time After Time", which is the one I just saw him in is the only half decent film. Well, I'd say more than half decent, I'd say pretty darn solid. He played a vastly different character- a romantic and geeky version of author H.G. Wells who travels with his time machine to the 1980s. He was great! He had that some sort of cockiness, but in a way that personified nerdy genius rather than diabolicalness, that really worked! And with a beard and glasses, he looked vastly different. He was a downright gentleman!

It's a shame, really, that this happened to him. He had so much presence, and after seeing "Time after Time" he could play other roles convincingly. He is sadly now confined to voicing the role of the villain cat in Disney's "Bolt" (with ugh, Miley Cyrus too). His photo shoot with the Entertainment Weekly just made me miss him and wish he could go back in time and film less crap. His eyes are still pretty freaky.

The Chronicles of Narnia- BBC series

I've just re-watched my childhood favorite, the BBC miniseries "The Chronicles of Narnia" which had Lion Witch and the Wardrobe, Prince Caspian, Voyage of the Dawn Treader AND The Silver Chair. Fortunately, it was very enjoyable. Unfortunately, it turns out the special effects could have been made by me and the acting was for the most part worse than a middle school play.

However, I must pay homage to this series that began my love for CS Lewis. I named my first pet Mr. Tumnus because of this series, and I compare the new Disney versions to these mercilessly (and however bad, they are often better in my mind). While the Disney versions have better actors, effects, and a much larger budget that allowed for a richer experience there was something genuine in this version. It felt more homely, more British, and a little bit spookier. Aslan, though he was a rigid puppet that didn't really open his mouth, seemed more real (though isn't that always the case in puppet vs. digital?). And while Reepicheep, that faithful mouse, was Warwick Davis ("Willow", prof. flitwick in Harry Potter) inside a large mouse suit and they never explained why he wasn't mouse sized, I still loved him.

The fight scenes were virtually nonexistent, Prince Caspian looked like he could barely make a sentence let alone lead an army, and while the White Witch wasn't as odd or cunning as in the Disney version she still had a nasty looking grin that scared me as a kid. I think I'll never know exactly what struck me about this series that made me watch it over and over, but there must be something to the heart of the series that makes it a smaller but valiant alternative to the big budget version.

Favorite Herzog Films

My blog is too Herzog-less! Learn about him! Here's his picture from "My Best Fiend". Klaus Kinski is the one with the knife lol.

Favorite Herzog Films In Order

1- Nosferatu- Not only is this amazing Herzog, but I thought this was an INCREDIBLE synthesis of the original film Nosferatu and Bram Stoker's original, both of which are equally important to the celluloid vampire. Very haunting and creepy, great vampires.

2- Werner Herzog Eats His Shoe- I watched this online somewhere (google video?), its only about 20 minutes. He didn't direct it, but it is an introduction to quintessential Herzog, explaining who he is and why he's so crazy awesome. And yeah, he does eat his shoe, he lost a bet.

3- Rescue Dawn- Tons of great actors in this. Jeremy Davies from Lost is amazing, and Steve Zahn proved he can act!

4- Aguirre, Wrath of God- Ultra haunting film about maniacal conquistadors in the jungles of south America. Classic Herzog.

5- Encounters at the End of the World- Stunning, beautiful, lots of fun Herzog interviews with crazy people who live in Antarctica.

6- My Best Fiend, Klaus Kinski- About his love/hate relationship with Kinski. He stars and directs, and shares some CRAZY stories (ex. guinea pigs plus dwarfs plus middle of the jungle= Herzog's life).

7- Fitzcarraldo- More classic Herzog, about a guy who tried to move a ship over a mountain in Peruvian jungle in early 1900's. The madness in the film was echoed in real life, and it was about as difficult to film. His documentary 'Burden of Dreams' is about the making of.

Man on Wire

This years winner of best documentary, "Man on Wire" was a rich, creative, inspiring film of the best kind of documentary which illuminates an aspect of human existence that you hadn't previously thought about but thoroughly respect afterwards.

The film more or less charts events from early 1970's where tight rope walker extraordinaire Phillipe Petit illegally walked across the nearly complete WTC twin towers. The tag line says it was the 'artistic crime of the century', and the film certainly made me agree (mostly because I can't name any other artistic crimes?). Never before had I really given any thought to tightrope walking, as a profession and certainly not as an art form, but Petit is so engaging that I now see the beauty in it. The film, which is mostly told in interviews and re-enactions (which gave it an Errol Morris feel), builds up to this monumental event that Petit had been wanting to do since he had read about the construction of the towers and took literally years of planning to pull it off.

It is mostly through Petit's sheer force of a personality that gives the film its wings. He is enchanting, reminds me a bit of Malcolm McDowell from "Clockwork Orange", and is a dreamer pure and simple. He even enchanted his ex girlfriend enough to make her come to the event and weep at the beauty of it, seriously. You know what happens at the end (the poster kind of shows that they pulled it off), but there is definitely tension, worrying about how they will do it and what will happen after.

One of the greatest triumphs of the film, however, is the way they deal with the obvious tragedy that befell the towers. I don't remember it ever being explicitly mentioned, but everyone involved clearly had a profound love almost for the towers and what they symbolized. Petit knew what they meant before they were built, and this film serves as a tribute to the towers themselves. Its not morbid or sad, but a respectful and inspiring memorial to them. Very deserving of the best doc win.

An Ode to Dystopian Films

I've been thinking a lot about sci-fi movies recently. Watching "Repo" really got under my skin, and made me inspired about movies again, and I was thinking about how awesome it must have been to work on that film and create it. My favorite genre is sci-fi dystopian films, and so I made an ode to them (well, its really mostly about the bad ones).

Oh Dystopian sci-fi films.

I love your silly costumes.

I love your dark shadows.

I adore your attempt at shaking up the social norms.

I like how you try to be groundbreaking, but usually end up sounding like Orwell.

I dislike how you often objectify women or make them androgynous.

I love that you often start a cult following.

I am ashamed when you shamelessly copy a past film.

I love the random actors that star in you, and knowing that they did it for the money.

I wish a new one would come out in theaters every week instead of just on the Sci Fi channel.

Oh dystopian films, how I love thee.

Knowing

This was an f-ing weird movie. Really strange. Why did they make it? What were they thinking? Has Alex Proyas gone insane? Can Nicholas Cage no longer act at all? Why are child actors annoying? To sound like a lame movie reviewer, I came away 'knowing' far less than when I went to see it.

The plot of the movie starts out interesting enough- Nicholas Cage's son gets a letter from a school's time capsule that is a seemingly random series of numbers. Cage, in his infinite wisdom as a metaphysics professor at MIT (yeah, did they have to make it at MIT? Really?), discovers it is a code for all major disasters, listing the dates, places and number dead. The last number is (gasp) coming up soon and says EVERYONE will die. Oh dear. But also, his kid hears things and wears a hearing aid because sounds get mixed up in his head (huh?).

However, (SPOILERS!) the movie takes quite a turn from the usual disaster film. Cage is the son of an austere preacher, and hasn't spoken to him in years, The woman who wrote the letter draws creepy scenes from revelation, and there is quite a lot of talk of heaven and the afterlife. Well, then the film just nosedives down the Christian path, and it turns out that while the earth is doomed from a natural disaster, it has become a sort of end of days last judgement situation with some friendly aliens. And then, the people who are saved from Earth get dropped off in some bizarre Garden of Eden complete with glowing apple tree. Say what?

I love me a good religious spook thriller (see "Haunting of Molly Hartley"), but this was INSANE! It was like BAM Christian mythology. BAM theres a priest. BAM atone for your sins. And all this from the amazing director of "Dark City" and "The Crow".The weirdest thing to me is that none of this was featured in the trailers. It was marketed as a mainstream creepy thriller of some sort. I wonder why.

Twilight AND The Haunting of Molly Hartley: Oddly Similar

So last week at home, enjoying renting crappy movies from the video store, I rented "The Haunting of Molly Hartley", a satanic scary movie that I knew would be bad but awesome, and the teen fandom crazy phenomenon "Twilight" about the vampires in high school. There were, oddly enough, many similarities.

• The basic plot is this: A girl moves to a new town with a new school, to live with only one parent (though she has two) for complex reasons.
• Both girls realize something spooky is going on there, something that wasn't going on at home. Molly Hartley is hearing/seeing creepy things, and Bella in "Twilight" thinks there are vampires.
• Both girls look too skinny and are pale (heroine chic coming back in?)
• Evil forces are trying to kill/eat the girl.
• Both girls fall for a guy who is not what he seems.

I watched them on the same day (oh the joys of vacation) and so was hyper aware of these similarities.

Anyway, onto what I thought of them. I am a die-hard Anne Rice fan (that's "Interview with a Vampire" etc.), so have been very skeptical of this "Twilight" series since it came out. Plus I've seen how crazy the fans were. I can't speak for the book, but the movie was actually alright. It was a solid vampire movie. Not amazing, it's no "Nosferatu", but it was pretty much a teenage romance plus vampire movie, and for what it set out to achieve I think it did that pretty well. Robert Pattison was a believable vampire, with his staring moody eyes and overly-giant looking head. The girl was ok, not my favorite but I think she did pretty well. The best was the vampire 'family' though, they were so cute! Ok, so maybe that's the wrong word, but I liked them. And, interesting vampire lore here, according to the vampires in this film the vampire bite delivers a venom that kills the victim unless the vampire turns them into a vampire too. So no sexy blood sucking, that's reserved only for the bad vampires.

I don't really feel the need to talk about "The Haunting of Molly Hartley", it was a good spooky will-the-devil-win horror movie. Nothing special, but entertaining.

Repo! The Genetic Opera

NEW CULT CLASSIC!!! Organ transplants! Rock Opera! Creepy costumes! Paris Hilton singing! This is a fantastic film that I've heard a lot of little things about but never understood why it was getting so much buzz. Now I know, it's because its a bona fide new classic! The music was amazing, the costumes phenomenal, the art direction impeccable, the cast was crazy awesome, go see this movie! Rent it, have a party, make some jello in a brain mold like you used to for middle school Halloween parties.

In a dystopian future, everyone's bodies are failing, but luckily you can get a quick and easy transplant and little upfront cost, just sign a contract for the payment system. Unfortunately, if you can't make your payments, you'll be getting a visit from the repo man to repossess your organs. Bad news. Sarah Brightman (the woman who inspired Andrew Lloyd Weber to write "Phantom of the Opera" for her) plays an ex-blind opera singer (thanks to some new eyes), Alexa Vega from "Spy Kids" plays a secluded young woman, Anthony Stewart Head from Buffy plays her dad, and oh yeah Paris Hilton plays pretty much herself. That's all the story you need to know, go see it for yourself. The director called it a rock opera mix of "Rocky Horror Picture Show" and "Blade Runner", a fair assessment!

I Love You, Man

I saw a sneak preview of "I Love You, Man", this week. Its a film coming out in about 2 weeks about a serious Bromance. Paul Rudd (I'm so happy he's popular now!), is about to marry Rashida Jones (from the Office), and they both realize he has no real male friends to be his best man. Eventually he meets Jason Segel, and they become the best of friends in a strictly hetero male partner for life way. Hilarity ensues, there are lots of awkward bromance moments, and Rudd and Segel at their finest.

It was a fun popcorn movie. Better than "Step Brothers", but not better than "Forgetting Sarah Marshall". It was not "Knocked Up", but it might have been as good as "Talladega Nights". And it has started a new genre: The romantic Bromance Comedy. Same structure as a normal rom-com, but the main leads are strictly straight. Theres room for more here.

One thing that really held the movie together was the awesome supporting cast. Andy Samberg played the jerky younger gay brother who tries to help Rudd find a friend, and always good J.K. Simmons (the dad from "Juno") played the dad whose best friend is his son. The best though was Jon Favreau, the actor/director who last directed "Iron Man", but who I really like for his short lived show "Dinner for Five". Anyway, Favreau plays the hubby of the maid of honor and despises Rudd with every fiber of his being. He oozed hatred out of his eyes. I felt bad that they made a few fat jokes about him though, because he's a lot skinnier than he has been in recent years!

A few potty jokes, a handful of jokes about marriage, Jason Segel being the cool guy who lives on Venice Beach, and lots of snort inducing Paul Rudd awkwardness, and you've got an entertaining movie. Go see it when it comes out! But don't pay more than $8.50 for it. I'd say its worth more than a bargain show, but not a super expensive weekend show. Long live the bromance film.

The Boondock Saints

I'd had this movie recommended to me so many times I decided to finally sit down and watch it. I had absolutely no idea what it was about, except that maybe it was vaguely religious and that it had a major cult following. So imagine my surprise when I read about what its about and that Willem Dafoe stars as a gay cop in it. But i gave it a try....

....And hated it. I didn't get it. I want to know why people like it. So, let me try and figure out what I didn't like. It wasn't the violence, I thought they did the shoot outs nicely, but maybe because its about 15 years old and we're used to complex shootouts now, but it was just boring mostly. Was it the subject matter? I don't think so, vengeful brothers sounds alright to me. However, there was very very thin connection between most of the scenes, and all we knew most of the time was just that they were going to kill people.

The character of Rocco bugged the hell out of me though.I hated him, I didn't find him funny, I was kind of confused what he was doing. I didn't care at all when he died, and furthermore I was glad because he kept screwing everything up for the brothers all the time! Their relationship, uber-brother love was the only good part of the movie.

Oh and Willem Dafoe in drag was pretty funny. If he was in a scene I payed attention. Billy Connolly was not in it enough and I'm not sure why he wasn't in more. I was bored most of the time, I didn't like it. Tell me why?

Coraline

What a wonderfully creepy fantastical movie! This was based on a short book by Neil Gaiman, fantasy writer extraordinaire, and was made into a stop-motion animated movie by the director of "Nightmare Before Christmas" (Tim Burton didn't actually direct it, just producer/writer). The style was fantastic, it was dark and creepy and colorful, lots of textures. It wasn't as zany as Nightmare sometimes got, part of it was set in the 'real world', it kept it more realistic (well sort of).

So the plot is simple. A girl whose parents are too wrapped up in their work to pay much attention to her move to a new house. Inside the house, she finds a creepy tiny door that leads into a world that is similar to her own, but better...Or is it?? (I could write taglines). The book was creepy and wonderful, but very short, so a lot more had to be added. The kooky neighbors roles were bulked up, and well I think. Also, a 'love interest' type boy was added as well, but he fit in better than I thought he would. Excellent adaptation of a book, not many out there.

One of the BEST things about this film though (besides the art direction), and it was something that I rarely notice, was the soundtrack. I can't think of a more perfect soundtrack that went with a film. It was kind of quirky and strange, but that enhanced the mood of the film in just the right way. There was a lot of strange pianos and violins, some creepy chanting, it reminded me somewhat of the music from "Twelve Monkeys". I'm looking it up on iTunes ASAP.

A note about the genre. With how well this film has been doing so far, and how good it was, I think there is a niche genre of 'young girl in fantasy world' emerging. "Pans Labyrinth" is the best example, but there is also "Mirrormask" that came out at roughly the same time, Terry Gilliams "Tideland" (though I refuse to see it even though I love him) and one coming out this week called "Pheobe in Wonderland". Its a young girl, on the brink of puberty or of adulthood who enters a fantasy world, and then there is the is-she-or-isnt-she making it up to deal with. I think its an important theme to explore, I hope more can come out like this. I certainly identify strongly with it and the characters, I think a lot of girls do.

Also, I'm a nerd and I went on the website. You can make your own 'other self' with button eyes, it was pretty funny: http://www.coraline.com/#/?page=button%20eyes&subPage=0. Go be a nerd too and make your other self.

Jekyll

I feel like a bit of a Robert Louis Stevenson defender after I took 'History of Ideas' here at Pitzer freshman year where we read 1 or 2 of his books (and a bunch of HG Wells) in detail looking at the ideological advances of the industrial revolution within them, and found them to be much deeper than they are reputed to be. So of course, when I saw a series on BBC this summer called "Jekyll", I watched and was intrigued. I only saw one episode (their programming schedule is so strange), but finally went back and watched the whole 6 episode series, so glad I did.

"Jekyll" is about a modern day Jekyll and Hyde situation. A middle aged man finds he starts having blackout spells and eventually realizes he has another person inside his head who takes over savagely for stretches of time. They don't know what happens to each other and have to communicate via recorded messages. Throw in some government conspiracy, some drama with his wife, the convenience of modern technology (GPS tracking while he turns to Hyde) and you got a six hour miniseries. The plot played out well, it connected it to the original Jekyll/Hyde, and it had a very fitting ending. Oh yeah and enormously entertaining. Never had six hours fly by that fast.


The greatness of it was mostly due to the fantastic portrayal by James Nesbitt, an Irish actor who easily switched from exhausted world-weary Dr. Jackman to manaical and high energy Hyde. Part of the story had to do with a physical transformation that happened, making people 'really' believe he had two personalities, and wasn't just crazy. Changing his hair and putting in contacts was all they did (maybe some anti-wrinkle cream too), but that was plenty because he changed his expressions so much. He was in practically every scene and he was so fun to watch. I hope he gets more roles here in the US. Check out the Jekyll grin:

Best part though, was their throwback to Stevenson's original prononciationg of the name (yeah I'm a nerd). Apparently, with Stevensons thick Scottish accent Jekyll was pronounced more like 'gee-ckle', but nobody really stuck to that. They mentioned it several times in the series, loved it.

Little Dieter Needs to Fly

I realized I hadn't watched any Herzog in a while this weekend, so I watched his documentary "Little Dieter Needs to Fly", which I still hadn't seen yet. The funny thing about this is it was made in 1997, but then ten years later Herzog decided to make a fictional film about this guy's story, which was "Rescue Dawn" (AMAZING, I love it, Christian Bale dropped like 15 pounds for the second half of the movie and looks scary, and whoever said Steve Zahn can't act is dead wrong). So I had seen "Rescue Dawn" already so knew what the story was about, but heard it from the horses mouth.

Turns out the guy was living on Mt. Tamalpais in the Bay Area, too bad I didn't see this documentary until after he died, I definitely would have gone to visit him. His story was incredible, and he had such a positive enlightened attitude about it. Yeah crashing in Vietnam and being held by the Viet Cong for a few months with barely any food was terrible, and then escaping with another guy only to have his head cut off in front of you is traumatic, but this guy had the balls to go BACK to Vietnam and show Herzog what it looked like. They even hired some Vietnamese guys with guns to stand around him so he could show the camera what it looked like, and at one point had them tie his hands and run around the jungle. That poor guy, I don't know if Herzog talked him into it, he seemed ok, but that must have been traumatic to be relieving those memories in near identical conditions.

The most interesting part for me was comparing this to "Rescue Dawn". There were a lot of things that the guy mentioned (like his tough childhood growing up in Black Forest of Germany during the war and having no food to eat) or stories that he told that seemed very elemental to who he was, but that Herzog decided not to include in "Rescue Dawn". One was a really heart wrenching story about his fight to keep the engagement ring he had, refusing to let his captors take it off him. Overall, it was a classic Herzog documentary that got to the kooky, heartfelt core of everyone, and told a story in a very linear and illustrative way, which is different from many other documentarians.

Street Fight

Cory Booker, you might be my new hero. Booker is the subject of this tintillating documentary that follows his campaign for Mayor in 2002 in Newark, New Jersey against a guy who has been in office for over 15 years and done nothing for a city with a high murder rate and increasing number of crumbling projects and out of work people. It's called 'street fight', because thats what the incumbent James Sharpe turned it into. Sharpe, who is a fast talking bastard of a politician makes all kinds of horrible claims against Booker, who tires to run a clean campaign. Among the most ridiculous are that he (Sharpe) is blacker than Booker, that Booker is secretly a Jew, and that Booker is probably a terrorist.

It's not that that frustrates you though, its all the sneaky stuff that happens to his campaign. Signs get torn down by police 'on official business', businesses get fined for no reason when they support him, his office is broken into, and even the documentarian starts to fear for his well-being. And mind you, this is a DOCUMENTARY, as in, true facts. Most of the claims that Sharpe makes are shown coming out of his own mouth.

Its really a shock-umentary, about how horrific politics are, but also how amazing some people are. I think the film resonates more now, after Obama's campaign. I definitely saw some Obama like hope campaign feelings watching it.

Best part though (SPOILERS!!!) is that even though he didn't win the election THAT YEAR, he won the next one as Sharpe retired. And since then, Booker has done FRIGGIN INCREDIBLE STUFF for the city, just like he said he would! Check out his "25 accomplishments in 25 months" brochure http://www.corybooker.com/docs/25Accomplishments.pdf. He is seriously a good guy. And though they don't always come out on top at the beginning, they do on the end. Cory Booker you bald genius, what more can you do?

The Joy of a Mediocre Movie

I found a great article about the joys (and the frustrations) in watching a mediocre movie. I am ashamed to say that I too rented "Meet the Spartans" for mindless entertainment: http://www.avclub.com/articles/in-praise-of-mediocrity,24315/

Sometimes you just need to watch some bland badness. Tonight, I watched "Conspiracy Theory", that awful-great movie with Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts that plays on TNT all the time (that alone is a symbol of its mediocracy). Did I think it would make sense? NO! Did I think it would have a really clever ending? NO! But did I think it have some great Mel Gibson, yes, and it delivered. Did I think it would try to make Julia Roberts the smart young ingenue who breaks gender stereotypes (seems like thats all she used to do), YEAH, and it delivered. I don't expect to remember the details of the plot tomorrow, but I appreciate that they took the time to make that crappy film so I could spend 2 hours enjoying myself.

So heres to mediocracy. May you live forever and fill our extra hours with fake sugary goodness.

Oscars Review

Overall, it was a pretty good Oscar night. The right people won, in my opinion, there were some tiny surprises, and there were a few laughs.

THE WINNERS: I'm very happy that Slumdog sweeped the night, getting 8 out of its 10 nominations, and providing some interesting acceptance speeches. A little surprised that Sean Penn won, but I'm glad, he was equally as good as Rourke and deserved it too. I was pleasantly surprised Penelope Cruz won, her role in "Vicky Christina Barcelona" was fabulous, she brightened up the whole movie. Overall, awesome.

BEST SPEECH: Writer of Milk, who gave an emotionally wrought speech about how inspiring Harvey Milk had been when he moved to CA, and said something about all LGBT people being "beautiful creatures". It was a great script, and he deserved it.

WORST SPEECH: The director of the Japanese film that won best foreign film, for saying 'domo arigato mr roboto' at the end of his speech.

WORST IDEA: Hugh Jackman singing with Beyonce.

SECOND WORST IDEA: Zac Efron/Vanessa Hudgens and Amanda Seyfried/Dominic Cooper backing up Hugh Jackman/Beyonce.

BEST IDEA: Ben Stiller presenting an award dressed up like spaced out Joaquin Pheonix, and wandering around stage while the nominees were presented. I think it officially means that Pheonix can never work in Hollywood again, lol.

CRINGE INDUCING MOMENT: Sophia Loren's 70 year old face/body. It's ok if you look old now Sophia, you have been alive longer than my grandparents, so stop with the makeup and cover up the boobs.

GREATEST MOMENT: Werner Herzog randomly popping up and starting to ramble, then realizing they were presenting best doc as the next person came up. Heard of a transition?

GRADE: B

Ordinary People

In my undying love for Robert Redford, whom I feel like I know personally after he came to Pitzer twice, I've been watching all the movies he's directed, most of which have been pretty excellent. So I decided to watch his directorial debut, the 1980 film "Ordinary People" which won for best picture, director, screenplay, and supporting actor for Timothy Hutton (though really i think it should have been best main actor). It was so good!!!! I can't remember a film like it that had such realistic portrayals of parents in a while. Not that my family is like that at all, but Mary Tyler Moore and Donald Sutherland were so good, they really deserved to have won something for it too.

So, the story is about this suburban family, where the favored older son died in a accident that he younger son witnessed, and then the younger son (Hutton, looking mighty fine) tried to kill himself and was committed for four months. So, the film starts after he's been home from the hospital for a month, but he is clearly still working through a lot of stuff, and has not really figured anything out. His parents are trying to get on with their lives, his mom through focusing on domestic suburbany things, and his father by worrying all the time and doting on his remaining son.

A big part of the drama came from when the son goes to therapy with Judd Hirsch (I wish he was my therapist). Apparently, it was one of the first times that therapy was shown in depth in a good light (not Nurse Ratched style). Maybe I was just in a mood to be emotionally wrought, but wow, i was so wrapped up in hoping the son could figure out his problems. And hooray, he did! Not that that makes for a happy ending, but it was resolved as it should have been.

I think a film is truly great when it makes me sympathize and feel like I understand a situation which I clearly have never encountered. I don't know what its like to lose your brother and be hated by your mother, but I understood Timothy Hutton's character, and I understood how Mary Tyler Moore was trying to cope with it by ignoring it. Thanks Robert Redford for another gem. You totally deserved beating out Scorsese for "Raging Bull" for this.

Oscar Predictions

It's T minus 3 days to the Oscars, the holy day of film. After long consideration I have decided upon my predictions.

Best Picture: Slumdog Millionaire- It just has so much going for it, its winning everything, I think everyone in the Academy loves it too. While "Milk" and "Frost/Nixon" were excellent, I think this has a big edge.

Best Actress: Kate Winslet- It is time! I don't think the Academy is enough of a fan of nuns to vote for Meryl Streep, and Kate has been deserving of one for a while.

Best Actor: Mickey Rourke- This is my riskiest pick. It's neck and neck in predictions against him and Sean Penn. See my earlier post about this face off.

Best Director: Danny Boyle- Most of the time, director and picture are the same, Boyle is a safe bet.

Best Supporting Actress: Viola Davis- She was really emotional, those looked like real tears as the mom of the boy in question in "Doubt", she really brought the force to that movie right when it needed it. Also, the other nominees are not that strong

Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger- No doubt. I can't wait to see tiny Matilda Ledger accept his award.

Best Documentary: Man on Wire- While I am pulling for Herzog's "Encounters at the End of the World", I don't think it has a chance against this awesome doc, about a guy tightroping illegally across the WTC towers. The grandeur of the towers hit home for too many people, its gotta win.

Fahrenheit 451

Based on the Ray Bradbury book that I could never quite get through, this adaptation of the classic sci-fi book was excellent. Thanks in large part to master French director Francois Truffaut (though I have to ashamedly admit I've only seen 1/2 of one of his films), it was tight, it was scary, it was thought provoking, and it had great style.

One of the most important things to me as a sci-fi film fan is the look of a film if its set in the future. You have to put a lot of thought into it, because if it looks gimmicky or silly, its going to be forgotten in 10 years. Though this one had a few silly things (doors that open when you stand near them?! Incredible!), for 1966 this was pretty good. They had a monorail, they had fireman poles that would take send you up them like magic, and they had some pretty cool clothes.

But of course, its the story that counts. This movie/book is about a future where books are banned because they have too many ideas/cause unrest, and fireman are the people who burn them. There was the required witty exchange where some little kid says something like "didn't firemen used to put out fires?". The main character, Montag (they all call him by his last name, even his wife) is a fireman who starts to get curious about books....The cleverest part of the movie was in the credits, though it took me a few minutes to figure out why. In this future world, there is no print (except for numbers; some things you can't do without), no signs, no writing, nothing. So, instead of showing the credits in a montage before the movie really starts, the credits were READ OUT LOUD so nothing shows up on screen. How clever! Great film, great dystopian future, holds up well over time, see it.

Things I Refuse to Watch

I've got a bit of a cold today, so I've been alternating between reading and watching crappy movies on my computer. I decided to watch this strange thing on my Netflix Queue called "Winter Passing" that looked kinda interesting because it had Zooey Deschanel, Ed Harris and Will Ferrell. I started watching it, it was alright though kinda depressing, weird seeing 'good girl' Deschanel doing coke, but I didnt have the energy and it wasn't quite bad enough to turn it off. But then, a crime against film viewers happened. Poor little Zooey finds out that her kitten has feline leukemia, and she decides she can't let the cat go through with that. So she takes a cab to an abandoned dock, with a kitten and a bag, AND STARTS PUTTING THE KITTEN IN THE BAG....And I turn off the movie. I rush onto IMDB.com and look at the message boards, and yup, there are about 50 different threads about how unnecessary drowning a cat was.

Now, I don't think I'm a light weight about movies. I can take the blood and the gore no problem, I can even usually handle some gnarly "Little Children" like stuff if its appropriate. BUT, sometimes, isn't it just as powerful to imply something? Weren't you just as freaked out by almost seeing a guys ear get cut off in "Reservoir Dogs" as if you had actually seen it? So here's my list of things that should never be seen onsreen. Ever.

1. Throw up; So gross. I can handle hearing it, if you really think its necessary, but don't show it!
2. Killing babies. Animals included; This is just mean. Why can't you just say you took it to the vet to be euthanized?
3. Poop.
4. Throw up. Not even a little. Don't even think about it.

A Wrestler vs. Harvey Milk

I found an amazingly enlightening article written by my hometown movie critic Mick LaSalle that really had a lot of insight. It talked about 'chameleonic' vs. 'apotheotic' roles in film, using for example, the Oscar race this year which looks to be pitting Sean Penn's chameleonic performance in "Milk" against Mickey Rourke's wrenching 'apotheotic' role in "The Wrestler".

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/06/DDQO15G3T3.DTL&type=movies

I read the article this weekend, and had seen "Milk", but since I just saw "The Wrestler" tonight I didn't want to fully judge it, but now I can. First of all, "The Wrestler" was incredible. SO emotionally wrenching, SO draining to follow this guys story, and SO relatable even though I am clearly not a middle aged messed up pro-wrestler. I know very little about Mickey Rourke, the only other thing I've seen him in is "Sin City", and the rest I found out from wikipedia this afternoon, but he is friggin' incredible. He fits exactly what Mick LaSalle was talking about.

The article really was talking about roles where an actor completely disappears into a role so they are unrecognizable (Chameleonic), and roles where an actor seems to be playing out some major part of themselves onscreen (apotheotic). Sean Penn does not act like Harvey Milk normally, or in any other film he's done, so when he did it well, it was crazy and awesome. Mickey Rourke, though an equally fine actor, really has lived the life of 'The Ram' wrestler, and you can see it. LaSalle argues that it is usually chameleonic roles that win the Oscar (Day-Lewis in "There Will Be Blood" last year, Nicole Kidman in "The Hours", Charlize Theron (uck) in "Monster"), and goes on to list a lot of evidence in his favor

Will it be true again this year? It seems hard for me to believe that the Academy is not going to reward Rourke for this awesome film, it really seemed to be his swan song. But, on the other hand, I kind of believe LaSalle. Otherwise, how could Nicole Kidman have won for just putting on a fake nose? I liked both the films, I can't decide which i would want to win, but my bets are going to go against this article and go for Rourke.

Revisiting Jurassic Park

The theater on campus was playing the dinosaur masterpiece "Jurassic Park" this weekend. I texted a friend when i found out and said we definitely had to go. She thought I was kidding, but I definitely was not! It is one of my favorite movies, and though there have been sequels and some lame attempts to make other dinosaur movies, nothing comes close to this Spielberg classic.

What I really enjoyed about seeing it again was watching it on a big screen in a theater. I was too young to see it (came out in 1993, i would have been 5), so I had only seen it on a small screen. T-rex was scary on my little tv screen, enough to give me nightmares, but he was WAY scarier on a big screen. It is a film that really really benefits from the big screen. Spielberg knows how to frame shots really well, so you feel a part of the action, and that also made it a really good movie to see on the big screen.

Another thing I appreciated in this viewing was a lot of the subtler story lines in the film. It had been a year or so since I'd seen it last, and I usually only see it on TV, so I'm doing something else while watching it, and don't pay attention to it all too well. In a theater, you really pay attention to every detail sitting in the dark. All the witty little comments that crazy old Mr. Hammond makes about 'sparing no expense' on all the new fangled technology were better appreciated in this viewing. And Jeff Goldblumes crazy stares and crazy hair was better noticed as well.

In sum, its always great to see a good film in a theater, whether you've seen it a million times or not. And especially with giant scary t-rex's and velociraptors, the film benefits from looking physically taller.

Transsiberian

So you're traveling across Russia on the Transsiberian railway, and you try to be polite and make conversation with your random cabin mates. Well, turns out they're drug runners, and the guy kinda wants to rape you, and the girlfriend has gotten mixed up with this guy. What do you do? The plot of this movie is not clear from the get go. I have no idea whats going to happen with this naive American couple looking to find some adventure by taking a safe railroad trip. I have no idea what these crazy cabin mates are going to do. That's what made this a good movie, well that and the actors.

The acting was fantastic. The first half of the movie was incredibly engaging and drew me in because of the chemistry between the American woman (Emily Mortimer, not playing the nice girl for once) and the mysterious Spanish(?) cabin mate played by the charming and creepy Eduardo Noriega. As I described it to someone, he is fantastic at playing someone who sucks you into his character but at the same time kinda looks like he might wanna rape you. He played Tom Cruise's character in the original "Vanilla Sky", called "Abre los ojos/Open your Eyes", which was millions times better than the American version, but you can get a sense from that what kind of creepy/engaging he is. The second half of the film is much more action filled and lost a little from that, but once Ben Kingsley shows up it picks up speed again.

Here's a pic of the cabin mates, played by Kate Mara (heavy on the eye makeup) and Noriega.

The ending was not my favorite, it was just predictable that it was heading that way, but it was solid and it made sense. But for the cinematography, the acting, and for the first two acts of the story, this is a must see thriller that I recommend.

Looking at the blog, I've been watching some good movies lately. I swear, I don't always like every movie as much as I liked this or "Taken" etc., lol.

Taken

There are not many movies that are as fun as "Taken" was. It was Liam Neeson (aka Aslan aka awesome dad from "Love Actually") kicking ass trying to find his daughter for an hour and a half. Yeah, thats all it was, that's all it needed to be. I could follow the plot (or as much of it as there was), i actually cared whether his daughter lived or not (Maggie Grace, aka Shannon from Lost but a lot less whiny), and there were great fight scenes.

My hometown movie critic, Mick LaSalle of the SF Chronicle had given it a good review saying it was very fun and enjoyable because it lived up to its own expectations to be a great Liam Neeson doing crazy kung fu stuff.

I was thinking this morning about why the story seemed so new. There have been films about parents trying to rescue kidnapped children ("Ransom" comes to mind as the best, "Eagle Eye" had a bit), but I can't think of any where it is a father saving a teenage daugther. It changes the formula, because a seventeen year old daughter is not going to be as easily kidnapped/subdued as a kid, so they had to make it seem believable in using a whole giant underground operation in trafficking women (icky). I was seriously creeped out by the stuff, as I'm sure Liam Neeson Dad would have been too. Kudos to the screenwriter for changing the formula. That's how good movies happen!