Yearly Archives: 2010

Movie Review: The Social Network

2 Replies

Every time any of us log into Facebook (which is most likely every .02 seconds), I don’t think any of us have ever thought of why Facebook even exists. Is it because someone wanted to find a way for people to better connect with friends and family? Or did some asshole just want his ex-girlfriend to notice him? These are both of the answers provided in “The Social Network.” Neither of these answers are necessarily right or wrong.

“The Social Network,” like any good movie trying to understand a mysterious reality, doesn’t strive to tell the whole truth but rather come as close to the truth as humanly possible.
This is all fitting, as most of the movie takes place in a context where one must swear the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In the almost present day, Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) finds himself being sued by two former classmates, the Winklevoss twins (Josh Pence and Armie Hammer), for apparently stealing their idea. At the same time, he is also being sued by his disgruntled former CFO (and best friend) Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield).
During the cases, the film provides a series of very important flashbacks. They track Facebook’s conception during Zuckerberg’s sophomore year at Harvard along with the site’s rise to popularity under the watch of Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), and Zuckerberg’s fall into further pain and loneliness.
If I had known “The Social Network” would have been this good when I saw “Inception,” I would have saved my “generation defining” praise for a few months. “The Social Network” has no idea where this generation is headed, but it does understand where it is right now. All of the paranoia, angst, and frustration garnered from wondering what status your friend is going to post next and how that leaks out into the real world is shown in full form here.
“The Social Network” says a lot about this generation, a lot of things that should’ve been saved for a long time down the road. Yet, maybe these are the things we need to hear right now. If the internet is the future of civilization as one character puts it, than Facebook is likely the end of mankind.
What I thought was greatest about “The Social Network” is that it isn’t all its message. It takes a subject that probably would’ve been really dull and makes it so endlessly interesting and engaging. This could be partly from the brilliantly written dialogue by Aaron Sorkin, which is mainly a series of observations about life.
Along with Sorkin, much credit belongs to director David Fincher. This is a return to form for him, now that he’s done begging for an Oscar (that’s what happens when you make a film like “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”). The film reminded me of some of the surrealist structure of “Fight Club” mixed with the more realistic style of “Zodiac.” In every location, there is a feeling of actually being there. Fincher fills the campus of Harvard with random people walking. And in a club scene, it’s so loud that it’s impossible to even hear what the characters are saying. Some directors strive so hard to make their characters the center of attention that they forget that there’s an actual world around them. Not Fincher though. The most interestingly shot scene of the year, a scene that involves a rowing race, is in this film.
“The Social Network” is graced with at least three of the year’s best performances. After his tenure as a pop singer ended, Timberlake showed he could do comedy. Now, he shows he can do drama. He is the film’s most engaging and enthusiastic character. Then, there’s Garfield (star of the upcoming “Spider-Man” film) who shows so much potential for a great future career. He is the film’s most emotional and possibly sympathetic character, even though it’s possible to not feel sympathy for him.
Then there’s Eisenberg, who took a great leap forward with his career in this performance. Recently, people were carrying the same complaints about him that they did with Michael Cera: that he plays the same awkward character in every movie. Yes, Zuckerberg is pretty awkward, but he’s even deeper than that. Zuckerberg is portrayed here as someone who is too socially inept to be a sociopath. He believes his genius computer hacking abilities should excuse all his other flaws, which usually includes wearing a hoodie and sandals to important business meetings.
It is both Eisenberg’s portrayal of the character and Sorkin’s writing of him that turns Zuckerberg into such an interesting and amusing character. He is not made out to be some sort of god for the way he revolutionized the world through his invention. He may be a genius, but he’s also a twisted and haunted genius.
A lot of people have had the audacity to compare “The Social Network” to “Citizen Kane.” “The Social Network” will probably never be as good a movie as “Citizen Kane,” but it might just be the answer to “Citizen Kane” that all film fanatics have been looking for for almost 70 years. It is “Kane” in spirit. “The Social Network” could be considered the modern day “Kane” because it is also about the difficulty to find the truth amongst modern forms of communication. While no one could break down the Charles Foster Kane behind the newspapers, few people can break down the Mark Zuckerberg behind the computer screen.
Like Kane (who is based on William Randolph Hearst), Zuckerberg is portrayed here as someone who surrounds himself with millions of “friends” but doesn’t truly have one. That final shot (which I won’t give away), is just about as powerful as the utterance of “Rosebud,” but without a single word spoken.
“Citizen Kane” tested the ability of a movie to lie to its audience. “The Social Network” does just about the same. While characters in the film can’t trust anything Zuckerberg says, there has also been doubt in reality that many details in the film are totally true. This helps turn “The Social Network” into the year’s most entertaining practice in self-reflexivity. Much of the movie may not be true, but the greatest movies are supposed to convince us that its lies are real, even if the film doesn’t know whether or not it’s actually lying to us.

Movie Review: The Town

2 Replies

Hollywood makes a lot of movies about cops and robbers and elaborate heists. There are few though that truly break down a good heist, and a good criminal mind as well. Luckily, “The Town” has come to theaters. It proves that an actor who once showed little promise in front of the camera knows exactly what he’s doing in the director’s chair.

“The Town” is the sophomore effort from Ben Affleck. His debut, “Gone Baby Gone,” was promising but flawed. “The Town” on the other hand is sleek and wildly entertaining. I can’t call it a masterpiece, but I can say it has pretty much anything a good heist movie should have.
“The Town” is the latest in a long line of recent movies exploring Boston’s criminal underworld. “The Town” refers to the Charlestown section of Boston, the bank robbery capitol of America.
One of the most infamous Charlestown gangs is led by Doug MacRay (Affleck) and includes the hot-headed James Coughlin (Jeremy Renner) who have known nothing but crime their whole life. After one robbery, Doug falls in love with a witness, Claire (Rebecca Hall) and must find a way to balance his career with his new love. At the same time, FBI agent Adam Frawley (Jon Hamm) tries to bring Doug’s crew down.
I wouldn’t quite call “The Town” a love/hate letter to the city of Boston; it’s more of a long note of tough love. Despite the pretty corrupt and negative spin on the city, parts of “The Town” made me realize that only someone who has lived in and really loves this city could ever make this film. Between the screaming and random gun fire there is also the occasional beautiful image of someone walking barefoot on a rocky beach and stepping into the calm surf. Affleck also captures everything from the accents to the mannerisms like only a true Bostonian could.
With “The Town,” Affleck proved himself a skilled director for many reasons. Besides incorporating his own Bostonian knowledge, he also directs like a pro. The action sequences are some of the best I’ve seen all year. Some of the car chase scenes are as enthralling and suspenseful as anything you could ever see at the movies.
What’s most interesting about Affleck’s directing style is that he directs like an actor. There is a subtle, underlying humor throughout and a general sense of affection and understanding for every character no matter what side of the crime scene they’re on.
Unlike say, “The Departed” (which this film is clearly trying to emulate), “The Town” is told almost entirely from the perspective of the criminal, and not the cop. It’s an interesting spin, and it helps create an uneasiness of who to root for in the film. True, the feds may be trying to stop future crimes from happening, but haven’t we stuck with the main character for long enough that it’d be nice to see him get away?
Affleck has begun to show more promise as a director than an actor. However, that is not to say his acting skills haven’t improved. In the role he’s convincing as being both tough and tender, funny and at other times dead serious. He’s come a long way since “Gigli.”
Also continuing to impress are Hamm and Renner. Hamm proves he can play characters beyond the Don Draper mentality (not to insult his role on “Mad Men” in anyway). Meanwhile, Renner shows that his Oscar nomination for “The Hurt Locker” wasn’t for nothing. He has talent for playing men who constantly stick their middle finger out at society, and always want to be fighting someone.
During a time when studios are dumping their worst films into theaters, “The Town” feels like a classic piece of summer entertainment placed into the September doldrums. It’s no groundbreaking masterpiece, but it’s mixture of careful character observation, intricate plot detailing, and extremely well constructed action set pieces that’s hard to come by nowadays. Affleck has found his calling on the opposite end of the camera. I guess there was some true meaning in the film’s often repeated line: “See you on the other side.”
If You Liked this Movie, You’ll also Like: The Departed, Inside Man, Good Will Hunting, Dog Day Afternoon, Trainspotting

Movie Review: Straw Dogs

Leave a reply

“This is where I live. This is me.”

“Straw Dogs” begins with a shot from above and descends deep down below to a group of children dancing in a graveyard. This is only the beginning of the film’s strange descent into hell on a deprived earth.
“Straw Dogs” is a thriller that could define the anger, alienation, and confusion of a generation in such an entertaining shell. It’s not the thrill-a-minute thriller we usually get. Rather it’s the wait patiently for the thrill kind of thriller.
“Straw Dogs” comes from the mind of Sam Peckinpah, director of some of the most brutal westerns ever made. It’s something of a modern day western set in the British countryside. The outlaw in this case is the constantly working American professor David Sumner (Dustin Hoffman). He decides to escape to a quaint English town with his troubled wife Amy (Susan George). Amy grows constantly more troubled as Dave continues to ignore her for his blackboard of equations.
The rest of the film is less of a plot and more of a series of unfortunate events unfolding. As they encounter more of the whiskey chugging, Christ loving locals, the more trouble they get into. As David and Amy’s marriage deteriorates, they fall into horrible events that involve rape and murder, and a final showdown with the townspeople.
“Straw Dogs” is one of those films that must be examined well below its surface to be truly appreciated. The film is well beyond some wild exploitation horror flick. Rather, it uses violence and sexual perversion to come to a larger point.
Peckinpah is a director who knows how to handle violence better than most others. I would say he was in the same range as Scorsese. When comparing “Straw Dogs” to his previous effort, “The Wild Bunch,” one can find the common, slow-motion violence. This effect is not use to amplify or enjoy the violence, but rather to allow each audience member to truly understand the fact that a life is ending right before their eyes. Yet despite the slow-mo emphasis of every bullet, most of the violence happens so quickly and out of nowhere that you could miss it.
What was even more controversial in “Straw Dogs” than the violence is that infamous rape scene. Beyond its graphic nature, what makes it really so controversial is that little smile Amy cracks during it. Could she be enjoying the act? Or is she just strangely enjoying the attention she hasn’t been getting from her own husband? Some will call it misogynistic, but I think a better word for it is flat out mysterious.
Mystery is one of the strongest elements of “Straw Dogs,” and something that continues to make it so fascinating to this day. The best parts of the movie are its many open-ended questions. The most interesting question lies in the film’s hero-villain complex. An obvious answer could be that the townspeople are the villains. But the even more interesting one is that it’s truly David. Even though he’s the protagonist, and in the end siege we seem to be rooting for him, he is no kind soul. He’s abusive and ignorant of the feelings of others. Not to mention he could be seen as self and, well, a little crazy deep down. This is also perhaps the film’s most disturbing element: this is a world where there is no clear hero to root for. Everyone might as well be the villain.
The hero-villain complex might not have worked out well here without the always amazing work from Dustin Hoffman. He begins the film with his typical, uptight Ben Braddock character and then transforms into something he’s never played before. Just as Hoffman doesn’t seem capable of playing a killer, David doesn’t seem capable of becoming one.
“Straw Dogs” is truly a product of the greatest era in American filmmaking. It comes from a time when directors still had control over what their projects would look like in the end. It was a time when boundaries were still looking to be broken down.
“Straw Dogs” contains a narrative structure commonplace at the time, though has been unfortunately abandoned today. Peckinpah is a filmmaker like Coppola and De Palma who doesn’t like to rush their stories. The siege, which seems like it could’ve been the film’s main plot, doesn’t occur until the film’s way end. Until that point, there is a lot of buildup. While some might find that time being introduced to characters grueling, it is absolutely necessary. Every little object we see, every person we meet, plays an essential role in that incredible finale. “Straw Dogs” is a film that embraces its tiny little details, and never abandons them.
“Straw Dogs” can be looked at as a bold thriller, and a time capsule. Without making a single political statement, the audience is exposed to a generation trying to escape reality while struggling to find and embrace identity. Its influence can be seen in everything from “Taxi Driver” to “Inglourious Basterds.”
When one thinks of a great film, they usually don’t pair it with slow pace and acts of horrible dehumanization. “Straw Dogs” proves that great films don’t have to conform to the audience’s idea of a great film in order to be truly great.
If You Liked this Movie, You’ll also Like: Five Easy Pieces, The Wild Bunch, Deliverance, Taxi Driver, Reservoir Dogs, Badlands, Inglourious Basters, Blood Simple, A Clockwork Orange, Carrie

Movie Review: Machete

1 Reply

One of the most controversial social issues of the day deserves to be Mexploited. Well, I guess there was no one else who could complete this task better than Robert Rodriguez, with the opening of his highly awaited “Machete.”

“Machete” first existed as the trailer that opened up 2007′s “Grindhouse.” It was a satirical, B-movie idea so perfect for a trailer, and even more promising for a full length feature. This can be seen pretty much as a passion project for Rodriguez. It combines everything he’s loved throughout his career: westerns, Mexicans, samurais, and Danny Trejo.
The titular Machete, played by Trejo, was once Mexico’s hardest yet most honest federal agent. After losing his wife to drug lord Torrez (Steven Seagal), Machete flees to America and works as a day laborer.
One day, Machete is chosen by a mysterious man named Booth (Jeff Fahey) to kill the xenophobic Texas state Senator McLaughlin, who’s attempting to launch a campaign to keep all Mexicans out of America.
After a setup and a few more unfortunate events, Machete joins forces with an underground network and a cop (Jessica Alba) for a very bloody culture war.
“Machete” is one of those movies that’s made for the kind of people who like to do nothing but watch movies. Look closely and you’ll spot the occasional Mexican standoff, or blood spurting out only like it would’ve in “Shogun Assassin.” The score defies genre, as it switches between horror and action at times.
Mostly though, “Machete” is Rodriguez’s second movie that embodies the grindhouse feeling. The grainy, cut up frames add a strange authentic value to every shot of the film. “Machete” is grindhouse in both look and feeling. It is constantly over-the-top and ridiculous on purpose. “Machete” is also the kind of movie that truly revels in shock value. Pretty much anything is turned into a weapon in this movie. That doesn’t exclude someone’s intestines. I won’t say more than that though. Good shock value should stay shocking through surprise.
I think Rodriguez should continue making films that aim low. Why? Because that’s the kind of filmmaker he is. He famously made his feature debut, “El Mariachi” with just $7,000. He has a unique talent of making trashy seem classy.
While he is certainly one of those filmmakers who draws so heavily on his influences, his substance still can’t match his style. The storyline of “Machete” lacked some of the fluidity of those of his best features, including “Planet Terror” and “Sin City.” “Machete” has three different bad guys, yet it is continually confusing who is truly the worst and who is really in charge. Rodriguez may be paying tribute to shoddy storytelling, but some of the plot holes here simply can’t be excused by that notion.
Something I wasn’t expecting from “Machete” was how heavy of a satire it was going to be. It likely wasn’t meant to be that way when the story was first thought up but once the immigration debate reignited, I guess it was impossible to ignore. The satire is relevant and most effective when it isn’t so overt. The political ads randomly placed throughout the film might be off pace, but they’re certainly hilarious. Though I wish the movie could’ve balanced trashiness with smart satire about race and social issues like last year’s “Black Dynamite” did. Both films were tributes to exploitation films of the past.
I will try not to spend too much time criticizing. After all, “Machete” does contain the first instance of Robert De Niro actually acting in years. Trejo is also about as entertaining an action star as Sylvester Stallone and Bruce Willis in their prime. At 66-years-old, some of the stunts he can pull off were truly impressive.
Also, when “Machete” isn’t trying so hard to have an actual plot, it has moments of genuine entertainment and hilarity. I just think it should’ve put less time into being relevant and more time into being a B-movie.
If anyone is to see “Machete,” it must be said that it is definitely one worth seeing in theaters with the biggest audience possible. Like the true grindhouse experience, “Machete” is more entertaining when seeing how the audience feels and reacts to everything going on on the screen. If everyone laughs at Cheech Marin as a gun wielding priest or Machete texting someone “You’ve just f**ked with the wrong Mexican,” than you’ll know you’ve picked the right showing.

Summer ’10 in Movies: Think Small, Dream Big

1 Reply

The verdict on 2010 in movies has been pretty clear: this has been a horrible year (and especially, summer) for movies.

Is it possible to say that we’ve seen some awful movies recently? Yes, we have? But must this be classified as a horrible year for movies? Depends on your angle. Maybe those people who can’t see a bright spot have been subjected to too many viewings of “Robin Hood.” “Robin Hood” brought out the very worst that movies can be. It was overly long and painstakingly dull. The action was too quick to be admired. In the end, it was just a two hour trailer for a sequel no one is even interested in seeing.
Then, there was “The A-Team,” a fine example of Hollywood creative bankruptcy. The film mainly consisted of sloppily edited action sequences, unfunny jokes that made no sense, and a plot that’s beyond incomprehensible. Seriously, if the audience is supposed to buy into the idea of a flying tank, the world being portrayed must first be remotely believable. Without that, it’s just a tank being held up by a parachute. This would likely be a top contender for worst of the year had it not been for “Robin Hood.”
It seems funny to say that for the first half of the summer, the best movie was “Iron Man 2.” “Iron Man 2″ lacked the surprising fun of its predecessor. Two great villains and a surprising story were bogged down by a need to constantly promote the upcoming “Avengers” movie. It would’ve been much better had Robert Downey Jr. had just been allowed to do whatever he wanted to.
The conventional superhero genre may be dead, but the graphic novel genre is just being born in an amazing new way. The ambitions and satirical edginess of the late summer pleasure “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” cannot easily be equaled. The more I think about it, the more “Scott Pilgrim” stands out as a perfect representation of our current world. It parodies video games, comic books, and hipsters like only someone who has ever been involved with video games, comic books, and hipsters could. Edgar Wright is officially the satirist film director of our generation.
Of all the sequels, prequels, and remakes to grace the cinema this summer, of course the only one actually worth seeing comes from Pixar. “Toy Story 3″ is the rare sequel that not only felt necessary, but also worked to finish a story. It also brought tears to my eyes for all the right reasons. The “Toy Story” saga began with the story of a child and ended with the child going to college. Maybe the reason that this film seemed even more meaningful to teenagers than children is that it fit in so perfectly with our lives. Now, I need to think twice before leaving a toy behind.
Pixar may rule the animated genre, but that doesn’t mean that competitors don’t have a chance. The scrappy debut effort “Despicable Me” didn’t have the money and talent of Pixar, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be worthy entertainment. This one might be meant more for kids, but it got me with its near perfect voice talent (Steve Carell, Jason Segel, Will Arnett) and little creatures called Minions.
As usual, the greatest summer delights came from the indie surprises. On the darker side, there was the twisted creature feature “Splice” and the hauntingly realistic “Winter’s Bone.”

“Splice” was far from perfect, but it was without a doubt one of the most expertly directed films made in a while. Vincenzo Natali so effortlessly vacillates between the many different moods and feelings projected by the film. Until the very conventional ending, he made “Splice” something truly special. I can’t wait to watch “Cube,” and all other films he has planned down the line.

“Winter’s Bone” was a much different film than you’d expect to see over the summer. The cold, harsh Ozark landscape certainly contrasts the summer attitude. But the film played off both murder mystery and character study so well. I guess this one was just too dark and too realistic to reach out to a wider audience.

Another indie that didn’t reach out as far as it should’ve was “Cyrus.” I will admit that my expectations for “Cyrus” were extremely high and that they weren’t exactly met. I certainly got a different movie than I anticipated. Still, it certainly surprised me in a good way. It was frank and understanding while being so hilarious and breezy. It also elevated Jonah Hill from good comedic actor to impressive dramatic actor. Maybe the love triangle was a little too weird for some people.
The indie community can live with one true victory this summer: “The Kids Are All Right.” “The Kids Are All Right” deserves so much praise for so many reasons. No comedy in the past year has felt this warm, inviting, and all out hilarious. Not to mention, it also contains a groundbreaking portrayal of a lesbian couple as, well, normal. “The Kids Are All Right” could’ve been about a man and a woman and their relationship wouldn’t have been much different.
Now, I save the best for last. It’s a pretty obvious choice, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t talk about it one last time. It’s Christopher Nolan’s brilliant triumph, “Inception.” Maybe I’ve talked enough about this movie, but the more I talk about it, the more I enjoy it. Now is no time for further in depth analysis. Now it is time to praise “Inception” for what it really is: the smart and original blockbuster we don’t get anymore. The film certainly has its faults, and it is definitely too early to put it next to the likes of “Citizen Kane” and “The Godfather.” But appreciate “Inception” for what it is, because we rarely get a film like it. Then again, with its huge box office success, perhaps studios will finally start to take risks on original ideas.
That’s summer 2010 for you. It was a summer in which good ideas and imagination triumphed over the uninspired. However, summer is not over yet. “Piranha 3D” is just around the corner.

Movie Review: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

3 Replies

There are some movies that, no matter their subject matter, just give you a new sort of energy after walking out. With its hilariously gimmicky comic book inspired universe, “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” did just this.

“Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” felt so fresh and inviting because it simply did its best in trying to achieve so many things. It made use of action and comedy quite effectively because it comes from a director who can mash both genres like few others working today.
To like “Scott Pilgrim” and Scott Pilgrim, it is your task to throw away all of your hatreds you may have toward the film’s star. The titular hero is portrayed by Michael Cera. Scott Pilgrim is a timid bassist playing for a struggling Toronto band. Pilgrim doesn’t have as much trouble getting girls, as he does keeping them.
Pilgrim can’t get over the horrible way his last relationship ended. His relationship with a girl (Ellen Wong), who’s quite a bit younger is a bit troubling. But then, Scott sees Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and knows he has found the one.
Ms. Flowers doesn’t come easy though. The girl with the constantly changing hair color has also had quite a number of bad breakups in the past. In order to win her over, Scott must battle her seven evil ex-boyfriends. With such competition as skateboarder Lucas Lee (Chris Evans), tough lesbian Roxy (Mae Whitman), and powerful record producer Gideon Graves (Jason Schwartzman), the task will prove to be just as hard as it sounds.
I wouldn’t call “Scott Pilgrim” flawless (some scenes ran on slightly longer than they needed to), but I still found so few things I could complain about. Everyone involved, whether writer, director, or actor, fulfilled their roles to the highest of their abilities. When this happens, a strange sort of tangible magic occurs. It is one that can’t easily be broken.
Cera made a name for himself early on as the teenager who’s too awkward for words. From “Arrested Development” until “Juno,” this image worked in his favor. Then of course, the backlash formed. Anyone who won’t give “Scott Pilgrim” a chance because they think it’s just another awkward performance will miss the point entirely. Cera has been developing a new character since “Youth in Revolt.” It’s basically a slightly deeper extension of his old one. It is awkward with a mix of pretentiousness and a lack of respect for both himself and others. Cera is no longer just playing himself. He knows how to be a comedic actor.
While the film is all about Scott Pilgrim, it is not just centered on him. “Scott Pilgrim” does an excellent job developing its entire ensemble. All of the characters have very well established backgrounds and traits. Each band member and everyone else in Scott’s life have at least one certain odd defining characteristic.
Aside from Cera, some of the cast highlights include Kieran Culkin as Scott’s gay and gossipy roommate Wallace. He manages to steal every scene he’s in. Then there’s Anna Kendrick, who manages to prove herself a better actress with every role. Aubrey Plaza, as the always present Julie Powers, continues to find a perfect dry humor in her monotone voice and even more monotone attitude toward life.
“Scott Pilgrim” is following a new series of graphic novel adaptations that are almost jokes on the whole comic book genre itself. In addition, its the first comic book movie I’ve seen that truly felt like a comic come to life.
This story is complete with onomatopoeic sounds bursting out in word form. Just like a comic book, the audience sees every Boom! and every Bam! The characters can see every one of these effects as well, giving the film a much more self aware element.
The film also ties in elements from video games. Every evil ex is like a level from a video game. “Scott Pilgrim” could best be described as “Mortal Kombat” meets “Kick-Ass.”
I hope to credit as much of this as possible to the film’s co-writer and director, Edgar Wright. Wright has garnered a great reputation over the years for tongue-in-cheek satire of various entertainment genres. Perhaps he’s so good at it because he truly seems to know his stuff. Within all of the jokes about video games and comic books, Wright infuses a dose of satire of everything from the typical action film to the tired rom-com.
Like his past efforts, Wright shows great talent for getting big laughs out of such small details. To really laugh at an Edgar Wright film, one must have a very keen eye for detail. Take for instance one moment in “Shaun of the Dead,” where if you look close enough in the background, you might spot a homeless man about to eat a live pigeon.
Wright also constantly challenges what the human brain can laugh at. Wright can hurt his characters without being mean and tell jokes about gay people without seeing homophobic in the slightest bit.
The action in “Scott Pilgrim” is directed in a way that is both silly and serious. As hilarious as it can be, it is also a feast for the eyes. So much effort was put into every little shot. Much of the action feels like a hybrid between a video game and a comic book, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
In this way, the action can be seen as a comment on our current fast-paced, video game obsessed culture. It’s better though to ignore this fact and just see the film as the hilarious product of entertainment that it truly is.
For a film that is so unique and inventive, “Scott Pilgrim” ends almost exactly the way anyone could have predicted. Yet, how it gets to that moment is a bit surprising, and extremely mature for a film like this. “Scott Pilgrim” is a film that truly cares about its characters. Think of it as the most thoughtful video game movie ever made.
To all of you die hard “Arrested Development” fans out there, watch out for a few very good references.

Minimalism: The New Way to Market a Movie

1 Reply

Today, I want to talk not about a movie, but about a poster. Well actually, many posters.

The art form known as Minimalism has become a phenomenon on the interweb. It’s not new; artists have been using it for years. However, it’s been given a new use: movie posters.
The idea behind Minimalism is to create a work of art that takes a concept and strips it down to its most basic form. When something is stripped down to its most basic element, there is something strangely deeper that can be found in it. It would basically be saying so much by showing so little.
Some of the posters make a lot of sense. A lot of them involve a great knowledge of the film involved to truly understand. Take for example, one poster for “Inception.” It simply shows an outline of four of the main characters’ faces and their totem placed inside each of them. It is simple and effective. It also shows how each totem is psychologically linked to each character, objects of how their brains work.
Others are confusing, yet portray something so important to the movie. One of my favorites is the one for “The Deer Hunter.” It shows six circles. Five are empty, and one is shaded red. Even people who love the movie will be confused at first. Think. Think very hard. Yes, it is portraying a gun with one bullet in it, loaded for Russian Roulette. With this image, such a deep and complex film is boiled down to its most basic, yet most important idea. Who needs an image of helicopters flying through Vietnam when you can just have a picture of the barrel of a gun?
There are others in the spirit of the “Inception” poster. The “Blade Runner” poster has no epic image of futuristic Los Angeles. All it has is that little origami unicorn. The poster for “Inglourious Basterds” shows two hands holding up three fingers in different ways. It’s the German three and the English three. It’s yet another small detail that made a very big difference in this movie.
Some posters are even more thought provoking and even more creative. The pattern on “The Shining” poster is the carpeting of The Overlook Hotel. The “Titanic” poster is not just a white triangle, it’s that deadly iceberg. Some add on to certain movies as well. “The Godfather” poster shows the rest of the horse’s body without the head. That is, if you really wanted to know what a headless horse looked like.
At the moment, Minimalist posters are fan art. They are made by and for people who truly appreciate movies. Yet, I feel like this new art form has a bigger potential. Why not actually use Minimalist posters to market movies? They’re better and more original than most of the generic crap passed off as posters nowadays. As a marketing tool, movie posters should draw people into a movie with a curiosity factor. If someone sees a “Kill Bill” poster with nothing but footsteps, they might wonder, where do those footsteps lead?
But posters shouldn’t just be for marketing. A movie poster should serve the same purpose as an album cover. They should converse with the art, and emphasize a central purpose behind it. A poster of the incredible futuristic Los Angeles from “Blade Runner” might draw more attention, but that unicorn is much more important to the story. You could compare that to the cover of “London Calling.” It could’ve just been an image of London being caught in the middle of the apocalypse. While the simple image of Joe Strummer smashing a guitar may seem out of place, it’s really there to show the raw, unbridled power of true rock and roll that the album is partially a metaphor for.
That simple image of a mythical creature, or the inside of a gun are not the first things you’d expect to see on a good movie poster. But like that album cover, they show the strange, mesmerizing magic of truly amazing cinema. The poster is meant to encapsulate an entire film in one image. In so simple an image, so much more can be said.
I couldn’t find the “Inception” poster I was referring to earlier, but here is another cool one.

Inception: On Backlashes, Second Viewings, and Dead Cats

Leave a reply

Warning: Do not read on unless you have actually seen “Inception.” And even if you don’t care about spoilers, I command you to proceed with caution.

So, here we are. “Inception” has officially been in theaters for two weekends. It’s also been a little over a week since I first laid eyes on it and made it out to be a magnum opus unlike any we’ve ever seen (or, unlike any we’ve seen since Kubrick or Scorsese and Coppola in their prime). Since then, the film has made a killing at the box office, and has been called both an epic masterpiece and an overrated piece of crap.

Yes, many have dared to call “Inception” overrated. Others have dared to call it resistant to criticism. This just shows how no one seems to know what “Inception” really is. And let’s hope it stays that way.

I am going to assume that most everyone who has decided to read this article has either already seen “Inception” or just doesn’t care if anything gets spoiled at all. I will be light on the spoilers, but a little more specific than last time. I don’t know if I’m qualified enough to write about “Inception” again. Even after seeing it again, and I feel like I understand a great deal more, I still feel like I know nothing. Yet “Inception” is just one of those movies you have to talk and write about as much as possible after viewing them.

It is safe enough to say that “Inception” has received an overwhelmingly positive response. Some make legitimate arguments. Others are just hating for the sake of being contrarian. Others are exposing everything that is wrong with modern film criticism.

Inception

It is not just one group of people who are causing the problems. The haters seemed ready to hate “Inception” since before it was even released. This goes even beyond Armond White, the now notorious critical contrarian. I won’t spend too much time on White, but I will say that it’s one thing to not like a movie because it is flawed, and another to not like it because you feel it has enough love already.

And then there are those people who think that “Inception” should be shielded from all criticism. These people seem to think just because it is so unique that nobody should be allowed to point to its problems. Well, everyone has a right to their opinion, and in a time where the art of film criticism is in danger, telling a critic to shut it seems kind of dangerous. As much as I love Rotten Tomatoes, I might have to blame this on them. There is a sort of feeling these days that if a movie doesn’t receive a perfect 100%, then it is no good. Right now, “Inception” stands at 87%. Most movies would dream to have that much approval.


But enough with the triviality of reality. It’s time to delve into the world of movies. Specifically, the world of “Inception.” And what a world it is. Even on a second viewing, there was still something amazingly unique about it. While some movies that are full of surprises feel less surprising on a second viewing, “Inception” is still filled with new things.

If you’ve only seen “Inception” once, chances are you are really confused. It makes sense why anyone would be confused after just one viewing, but the funny thing is that no one should be. With a close listen to the dialogue, you can see that almost everything is totally spelled out for you. Almost every single line of the film is pure exposition. Yet, it seems even breezier and more fascinating on a second listen. Exposition can be fine if it’s actually interesting.


I found on a second viewing that I was paying less attention the spectacle and more attention to the actual story. Yes, the folding city and zero gravity fighting are still awesome, but there’s nothing quite like seeing scenes like that fresh. But when you look at the scenery, you really can miss the depth. Many have found “Inception” to be weakest in its story. That might be thought of in one viewing. But there really is more than meets the eye.

What really stood out now were the film’s themes. The central question goes well beyond is this reality or a dream. It is more like when does reality start and subconscious set in, and vice versa. The question could even extend to whether or not one or the other doesn’t even exist, or whether they exist in the same place.

This can be seen when paying very close attention to Mal (Marion Cotillard). She’s more than just a projection, she is Cobb’s totem. While Cobb is constantly spinning the top to see if he is dreaming or not, that was Mal’s totem. In that sense, he doesn’t use it so much to see whether or not he is in a dream, but whether or not he will get to see his wife again. Perhaps the reason he didn’t even pay attention to whether or not the top was going to fall in the end was because he had totally let go of his wife. Whether or not she showed up was irrelevant.

In the relationship between Cobb and Mal lies the film’s true heart. And while others didn’t notice, it is beating. In addition, despite the fact that the scene where Fischer (Cillian Murphy) confronts his dying father was imagined, there was something extremely satisfying about the revelation reached at the end of it. Fischer, like Cobb, could not function on his own without getting rid of the weight of his troubled past. Dreams are where we go to escape our troubled pasts, and our even more troubled presents.


Something that is harder to notice is the film’s very keen sense of humor. Most of the jokes are quick enough that only someone who has viewed the movie twice can really catch them. They also manage to work well in part of the actors. Tom Hardy as the forger Eames added a dry sense of playful British humor to every scene he was in.

But the second time around, one laugh I didn’t expect came at the end. After waiting in anticipation to see the fate of the spinning top (even though I knew the ending, I was still at the edge of my seat), the whole audience began to laugh once the screen turned black. They weren’t laughing at the movie, but rather with it. Perhaps Nolan actually intended that ending to be a sick joke. Maybe the moment the screen faded to black the top either fell or kept spinning.

Yes, that final shot is just one tiny shot. But it really needs to be discussed. It is more of a paradox than the infinite staircase. Yet, at that point, it almost didn’t seem to matter whether or not Cobb was dreaming or awake at that point. The last shot was a sort of Schrodinger’s Cat: the ending is both relevant and irrelevant at the same time.

The top is so important because this tiny toy encapsulates the whole point of the movie. Perhaps the most important line in the film is when Mal tells Cobb there are three options in life: what you believe, what you want to believe, and what you know is real. In the case of whether or not the top keeps spinning or collapses, I could say I believe that Cobb is in reality, I want to believe that Cobb is dreaming, and I know that it’s impossible to ever know which one it actually is. Any of these three answers, even the one about what is real, can be altered in some way. Just like dreams have different meanings to different people, the whole of “Inception” can mean so many different things. By opening up the possibility to us that nothing we saw took place in reality, Nolan was in effect performing inception on the audience.

That leads to a theory that’s been widely discussed and is extremely plausible: “Inception” is a metaphor for the act of filmmaking itself. Each person who serves a role could also serve on a film set. Both involve artists meticulously creating worlds from scratch and keeping them from falling apart.

For one more second, back to that ending. There is indeed proof of multiple conclusions. Notice how the light in Cobb’s house shines in the same way it did when him and Mal woke up. Notice also that this time, his children turned around while in his dreams they never did. Then again, maybe that’s because he never bothered looking in his dreams.
So maybe it is too early to call “Inception” one of cinema’s greatest. “Citizen Kane” wasn’t called the best film in 1941. I’m not saying “Inception” has quite the impact on filmmaking as “Citizen Kane” did. But I do know that it will forever effect the way I watch and process film. It truly did push boundaries both visually and narratively. It simultaneously achieved mirror-breaking self-reflexiviness and it also became an allegory for the world we live in. I don’t think I’m over-analyzing when I say that “Inception” reflects a world where people are more interested in creating their own worlds than fixing the one they actually live in.
Now, who here is ready for round three?

Movie Review: Inception

5 Replies

Dreams are not reality. Movies are not reality. They are both part of what he have in life, and mostly what we really want. That’s why they’re constantly a focus in movies. Though the whole “it was all a dream” ending had worn out its welcome. That is until “Inception” landed in theaters and completely redefined reality and imagination.

“Inception” is a film that’s been hyped up for months. It brilliantly showed us gripping footage while keeping us totally in the dark. For once in your life, you’ll feel like you walked into a movie not knowing a single thing about what it really is. It’s more than the thriller you thought it would be. It’s, well, maybe you should be kept in the dark about that.
I will give you something, maybe slightly more than you could get from some commercials. “Inception” brings us to what may or may not be a futuristic dystopia. Or else it is a slightly altered version of our own time. In this world, technology exists that allows one to enter the human mind through dreams and use that to gather and manipulate ideas. It’s called Inception. Two “architects,” Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), are experts at this. Cobb is addicted to exploring the world of dreams, so much so that it causes strains between him and his family.
Cobb and Arthur are hired by a shady businessman (Ken Watanabe) to find some information for them. The two team up with a bright, young student (Ellen Page) to embark on a mind-bending, possibly dangerous journey into the human subconscious.
It’s hard to know where to begin with “Inception.” The way to enjoy “Inception” is to suspend reality and be engrossed into the many worlds you are introduced to. That’s why the set pieces and camera are so crucial. This is a rare film that actually uses its sets properly. And much of what you see is done without the aid of CGI. Christopher Nolan decided to go the old-fashioned way and actually build real sets. For that, I applaud him.
Every location and every shot of the film feels so authentic, and so imaginative. The laws of gravity and physics no longer apply. Cities runoff into the sky. People can float. Objects can move at any pace they want. This is a world without rules.
With the infinite possibilities that lie within dreams, Nolan is given the freedom to bring the story into whatever direction he wants. Most directors seem to stop at certain points because they don’t want to lose their audience. Nolan doesn’t care if you’re following or not. He’ll go as far as he wants, for however long he wants to.
Nolan though is trying to unite two different crowds: those who want a thought-provoking movie, and those who want high-class entertainment. “Inception” amazingly caters to both needs.
As an action movie, “Inception” keeps you in constant suspense and constant shock. Fight scenes, whether real or imagined, are given time and detail. They aren’t filled with the insanely fast cuts that made movies like “The A-Team” almost unwatchable. Nolan lets the audience savor every blow delivered.
The one action piece you won’t stop thinking about involves a hallway and a lack of gravity. Any amount of description I provide can’t possibly ruin it for you. It looks accurate enough to have been a green screen.
“Inception” proves a conclusion that has already been reached: Nolan is a master. He knows how to turn spaces into haunting visual nightmares. The looming shots of Tokyo and other metropolises might as well be Gotham City. He can then take those landscapes and fill them with incredibly complex stories.
Nolan’s narrative techniques are as interesting as his directing. Much of the dialogue in the film is expository, but hearing every step of the process is so fascinating that you won’t mind. Intertwined is some enlightening discussion about the nature of dreams and the human mind. It’s the kind of information that must’ve taken years of research. How Nolan could fit all that in while making two “Batman” movies is a mystery to me.
The plot of “Inception” unfolds very slowly. As the characters enter deeper levels into the dream world, new layers of plot unfold. Strangely, the more chaotic things get, the clearer the story becomes.
It’s kind of hard for any one actor in this film to truly shine, as Nolan and the visuals totally steal the show. That’s not to say there isn’t some fine acting. “Inception” boasts a few of the most talented young actors working today. With both “Inception” and “Shutter Island” this year, DiCaprio has proven himself an actor responsible of mature and psychologically complex roles. He knows how to play people so torn up that they can barely even function as humans. He is starting to become the DeNiro of our generation. Gordon-Levitt and Page meanwhile, provide a perfect counterbalance of wit and charm along with both understanding and total confusion.
All of this leads me to say that beyond all of the action, “Inception” is truly a human story. It is about loss and regret and the dream being an outlet to both conceal and confront the darkest parts of our lives. Dreaming can be a means of both escape and confrontation.
“Inception” reminded me for the first time in a long time what a true moviegoing experience is like. The theater exists for a reason. That reason is when you have a story this complex and sprawling, you need a gigantic screen to fill the room and truly take in everything being shown. It is in a space like this where we are most able to suspend reality. Plus, when you have a film this good on a screen big enough, it can truly suck you into the story. At a time like this in a film like this, 3D seems irrelevant. Your mind creates the illusion of being in a third dimension.
To call “Inception” the best movie made in a very long time would be an understatement. Nothing has changed the rules of cinema this much since “The Matrix.” It combines so many genres into one mesmerizing whole. At so many points it could’ve fallen apart but Nolan keeps it intact.
“Inception” is a thriller of the mind that won’t leave your mind. After some movies end, you immediately know you have to see it again. Only with “Inception” will you know that from the very first scene.
If You Liked this Movie, You’ll also Like: Memento, Mulholland Dr., The Dark Knight, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Matrix, Shutter Island, Fight Club, Blue Velvet, Blade Runner
For more awesome mind-bending movies, check this out.

Movie Review: The Kids Are All Right

2 Replies

Face it, all romantic films turn out the same. In that light, it doesn’t matter what happens in the end, but rather how you get to that end point. That could include the events that occur throughout the film, or the larger context in which those events happen. In a world where romance seems dead, “The Kids Are All Right” is there to kick that notion right in the butt.

As much as people like to make fun of where the Indie genre has gone, give it credit for continuing to make common ideas seem fresh. “The Kids Are All Right” is a mixture of suburban boredom with teen angst and sexual confusion. The centerpiece couple is lesbians Nic (Annette Benning) and Jules (Julianne Moore). Nic takes on the uptight parent role, while Jules is more open-minded. However, they are both equally motherly.

Jules and Nic have two children: the brainy and sexually repressed Joni (Mia Wasikowska) and the just plain confused Laser (Josh Hutcherson). After discovering their origins, the two become curious about who their real father is. They find out he is a semi-hippie named Paul (Mark Ruffalo). Despite being a college dropout, Paul now runs a successful organic farming business and restaurant. The kids meet Paul, and they get along quite well. Something about Paul might seem strange, but Ruffalo’s constantly calm and always reassuring voice quells all fears.

The rest of “The Kids Are All Right” is one of those films whose story doesn’t stem off of a major event but rather a person. Every action that happens in the rest of the film happens as a direct result of the family’s contact with Paul.

“The Kids Are All Right” goes at two contradicting paces. First off, it goes slow. It takes its time and enjoys itself while doing so. At the same time, it feels so energetic and lively. Even if you can feel the running time, you’ll never feel bored. The film definitely chews up the beautiful Southern California scenery.

The music that director Lisa Cholodenko chose also fits in perfectly. The film’s opening track is Vampire Weekend’s “Cousins.” I am usually irked when films use recent, popular music. It can feel like they’re just capitalizing off of something popular rather than actually choosing the right songs. However, “Cousins” is well chosen. It projects both a strangely happy mood as well as a sense of the twisted family troubles on the horizon.

Once again, “The Kids Are All Right” doesn’t contain the lightning-fast storytelling common place in most films made today. Even though I could definitely feel every moment, I would’ve been fine with sitting in the theater for another two hours with these characters. That’s what good storytelling does: it puts you into a convincing universe and lets you out whenever it damn well feels like letting you out. “The Kids Are All Right” ended where it wanted to end because it earned the right to.

This film contains an ensemble worthy of a SAG Award. Benning shows so many flared up, mixed emotions both through her words and even more powerfully, body expressions. Moore is a powerhouse of warmth and motherly humor. Then there’s also Wasikowska. I thought she showed potential in “Alice in Wonderland,” but she just needed a project that was actually, well, good. After “The Kids Are All Right,” she has proven herself ready to take on even more challenging roles.

Along with great acting, “The Kids Are All Right” certainly has one of the best screenplays this year. It’s so insightful and downright hilarious. It embraces awkwardness at all the right moments.

But beyond its witty and thoughtful dialogue there lies something within the film that is almost groundbreaking. For one of the first times, a gay couple was portrayed just like any other couple would be portrayed. The film so truthfully shows what it would feel like to have two moms. That opening dinner scene felt so unbelievably real in the way the characters interact with each other. The “L word” isn’t in site at any point. In an ever troublesome world, “The Kids Are All Right” is a sign of the times that actually makes me feel good about the time I’m growing up in.

Even though you know where the makers of “The Kids Are All Right” lean, this film never at one point tries to make a political statement. It is simply trying to tell a good story, which it does quite well. In its exploration of the meaning of family and the troubles of sex, it evokes the best social commentaries of the 1970s as well as such other great films as “Juno” and “American Beauty.” “The Kids Are All Right” proves that maybe the kids will turn out all right. Hopefully, more movies will follow in its footsteps and turn out all right, too.