Yearly Archives: 2009

Movie Review: American Psycho

1 Reply

Ever heard of the term skin deep? Patrick Bateman might seem shallow and merely skin deep, but not when you look from his perspective. But then again, isn’t that the case for every human being? This is the focus of the superb “American Psycho.”

“American Psycho” tells the story of Patrick Bateman. Bateman is played by Christian Bale, in one of the most electrifying performances of the best performances in the past ten years. Bateman is a young, very wealthy New York banking executive. On the outside, he’s perfect in every way, and he wouldn’t have it any other way. Bateman, like Travis Bickle, wakes up every morning and goes through a rigorous routine where he strives to perfect his body through sit-ups and different shampoos. He seems flawless on the outside, without a hit of insanity. But as the title suggests, that is not true.
Patrick Bateman, who is the perfect conformist, is also the most perfectly disguised serial killer. Why does he does he kill? Simply, a trapped inner lust for blood. A sort of fragile desire that can break out at any second. 
Some people might be put off by Bale’s performance at first, as it seems kind of stiff and unemotional. But that’s the point. Bateman has transformed himself into a conformist and molded himself in with the banker crowd, a man who can use a business card as a weapon as deadly as his chainsaw. It’s Bateman’s constant internal dialogue that truly proves Bale’s extraordinary performance. Bale handles the narration kind of like Malcolm McDowell did in “A Clockwork Orange”: revealing a young everyman as a hidden psycho before this element totally takes over their outer lives as well. This has been extremely relevant to Christian Bale today. But, I guess yelling at cinematographers isn’t as bad as hacking random bankers in the face with an ax.
“American Psycho” is directed by Mary Harron, who unfortunately hasn’t directed enough movies. She ups the suspense using many Hitchcockian techniques. The infamous chainsaw scene with the looming shadows and winding staircase looks like a scene right out of “Vertigo.” Harron directs the film’s graphic violence in a kind of ironically glorified way. It’s not the kind of film that purposely glorifies violence by inspiring kids to go saw off people’s heads, but it is rather a parody of the glorification of violence in American culture. She then ends the movie with the most perfectly devilish twist, the kind of twist that reveals a new truth about the character, but doesn’t resolve anything. There is no correct answer to the cryptic final moments. You have to decide.
“American Psycho” shows the transformation of the serial killer film and a format that all horror films really need to follow. In modern films, serial killers have transformed from psychos in leather masks to psychos in business suits. Is this a creepy suggestion that perhaps a serial killer lies within everyone?

The 10 Best Films of 2008

3 Replies

Okay, I know, it’s already March. But I felt at some point it was necessary to talk about my top ten movies of 2008, and last week’s Oscars made this slightly more relevant. And what a year it was. There was no “There Will Be Blood” or “Knocked Up” but there were many great ones. Films began to do one thing they haven’t done in a while: give hope. And in this world, we could really use some more hope. Here it is, the top ten films of 2008:

1. Slumdog Millionaire- This was quite a fantastic year for movies, but after much thought I realized the award goes to “Slumdog Millionaire.” This tale of a boy from a Mumbai slum who went on an incredible life journey to become a contestant for “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” is virtually flawless in every way. It contains a great portion of laughs, cries, and thrills that all coincide to create a perfect whole. Plus, the film’s great editing and beautiful cinematography make it stunning to look at. Even though the audience might know Jamal’s fate from the very beginning, “Slumdog Millionaire” proves that a film is more about the journey, than it is about the conclusion.
2. In Bruges- For those of you looking for this decade’s “Pulp Fiction,” look no further. “In Bruges” is a brilliant dramedy about an odd couple of gangsters hiding out in the medieval city of Bruges as they ponder the ancient architecture around them and reevaluate the meaning of their lives. It’s deep, troubling, and hilarious. Oh, and Colin Farrell also punches a Canadian woman in the face and then head-butts a midget. What more could you ask for in a movie?
3. Milk- A biopic at its very best. “Milk” portrays the life of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay politician in America who led the way in the civil rights movement for gays. Sean Penn portrays Harvey Milk with accuracy and fierce, unrelenting anger. He is Harvey Milk, and he’s here to recruit you. Mainly, Milk is just another one of Van Sant’s lost, misfit souls. But he is one who wants to make the world a little better. This world could use more people like Harvey Milk. And “Milk” flawlessly shows us why.
4. Tropic Thunder- This is how satire is made. Ben Stiller’s movie about the making of a movie was the definition of reflexivity and shattered all mirrors. It so flawlessly satires the many creative wrongs of modern Hollywood such as cliche war films, fart comedies, and unnecessary sequels. Yes, “Scorcher” might as well have been “Terminator: Salvation” and “Fatties: Fart II” might as well have been called “Madea Goes to Jail” and you never would’ve known the difference.
5. Religulous- The second movie this decade using guerilla documentary filmmaking (after “Borat”) succeeds at it admirably. “Real Time” host and brilliant standup comic Bill Maher travels the world and interviews people involved in several religions to prove his thesis that religion is a corrupt force of greed and evil. And he more than proves it. Maher lets the humor of the interviews speak for themselves, but he also adds in his unique comic voice as a voice of reason amongst the madness. “Religulous” doesn’t just prove the wrongdoings of religion, it also proves that the role of the stand-up comic isn’t just to make us laugh, but to make us think. With “Religulous,” Maher proves himself as the thinker’s stand-up comic on the same level of George Carlin.
6. Gran Torino- Clint Eastwood will be turning 79 in May. That’s old, but he shows absolutely no signs of slowing down. In “Gran Torino,” Eastwood directs himself as a modern day cowboy stuck in the crumbling, gang-infested neighborhoods of Motown. Like his out-of-place, aging gun slinger, in “Unforgiven,” he plays an aging Korean War Veteran and extreme racist living in a different world. He spurts out some racist terms you’d never thought existed. Yet he does it so real, and never really condemns or approves of his racism. At the age of 79, the man formely known as The Man with No Name has made a name for himself as one of the greatest filmmakers Hollywood has ever had.
7. Forgetting Sarah Marshall- One of the most underrated films of the year. This rom-com about finding, forgiving, and forgetting was probably the funniest, truest comedy of the year. Credit it all to star/writer Jason Segal, who had the audacity to bare his soul (and his naked body) to the camera. Segal also follows the model of his alma-matter, “Freaks and Geeks,” and creates a comedy that shows you don’t have to be mean to be funny. No, it’s very possible in life that no one’s the true bad guy and you just didn’t deserve that girl. Or, she didn’t deserve you.
8. Frost/Nixon- Why didn’t Nixon burn the tapes? Because then this excellent movie would never have been made. “Frost/Nixon” re-creates the famous David Frost/Richard Nixon interviews verbatim while showing what happens behind the scenes. And Frank Langella commands the film as Nixon to the point where he becomes Nixon and turns him from “Tricky Dick” into a human being. And despite Nixon’s corruption, after seeing this movie, I was fully convinced that I’d much rather live under a Nixon presidency than I would under a Bush presidency.
9. Wall-E- If a picture is worth a thousand words, then I could probably write a whole book about the first half hour of “Wall-E.” The first half-hour is like a visual poem of a post-apocalyptic world, something you’d expect to see in a Stanley Kubrick movie, not a kid’s film. The next hour of the film is a satire on big American consumerist culture. In the center, is a very human love story between two robots. With “Wall-E,” Pixar has proved itself the best creator of children’s films since Walt Disney himself.
10. Vicky Cristina Barcelona- Like Eastwood, Woody Allen has still got it. “Barcelona” tells the story of two different American women: one who wants a more free and risky life while the other just wants to settle down. While in Barcelona, they both have an affair with the same man, and their lives are turned upside down forever. Allen’s screenplay crackles with humor, suspense, passion, and only the wisdom the sage old man like him could bring to a story about confused love affairs. And Penelope Cruz earned her Best Supporting Actress Oscar.
Other Great Movies: The Dark Knight, Iron Man, W., Pineapple Express, Frozen River

Movie Review: Religulous

Leave a reply

Why didn’t anyone truly listen to the words of John Lennon? “Imagine there’s no countries/It isn’t hard to do/Nothing to kill or die her/And no religion too/Imagine all the people/Living life in peace.” My question is, why didn’t Bill Maher place these words at the beginning if “Religulous?”

Even though “Religulous” is hosted by a comedian, it is the farthest possible from a mockumentary. It is a very frighteningly real documentary. In it, Bill Maher stands up to and fights against the once force that won’t respond to anything you say: God. Maher travels this country and the world, exposing corruption in modern religion and how modern religious leaders have strayed from the original visions of their profits and used the name of God to justify anything from greed to murder.
Bill Maher seems like the perfect man to debate religion. He grew up with a Jewish mother and Catholic father, never deciding which religion to like best and instead ended up hating them both. And all other religions, as well. He argues that religion is nothing but an “invisible product” and priests are like marketers, desperately trying to see you this product. And you have a variety of products to choose from. Choose the right one, and you might just get into heaven. And that, is truly where the hypocrisy begins.
“Religulous” was directed by Larry Charles. Charles was the perfect choice for director. He began his career in awkward humor with “Seinfeld” and then proved himself a master of it even further with “Borat.” “Religulous” is shot in the guerilla documentary style that Charles all but invented with “Borat.” “Religulous” could’ve been shot in an extremely serious form, but Bill Maher knew that even though this was a very dire topic it is one that can be hilarious in the ridiculousness of its subject. Charles films the interviews like those of “Borat” by making the subject feel as uncomfortable as possible and then spew out ignorance. Borat managed to find ignorance in the typical America by using a figure made out of American ignorance. “Religulous” showed a real man, finding the ignorance using the real facts.
Of course, the real center of humor here is Mr. Maher himself. He uses humor not just to poke fun at the interviewees but to also expand his wide case against religion. He takes a creative license here and fills the screen with subtitles to inform you of what someone is REALLY saying or facts to contradict myths. It is overall a way to show that God will not punish him for challenging him. He is not trying to destroy lives but simply expose a lie. The Lie, I suppose. If there was some substantial evidence to prove God’s existence (A fossil? A recording of his voice? Who knows.), I’m sure Maher might open his eyes to religion. But for now, there is no proof of God, only proof of evolution. And we can only believe in what has been proven.
Maher shocks even more in this movie by not just visiting religious-nut no-names, but also some pretty big names. You already know Mike Huckabee doesn’t believe in evolution; but you’ll be shocked when Senator Mark Pryor tells Maher that “you don’t have to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate.” Maher then just gives a totally blank stare that holds the only emotion of pure shock. It was the kind of incredibly awkward and jaw dropping moment that only someone from “Seinfeld” could make both cringeworthy and somewhat totally hilarious.
As I’ve said though, this is Maher’s movie. He guides it with a voice of reason and wisdom. He shows no fear in saying anything, or traveling to anyplace. He criticizes not just religion but also Scientology, Judaism, Islam, and Mormons. He hits  each with total accuracy. His interview with the gold wearing preacher Jeremiah Cummings, who sells his DVDs of himself during his sermons, was documentary filmmaking at its finest. He catches Cummings with several counts of idiocy and then concludes the interview with the brilliant punchline: “you used to be a Muslim, you turned into a Christian, and you spend money on clothes like a Jew.” Cummings accused Maher of twisting his words around and taking them out of context. Even if he did, you still said Jesus wants people to wear clothes and there’s not much you can do to reverse that.
“Religulous” works not just because of the brilliant ideas it presents, but also for the movie itself. Maher moves through the depressing topic with a high level of energy and a sense of humor. The last few minutes might’ve seemed to some like a big rant (and it unfortunately came off as so), but it is a truly cautionary message for the troubles religion has brought to society and just because a so called God justifies it, that doesn’t make it true. And it never feels much like a rant if the ranter is saying something valuable. Despite being a well-known Liberal, Maher makes sure not to make this a political issue and not isolate Democrats or Republics, because the actual truth is that religion should be isolated as far from religion as possible.
With “Religulous,” Maher turns the political satirist into the modern day philosophe whose lesson is in line with Nietzche and Voltaire. He is like them so much of how he can present his ideas in a form of sophisticated entertainment. The timeless lesson here is that we must kill this horrible new way of God and religion. Like Nietzche once said, “God is dead! And we have killed him.” And Bill Maher’s not afraid to do it.

Quote of the Day: Clint Eastwood is the Coolest/Most Sane 78-Year-Old Ever

Leave a reply

“In former times we constantly made jokes about different races.  You can only tell them today with one hand over your mouth otherwise you will be insulted as a racist. I find that ridiculous. In those earlier days every friendly clique had a “Sam the Jew” or “José the Mexican” – but we didn’t think anything of it or have a racist thought.”

-Clint Eastwood, on why people should lighten up and stop trying to be so politically correct (yes that means you…Sharpton)

Quote of the Day: Oscars/ Movies are Art Edition

Leave a reply

“I stay up to watch the show and I always felt that this was, this ceremony was a moment of unity for the world because art, in any form, is and has been and will always be our universal language and we should do everything we can, everything we can, to protect its survival.”

-Penelope Cruz upon winning the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” 
And, just for the hell of it:

The Oscars: "Millionaire" is Golden

1 Reply

Unless you live under a rock, you know that tonight was the 81st annual Academy Awards. The winner, as predicted (and deserved), was “Slumdog Millionaire.” “Slumdog” took home an astounding 7 Oscars. In addition it took home awards for director Danny Boyle, screenplay, sound, original song (“Jai Ho”), original score, editing, and cinematography. 

All well deserved. I know that this season “Slumdog” turned into the little indie that could that soon became cool to rip on. But, I said it was the best film of the year, and I stand by it. Nothing captured my emotions like it in quite some time. I still consider my experience seeing “Slumdog” for the first time as one of the best movie going experiences I’ve ever had. I further fully condemn all of those in India who are protesting the film’s title as offensive. Like the film’s creators brought up in their speeches, this film is made for the people of India and not against them. Maybe if the protestors had actually seen the film and realized it contained a message of hope and progress they wouldn’t have protested it in the first place. The Academy is known sometimes for making mistakes but this year, in the Best Picture category, they made none.
As expected, Penelope Cruz won for “Vicky Cristina Barcelona.” It was an award well deserved. She brought a dark shade of passion, torture, and humor into Woody Allen’s film. Also expected as a winner was Heath Ledger. I may sound like a horrible person for saying this, but I still feel like Robert Downey Jr. was most deserving for his performance as “Tropic Thunder.” Nevertheless, Ledger was still a deserving winner, and the win was a much needed way to honor the tremendous actor who died too soon. He is without a doubt this generation’s James Dean.
One of the bigger wins was Kate Winslet (predicted that!). I didn’t see “The Reader” so can’t comment on whether she deserved it, but after so many nominations, it was time for a Winslet win already.
Unfortunately, Mickey Rourke didn’t get the Oscar he so badly deserved for his awe-inspiring turn in “The Wrestler.” While Sean Penn had archival footage to look back at, Rourke created Randy The Ram from scratch. Or really, from his own soul. I do hope Mickey gets his day someday soon, even if it wasn’t for his incredible comeback.
However, I was still satisfied with Penn’s win. He really captured Harvey Milk in a way few actors could. And he gave an acceptance speech like no other. Who knew the same Sean Penn that four years ago scolded Chris Rock for making a joke about Jude Law could be this funny? Him thanking the “gay commie loving Academy” was the line of the night. 
The speech of the night went hands down to Dustin Lance Black, scribe of “Milk.” Black gave a tearful, totally non-phony speech. “Milk” tells the story of gay rights activist Harvey Milk; Black himself is gay. Black gave a moving speech reassuring hope to the gay community (especially in the face of Prop 8). 
“Most of all, if Harvey had not been taken from us 30 years ago, I think he’d want me to say to all of the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight who have been told that they are less than by their churches, by the government or by their families, that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures of value and that no matter what anyone tells you, God does love you and that very soon, I promise you, you will have equal rights federally, across this great nation of ours,” said Black.
The awards for “Milk” were certainly a representation of a growing backlash against Prop 8. And I hope that backlash spreads. Mike Huckabee and Pastor Rick Warren were probably not too thrilled by Black’s speech. And for some reason that makes me smile very, very much.
This is about movies, not politics, but just one more note. The loss for “Waltz with Bashir” may just show the spreading hatred against Israel amidst the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially in very liberal minded Hollywood. This, just makes me very sad.
But back to the show. Let’s discuss the show itself. How was Hugh Jackman as a host? Ehhhhhh. I saw promise in his highly entertaining opening number. It went downhill from there. That musical number he said to prove the musical was back did not. It was just minutes of my life I won’t get back, filler that should’ve been filled with something better. The Academy should never hire a “song-and-dance man” to host ever again. They should stick to comedians. Jon Stewart would’ve been fine for a second year in a row. But during this ceremony, I saw three different possibilities for the host of next year’s show. Those possibilities are a pairing of Tina Fey and Steve Martin for their witty banter on Scientology (Scientologists and Mormons were having a pretty crappy night), Ben Stiller for his brilliant Joaquin Phoenix impression, or a pairing of Seth Rogen and James Franco who all but stole the show with their short film (the Judd Apatow directed short further proves that he is God). Hugh, I’d rather see you in Wolverine claws. Hosting the Oscars just isn’t your thing.
Until now, see you next year (but keep reading this blog everyday!). What did you all think of the winners? Was Hugh Jackman actually a better host than I think?
A few notes from the after party:
-Robert Pattinson kind of looked like a creepy pedophile while on stage. I know every girl reading this hates me right now but, I speak the truth.
- Jonah Hill makes an E! reporter feel awkward on the Red Carpet. Awesome.
- No one will shutup about Sean Penn’s speech. No offense against his speech, but the real speech everyone should be talking about is Dustin Lance Black’s speech.
- Zac Efron says he hopes to return to the Oscars one day when he gets nominated. Zac Efron, I now hate you slightly more.
- You may have predicted all all of the winners correctly Ben Lyons, but you’re still the biggest hack in Hollywood.
- Cheers to Robert De Niro for being so funny during the Oscars. Your performances can make me cry, but I had no idea you could make me laugh.
- I usually hate children, but the sight of those adorable little Indian children from “Slumdog Millionaire” (or “slumpuppies,” as FilmDrunk calls them) are slightly making me change my mind. Or at least proving that little Asian children are cuter than little American children.
- Ben Lyons, I still hate you.

Movie Review: Frozen River

Leave a reply

The first few shots and most of the rest of “Frozen River” brought “Fargo” immediately to mind. Those shots evoke an empty, frozen wasteland. It seems so empty that it could even take place on the surface of Pluto. But no, it is here on Earth. And it’s not in a small town on the border of Minnesota and North Dakota, but rather a small town on the border of New York and Canada.

“Frozen River” tells a story of immigration problems in the United States. However, it tells a story about illegal immigration that few would ever see. Rather than taking place on America’s southern border, it takes place on America’s northern border. By now we already see one thing that makes “Frozen River” a great movie: it tells the kind of story you’d rarely hear on a typical day. It shows a side of life you didn’t know you wanted to see.
Immigration isn’t the total focus of the story. The real focus is on Ray (Melissa Leo), a nearly broke single mother trying to raise two kids after her drug addicted husband runs off. Ray’s current job barely pays anything so as an act of desperation, she teams up with a Native American woman (Misty Upham) to smuggle in immigrants from Canada through a reservation on the border.
“Frozen River” isn’t nearly as much of a heated political story as this year’s other film about illegal immigration, “The Visitor.” Instead, “Frozen River” uses immigration as a way to further characterize Ray’s struggle for survival in a very harsh, unforgiving world. A world almost as harsh as the bleak winter in which Ray transfers the new immigrants through. 
This film is the very first writing and directorial effort by Courtney Hunt, but she works like a pro. The empty snow covered landscapes are filmed meticulously like the empty deserts of the southwestern US or, as mentioned earlier, the Minnesota/North Dakota landscape of “Fargo.” And this leads me to believe Hunt was influenced largely by the Coen Brothers. Ray’s story reminds me of an even darker version of a typical Coen Brothers’ story: the kind of character who will resort to literally anything in order to pay the bills.
“Frozen River” has been most praised for the lead performance by Melissa Leo, and for good reason. She earned the Oscar nomination she received. Leo plays Ray naturally and turns her into a natural human being. You’d think someone would portray a character living in this horrible a way of life by yelling and overacting. Even during some of Ray’s worst moments, Leo still manages to play her with a calm demeanor that never the less is extremely stressed out throughout the film’s entire 97 minute running time. It is possible that the best acting comes when it doesn’t feel like the actor is acting at all. In this case, you could barely tell Leo was acting. All I could see was a good-hearted, washed up woman named Ray and not a Hollywood actress named Melissa Leo.
The one thing that bothered me most about “Frozen River” wasn’t about the movie itself, but the MPAA rating it was given. “Frozen River” is rated R for “some language.” That some language is a mere two uses of the f-word. That’s right, only two. However, one of those uses was in the verb form which by the MPAA’s standards automatically merits an R rating. I don’t think this should deter anyone from letting anyone under 17 see this movie. I doubt those two uses of the f-word will make any child want to participate in an orgy or shoot-up the nearest elementary school. No, the only reason these words are used is because these are the words people actually say, especially in tough situations portrayed in this movie. To not allow the characters to curse would be in a way censoring reality. 
And this is exactly what “Frozen River”‘s R rating is doing: censoring reality. I know it’s not a happy film but I guarantee anyone who sees this in the end will feel maybe not like a better person but like a slightly more enlightened person. It will give you an understanding of what it’s like to live with only $5 in your pocket. Isn’t this what movies are supposed to do? Aren’t they supposed to make us face reality, enlighten us, and put us into the shoes of another character for a brief amount of time before taking us back out to face our own lives again?
Recommended for Fans of: Fargo, The Visitor, No Country for Old Men, The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada 

When "Push" Comes to Shove: The "Push" Title Confusion

Leave a reply

In January, I blogged about an absolutely superb movie I saw at Sundance entitled “Push.” Not long after that movie swept the Sundance Awards, another movie entitled “Push” hit theaters. This movie wasn’t a realistic story of an inner city teen trying to break free from her horrible home. No, it was a pretty dumb fantasy about a bunch of teenagers with superpowers.

I worried that the far superior Sundance “Push” would hit confusion with the other “Push.” Indeed, it did. But who would get to keep the title of “Push.” Thanks to an earlier release date (not to mention, a big studio backer), the FX laden, Dakota Fanning version of “Push” gets to keep the title of “Push.” And what about the Sundance “Push?” Well, that has to change its name to “Precious.” This makes sense, because Precious is the name of the film’s main character. However, they should’ve kept the original title as “Push.” Why’s that? Because changing the title to “Precious” from “Push” takes away the original meaning. While “Precious” only expresses the name of the character, “Push” is meant to be symbolic to how Precious pushes herself to break free and succeed. How she pushes through abuse and poverty to get an education. Also, as one website points out, changing the title to “Precious” might give the movie a more positive feel. This is leading me to believe that studios are tampering with the original product to make it more uplifting and therefore, more unrealistic.
I believe changing the name of “Push” to “Precious” is wrong. Director Lee Daniels shouldn’t be forced to; Daniels could also cite the fact that the novel the movie is based on is called “Push.” Therefore, the “Push” released just a few weeks ago is actually ripping off the title of the novel and therefore has no right to the name “Push.” Plus, two of the biggest backers of “Push” (excuse me, “Precious”) are Tyler Perry and Oprah Winfrey. They have money and power. So my only wish is that they fight for the film they so fell in love with. Because a title is more important than you might think.

Your Last Chance to Watch: Late Night With Conan O’Brien

Leave a reply

Don’t worry, Conan O’Brien’s not leaving the late night talkosphere forever, just his “Late Night” show. Tonight is Conan’s last night on “Late Night,” he’ll be taking over “The Tonight Show” for Jay Leno on June 1.

This is your last chance everyone to see Conan at his very best. I’m not saying that Conan won’t do well on “Tonight Show,” but he definitely won’t be able to display some of his best routines that he could with a 12:37 time slot. 
That being said, tonight is the last night ever we get to see Conan at 12:37. It’ll be a sad night, but at least Conan’s not gone for good. Unfortunately, I now have to choose between two shows to watch at 11:35: Conan or Colbert. And believe me, it’s not an easy decision.
Soon, Jimmy Fallon will be taking over Conan’s slot on “Late Night.” Will he be good? I can already say he won’t be as good as Conan, but I’m keeping hope alive and wishing him success. Fallon has proved he’s good at zingers and punchlines with his stint on Weekend Update on “SNL.” So Jimmy, do Conan well. I hope you do.
Below is a clip of one of Conan’s very best shows. All I can say is, I hope Triumph’s coming to LA, also: